SPEAKER_02

The Speak Life Podcast, sharing Jesus in everyday life.

SPEAKER_03

Hello, uh say hello to us if you are here. Let us know. It's good to see you again. Uh I am Glenn Scrivener, and uh with me as ever is Paul Feasy. Paul Feasy, the Feasimator, as he he's constantly getting us to call him that. Like, Paul, give it up. Yeah, come on.

SPEAKER_02

You're the man who changed his n his Twitter feed name to Sola Scrivitura. Sola Scriftura.

SPEAKER_03

Because everyone else is changing their Twitter handles to something Halloween-styled, and I wanted to style it according to the Reformation. The true meaning of October 31st. I don't know what you should be. Um Sola Feasy or something. Solar Fizee. Solar Fease. That should be That should have been yours.

SPEAKER_02

That should have been your opportunity. Oh, well, maybe at the next 500-year anniversary. Yeah. Do it for the next one. Do it for the next one.

SPEAKER_03

Do it then. Um so the Feasonate is here. The Scrivster is here.

SPEAKER_02

And welcome back to everyone who's tuned in before. It's good to have you here with us. Particularly if you were here last week and you enjoyed some of our technical issues. We really appreciate you bearing with us and coming back. But if you're here for the first time, welcome. And uh yeah, we hope you enjoy uh what we've got in store.

SPEAKER_03

This is the live cast. Um because you cast the seed widely and out it goes, and this is what we're hoping to do with modern tech modern technology, as my mother would call it. And uh so what we try to do on the live cast, it's it's a kind of a it's a working lunch, so uh feel feel free to munch away. We won't find that rude, because we've got we've got our lunch here as well. And uh one o'clock on Tuesdays, we're gonna talk about uh what's new at Speak Life. We're gonna talk about what's news uh in the headlines, and we're gonna talk about our thorny question video, which drops every Monday. And our thorny question for this week is Sex.

SPEAKER_02

Why are Christians weird about sex?

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. So it's been difficult not to refer to this constantly as the sex video. Yeah. When are we gonna release our sex video, Paul? And well, it's it's out now.

SPEAKER_02

And the viewers are dropping, dropping, dropping.

SPEAKER_03

I don't know. There's a kind of a perverse like a car crash, you can't rip your eyes away from it. But uh yeah, so we'll just we'll we'll be discussing our thorny question, why are Christians so weird about sex? And we'll be discussing other things like that interview between Jordan Peterson and Kathy Newman, uh, which uh I just logged on and saw has had three and a quarter million views in the last few days as it's gone out. So people can't get enough of this thing. And uh fifty-six thousand comments and counting on Facebook, and uh it looks like about eighty to one in terms of uh people who thought Peterson won and people who thought Newman won, which is quite an extraordinary imbalance.

SPEAKER_02

Very much so.

SPEAKER_03

So we'll be having a look at that. Some of the content of what was said, but also some of the way that things were said, and uh maybe it shows or points towards a way forward. Uh when we have entrenched positions, how do you persuade someone from the other side? And I think in a lot of ways Jordan Peterson showed how to speak to someone who, you know, wanted to uh really dislodge you from your entrenched position. Um and he himself in the aftermath is I think has pointed to ways that he felt like he fell short of being the persuasive person he wanted to be, and we can talk about some of those things as well. Um but as we begin, let's uh talk about what's new with Speak Life. What is what is new with Speak Life, Paul?

SPEAKER_02

Great. So um we're looking ahead a little bit now to Easter. Christmas is out the way, and we're looking ahead to Easter, and we've got our Easter video uh very much in the pipeline. So we talked, I think last week, and probably the last couple of weeks, we've mentioned that Glenn's book coming out. Um is it Divine Comedy, Human Tragedy? That's it. What is life? Yeah. Yeah, so Divine Comedy, Human Tragedy. And the video is gonna be uh kind of a tie-in with that then.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, so basically I've written a poem, as as is my want. And uh so yeah, it's it's all about what is life. According to the world, the world will tell you that life is a tragedy because you climb up in this world and you get all the experiences you can, it's shaped like a frown. You know, you go up in the world, and then once you've experienced all that you can out of life, you're over the hill and you tumble back down. And that's the tragedy. And actually, no matter how people put a gloss on that, that tends to be um the way that that life is sold to people. Um, you know, life is an unutterable tragedy. You know, tick-tock, tick-tock, your your heartbeats are running out one by one. But here, have a new flavored latte from Starbucks and you know, hot yoga. Have you tried it? It's amazing. Everyone's talking about hot yoga, everyone's talking about hot yoga, and then you you know, you are worm food, you know, and it it's a total, it's a total tragedy. Um but then is there a is there a comedy? Could could there possibly be a happy ending? And uh and actually, um the Bible gives us the one chance for a happy ending, and that one chance is Jesus coming down into the pit and he does the smile, right?

SPEAKER_02

Turn that frown up and down. Turn that frown upside down, and that's what we're gonna do in the video.

SPEAKER_03

Turning that frown upside down and just just really playing with the visuals of tragedy is climbing the hill and tumbling down, comedy is going into the pit and then rising up again. Tragedy is the frown, comedy's the smile. Uh what is life? Easter tells you you go down Easter on on Good Friday, you come up uh Easter Sunday, and that's that's life.

SPEAKER_02

So Yeah, and we've just seen a couple of little clips of you know draft storyboard kind of bits for that, haven't we? So and that looks that's looking exciting. So it'd be good if you could be praying for that stuff, because I mean obviously we're really excited having come off the back of Meet the Nativity, um, those videos have gone really wide and been used. And I guess we'd like like this one to do the same, really. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_03

You know, just be picked up. And in a sense, it's it's a lot more geared towards Facebook because it's you know it's it's the three-minute animation, short, punchy kind of thing, whereas uh Meet the Nativity was a a longer form thing. But yeah, we're at the Lord of the Rings of the Yeah. And there is a lot of walking. Yeah. Um so yeah, that's that's what's new at Speak Life and all sorts of opportunities to preach around the place. But let's let's get to what's news. Oh, you know what we're talking about, the other video? The other one? Oh yeah, the other video.

SPEAKER_02

Some of you might have seen um I think we posted it up on our feed a little while ago. Glenn, we what were you being interviewed for?

SPEAKER_03

The profile on uh Premier Radio, so on a Saturday afternoon, Sam Hales or Justin Brierly interview somebody about their Christian walk and and things like that, and uh Sam Hales asked me, Can you explain the gospel briefly?

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, and so you did in ninety seconds, wasn't it? And it kind of went a little bit viral, didn't it? More viral than After all that effort, you know, ninety seconds worth of material that you just came up with. Yeah. I know. Why do we bother? Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Seriously, folks, why do we if you can uh let us know in the comments why it is we bother?

SPEAKER_02

But so that's actually taking the audio off of that. Uh again, kind of there's some early sketches and kind of animations for that, isn't there, of actually making that into a video to be used rather than just you speaking as just a sort of thing. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, because no one wants to see that, do they?

SPEAKER_03

Literally with the Easter video, I'm wear I'll be wearing a mask most of the time. Like either a comedy mask or a tragedy mask. And with this, yes, it'll be an animation and not me. But uh the less me the better. And do we know when that's gonna be ready, or we just thing is like w like usually when I I talk to like graphic designers or videographers or people, I say, and I want it yesterday, you know, but with this one actually there's no there's no real time limit because uh hopefully it's an evergreen video that you can share at any at any time. Um so yeah, stay tuned. Sweet. The gospel in ninety seconds.

SPEAKER_02

Let it be honed.

SPEAKER_03

Now, what is news? And uh and what there's lots of things that are news, but but if you live in the realm of social media, which I do, um that's reality for me. Um this video, this interview between Kathy Newman and Jordan Jordan Peterson, um yeah, three and a quarter million views instantly. It was the number number seven ranked video on YouTube, uh on all of YouTube, you know, in this last week.

SPEAKER_02

And and a lot of people sharing it who who who had never seemed to have heard of Jordan Peterson before. You know, I I would come across I'd come across him. I'm a bit of a fanboy. Uh a bit of a fanboy. Yeah, I mean I didn't know loads about him, but I definitely come across him and I kind of assumed people knew who he was at least. Yeah. But it appeared from when people were posting stuff that he was new to them. Yes. But I was surprised how many people were picking it up and going, Oh, look at this.

SPEAKER_03

Yes. Yeah. So I've I've I've watched ooh scores of hours of of lectures and and listened to podcasts by Jordan Peterson. Um, you know, I I think he would self-describe as a Christian in in the sense that Carl Jung, um he's a psychologist, um, and Peterson follows Jung in a lot of senses. Jung was also a, you know, a a Catholic, but had a a kind of a distant relationship with the church. And I think Peterson similarly would describe himself um as a Christian in that the Christ figure is the logos logic, the words who when logic when when the word is spoken out into the culture, the culture reacts against it, and there's a bit of a crucifixion, but actually truth will out in the end, and there's that you know, there's there's a comedy shape to things um if you trust to the logos. And and he would, you know, he'd define himself as a Christian in that you know he believes that Christ represents that great archetype. Um so, you know, I I don't think you'd find him in your church on a s on a Sunday morning necessarily, but um nor does he go along with um some of the zeitgeist that's out there in the culture as this video absolutely demonstrates. So that makes him a really interesting figure for those people who who want just a different perspective and a different view uh on what's going on in the culture. Um, th I like the first thing to say I think about about this video is is kind of it belongs within a genre that is very prominent in British journalism, which is the Jeremy Paxman thing. And if if you're not from the UK, you Jeremy Paxman um was uh a journalist on Newsnight on the BBC who would, you know, he was he was famous for for asking Michael Howard, uh a Tory MP, the same question twenty-two times or something something like that. Um just just really doggered and almost uh when have you you know when did you stop beating your wife kind of thing, you know? Um sort of thing. And and the and the Kathy Newman style of interview tend tends to be very much that. Would you would you say like what how would you characterize Kathy Newman's approach to this in this particular video?

SPEAKER_02

In this particular video. Uh well, I agree aggressive. Yes. An angle to push. Um, I mean we I mean, I guess as we look at some of the clips we'll pull out aspects of it. Yeah. Um it it almost felt less like an interview, more of a Grandstanding or a hosty situation. I don't know.

SPEAKER_03

How do you negotiate with Kathy Newman? It was I mean she her her famous you know line, she said thirty-six times. So you're saying. So you're saying, which is just fascinating. So Jordan Peterson would say something, and then we'll see in one of the clips that, you know, Kathy Newman will reframe that in a way that's almost unrecognizable. Thirty-six times in thirty minutes is like once every like forty-five seconds or something.

SPEAKER_02

She's she's talking about this, weren't we, and saying that actually it generally we would say it's kind of good practice. We would s we'd frame it back as a question though, wouldn't we? So someone will say something to us and we'll say, So are you saying X, Y, Z? And and we do that out of a desire to not misrepresent the other person. You know, and if we are going to come back on something, we want to make sure we've understood what's being said first. Yeah. Um maybe if we were being generous, maybe that's what she was trying to do. Yes. Um I it didn't I'm not sure she was though. It felt I mean she was so you're saying this, and she often would say something, and you'd think, where did you get that from?

SPEAKER_03

One of the memes that was generated off the back of it was um and uh like you know that something has you know achieved a certain status in in its own meme. Um and one of them was um Jordan Peterson said, I had bacon for breakfast. And then you've got Kathy Newman um saying, So you're saying you hate all vegans? So you're saying so yeah, very much not the Yeah, very much not the clarifying thing, but very much the tossing an accusation at someone.

SPEAKER_02

And and you know, I and w i in discussion about this I I said, you know, I think we've probably all fallen foul of you know, sometimes you hear someone say something, and particularly in that kind of situation where you know there's not room really for contemplation on air. You know, because it's not encouraged, it's very much like you've got a certain amount of time, you've got to get through it and do it. Um you you don't have time to stop and think. And so when someone says something, you hear it, and in your head you're going, Oh, I need to respond to that. And I wonder sometimes whether uh Peterson opened with something which Newman then heard and then he would then nuance that. He would give some kind of, you know, here's why. And perhaps she was she'd heard the thing and was like, I've just got to come back on that and not necessarily quite hear what he said.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. But it's so yeah, it's sort of worrying lack of being able to you know, I I I think in order to have a conversation, especially a conversation with someone that you disagree with, I think maybe a prerequisite is to be able to at least state your opponent's position in a way that they recognise. You know.

SPEAKER_02

So that the person can come back, you know, when you do this, so are you saying, the person will say, Yeah, that's yeah, that is what I'm saying. Yeah. And now let's dialogue.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, and I think that would that would that should be the mark of a good interviewer. But I th I I think there is a genre and it it it's far beyond Kathy Newman. It is this Paxman-esque sort of thing that's yeah, people just want to see a brawl, they want to see a punch up. Rather than I think this this could have been this is an opportunity lost because it could have been a compelling interview for a whole different reason if if th there was a meeting of minds and ex an exchange of ideas, but instead it was kind of she was going after the gotchas the whole time. And he was the one who ended up getting the gotcha. Which is why it's so delicious to watch.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah. But it also feels a little bit like fast food, you know, it's almost like, oh yeah, I'm getting I'm getting the the salt and the fat, and but you know, yeah, almost like just it felt like there was a deliberate effort to tee up some shots to then smash them down, you know, and then and actually well, someone uh on my Facebook feed described it as they felt it was a uh a battle between nuance and sound bites. Right. Um which I felt was maybe an accurate description that there was the nuance perhaps on Peterson's side, whether you agree with him or not on things, he was at least trying to give a nuance to what he was saying. Yes. Whereas it felt like Kathy Newman didn't really want to engage with what he was saying, she just wanted to get the sound bites and ri and and you know also just regurgitate sound bites that she's already heard. Yes um without really dealing with the discussion behind it.

SPEAKER_03

Should we should we listen to clip number one in which um Cathy Newman is sort of asking about the audience of Jordan Peterson? And so yeah, clip number one if you've got that any.

SPEAKER_00

And but it's not I wasn't specifically aiming this message at young men to begin with. It just kind of turned out that way.

SPEAKER_01

And it's mostly you admit it's mostly men listening. I mean 90% of your audience is a male.

SPEAKER_00

Well, it's about eighty percent on in on YouTube, which is a YouTube is a male domain, primarily, so it's hard to tell how much of it is because YouTube is male and how how much of it is because of what I'm saying.

SPEAKER_01

Does it bother you that your audience is predominantly male? Does that isn't isn't that a bit divisive?

SPEAKER_03

So there we got uh an accusation, you know. Kathy Newman says, you admit that you have, you know, a largely male audience, which is interesting that she sees it in those terms, and it's something that needs confessing and absolut uh absolving and you know, as if you admit.

SPEAKER_02

And also, I mean, just what difference does it make?

SPEAKER_03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

I mean, yes, there are lots of men tuning in to what he's saying.

SPEAKER_03

Yes. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

That doesn't make any difference to what his message is.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. There are there are lots of women tuning into Oprah Winfrey. Is that is that divisive?

SPEAKER_02

It's like no, it's just I think what is divisive is your pronunciation uh Oprah? Yeah. No, your pronunciation of the word divisive.

SPEAKER_03

Oh really? Divisive. Divisive. I don't know. Maybe.

SPEAKER_02

Maybe we should slog this out in the comments.

SPEAKER_03

It's either it's either or it's either. I don't know.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

But like for like he doesn't choose his audience. His audience chooses him. Yeah, sure.

SPEAKER_02

He It's just a complete non discussion now, isn't it?

SPEAKER_03

Like, but I wonder what I wonder whether it comes from uh an ideology of war. Like it's war between the sexes. And if men are getting something, it must be at the expense of women. Like there's almost you know, she was she was kinda like insinuating that because men were benefiting from this women must be losing somehow.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Which I j uh like and if if anything is divisive uh at that stage, it's it's an ideology that says that the the genders are at war, you know.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Which is why I think his response at that point was was very wise when he just talked about, well, what kind of partner do you want? And like, do you do you want a man who's like this or a man who's like that? Which is instantly pointing to the fact that the genders are not at war. Male and female are actually meant to be united at the most profound level. And therefore let's talk about how men and women get on together in this union of give and take. Whereas the ideology of of Newman's kind of assumption is that it's a zero-sum game, and if men are winning, women are losing.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah. Whereas I mean his his angle is much more, you know, yes, this may yes, this may help men, encourage men, be a thing for them for their benefit. But that in turn should benefit women as well. And we said as well, it's not just about, you know, coupling up. We were saying surely that would apply in a w in a workplace if you were single regardless, you know, you would want to work with people who are you know more grounded, competent human beings than not.

SPEAKER_03

Yes. Um and that that comment that she made, you know, but what do women get out of it? I thought that was that was really enlightening in in in terms of what where is she coming from? Because it let's let's say that he was he was trying to um correct some imbalance in the north-south divide of the UK. And he was, you know, he was trying to help those in the north, you know, in in in whatever factor. And then someone else comes along and says, Yeah, but what do people from the south get out of it? Well, who cares? Yeah, yeah. Honestly, honestly, if you're helping the people from the north, all all else being equal, who cares? Yeah. You know? Absolutely. And if men are being helped, well, that's great. Um the second clip uh we wanted to show was um uh a slightly longer one about the gender pay gap. And that that's the one that's got um uh quite uh quite a lot of the the the headlines. Um people seem to see this whole debate as one about the gender pay gap. But I I thought even more than the issue of the gender pay gap, I thought the way that they handled that debate was really interesting. So let's have a look at clip number two.

SPEAKER_01

But I want to put to you that here in the UK, for example, let's take that as an example. The gender pay gap stands at just over 9%. You've got women at the BBC recently saying that the broadcaster is illegally paying them less than men to do the same job. You've got only seven women running the top FTSE100 companies. So it seems to a lot of women that they're still being dominated and excluded, to quote your words back to you.

SPEAKER_00

It does seem that way, but multivariate analysis of the pay gap indicates that it doesn't exist.

SPEAKER_01

But that's just not true, is it? I mean, that 9% pay gap, that's a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, but there's multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but it's not the only reason. Like if you're a social scientist worth worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. Like you say, well, women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay, well, then we break it down by age, we break it down by occupation, we break it down by interest, we break it down by personality.

SPEAKER_01

But you're saying basically it doesn't matter if women aren't getting to the top, because that's what's skewing that gender pay gap, isn't it? You're saying, well, that's just a fact of fact. Women aren't necessarily going to get to the top.

SPEAKER_00

No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter either. You're saying it's not a good thing. You're saying there are multiple reasons for it. Yeah, but there isn't taken into account.

SPEAKER_01

Why should women put up with those reasons? Why should women be content with the people who are not gonna be able to do that?

SPEAKER_00

I'm not saying that they shouldn't put up with it. I'm saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There's no doubt about that. The multivaried analysis have been done. So I could give you a few.

SPEAKER_01

I'm saying that 9% pay gap exists. That's a gap between men and women. I'm not saying why it exists, but it exists. Now, if you're a woman, that seems pretty unfair.

SPEAKER_00

You have to say why it exists.

SPEAKER_01

But do you agree that it's unfair? If you're a woman, and on average you're getting paid 9% less than a man, that's not fair, is it?

SPEAKER_00

It depends on why it's happening. I can give you an example. Okay. There's a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than just than less agreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.

SPEAKER_01

Again, a vast generalization. Some women are more agreeable than men.

SPEAKER_00

That's true, but that's right. And some women get paid more than men.

SPEAKER_01

So you were saying that by and large, women are too agreeable to get the pay rises ages in.

SPEAKER_00

Component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5% of the variance, something like that. So you need about another twenty about another 18 factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice, there's no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller proportion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.

SPEAKER_01

Okay, so rather than denying the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn't you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay rise, go and ask for a pay rise. Make yourself disagreeable with your bullshit.

SPEAKER_00

Oh, definitely, there's that. But I also didn't deny it existed. I denied it existed because of gender.

unknown

Okay.

SPEAKER_00

Because I'm very, very, very careful with my words.

SPEAKER_03

So he's very, very careful with his words, Jordan Peterson. Um as he says, but I I mean one of the first things I always like to say about the gender pay gap, not that I'm speaking about it very much, but but you know, absolutely, and I think both sides just need to like give a a hearty amen to the fact that like if you can find a man and a woman in the same job and everything else is equal about them, same experience, same productivity, same aptitude for the job, same work hours being put in, everything's the same except their gender, and the boss is paying the man more than the woman, you're like, that's wicked, that's misogynistic. You know. It's also illegal.

SPEAKER_02

Well, yeah. You know. But we were having this discussion, weren't we, that's saying, you know, you could you could put two people in the same job, um two men, for example, in the same role. Um and you know, one of them could have been in the role for fifteen years and have lots of experience and maybe have uh you know got more qualifications along the way for that role. Um and the other one, you know, maybe been in the role for two years, uh not as much experience, um, not as qualified. Um I don't think we would think it was unfair for the person who was maybe more experienced, grace you know, more qualifications being in the role longer to be paid more, even though they're doing the same job. Yeah or if it was a production type job, if one of them produced, you know, twenty items an hour, one produced ten. Yeah. Um I think we'd quite rightly say, yeah, they're in the same job, but one of them is being paid more rightly. So there are and that's not an issue of gender, that's that's there are all these other factors that could play into why people might be paid more.

SPEAKER_03

What do you call it?

SPEAKER_02

A multivaried analysis.

SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Andy, multivaried analysis.

SPEAKER_02

Um and that's not to say, of course, that you know, that person who's in the role for two years, if they're in the role for another thirteen years and they get more qualified, they may well be earning more in that position. Yes. But it's it's not as simple as just to say, is it the reason people are paid differently is because one's a man and one's a woman. And as you said, if that were if everything was equal and and that was the one factor, undoubtedly you'd look at that and say, no, completely wrong. Yeah. Yeah But obviously what Jordan Peterson was saying was There are eighteen factors. There were all these factors. Yeah. Of which gender is one, and he said there is discrimination, didn't he? He said that clearly does exist. Yeah. But it's not the the sole cause of these.

SPEAKER_03

Up until the age of up until the age of thirty, women earn more than men. By about six percent. Yeah, I've I've heard that. And then and then after that, men tend to earn more than women. If you're taller, you earn more money. Tom Cruise. What about Tom Cruise? What's fascinating to me is um here is an issue about broad generalizations. Like to say that the median income of a woman is nine percent less than the median income of a man is to make a broad generalization. But then every anytime that Jordan Peterson wanted to come back on anything, Kathy Newman was like, we're just making a broad generalization. And he was able to say, yeah, and and some women earn more than men, you know. Um but do you look at a society in which income is distributed unequally, and do you say that that in and of itself is an injustice that needs to be remedied? Um you know, uh I mean, from a Christian point of view, um the equality issue is settled on page one of the Bible, which is wonderful. And praise God, and like what an astonishing thing. If you're if you're not a Christian, um like crack open the Bible and you can't get past page one before the equality of the sexes, which is just a stunning thing in the context of its own day as it was being written. Um it remains to be a like a stunning thing, and something we still need to lift up front and center and say loud and proud, so that you know like the Bible's there from page one, the equality of the sexes. But then it doesn't tie my spiritual equality with anyone else to my income. And I think this is this is the danger. The danger is we say that you can't value me unless you give me mammon. Right? I need I need to have Male or female. Male or female.

SPEAKER_02

Male or female, not a gender question here. Not a gender question. Money generally.

SPEAKER_03

But but to say that I am not valued equally unless I am given the same amount of income is to make an equation that that Jesus comes to absolutely tear apart. And and it was shocking in his day, and it remains to be shocking today, to say, you know, to the rich fool, oh my goodness, you know, you you've got more chance of getting a camel through the eye of a needle than getting a rich man into heaven. That was shocking back then. I think it's just as shocking today, with this same mentality that says, if I'm going to be treated equally, I must have all the same bright, shiny things as everybody else. Whereas the Bible is saying, you know, actually, to be a FTSE 100 like director, yeah, okay, it's it's nice to be able to have the holiday home here, here, and here, but like it's a trap. Yeah. Riches are a trap. And Jesus tells all these stories about you fool, this very night your life will be demanded from you. And for us to look on at those stories and say, Oh, but I want to be the rich man, you know, like whatever your gender is. If that's the if that's the heart of your aspiration, my aspiration is to have the bright, shiny things. Well, those FTSE100 directors, they are sacrificing a lot. You know, 70, 80, 80 hours a week, you know, plus, says, you know, Jordan Peterson. And actually, men tend to be the idiots that go for that. Right? Men men men tend to be the fools that will sacrifice their family, all the relationships that are most significant in their life in order to chase the bright, shiny things. And I think the response to that is not to say, oh, why can't women be idiotic like men? Like the response to that is to say, let's let's cut the tie between my spiritual value and my economic value. You know? But which which is why it's such a Marxist thing. It's such a Marxist thing to say everybody has to have equ you know equal income, otherwise they're not equal spiritually, mo emotionally, existentially. Well that's that's a materialist philosophy. You know, it's it's it's it's just saying, well, the only realm that matters is the material, and therefore you need to materially remunerate me as much as every other you know person on planet earth, or I'm not equal to you. And the Bible just begins, oh no, you're equality, that's that's a given. Yeah. You know?

SPEAKER_02

And e even if you even if we were to uh look without just thinking of a biblical uh equality, you know, uh what the criteria are, there is value other than your financial value. Right. You know, it's because we were talking a bit before about you know the the you know, what was an engineer get paid compared to a nurse. Right. You know, we say, well financially a nurse is doesn't get anywhere near as much as an engineer might get paid. But of course we say they're more we say there's a very valuable role. But the reality is that nursing doesn't produce the income. The profit. Yeah. Now of course we might say that's isn't it not a great thing, but at the end of the day, you know, if you're an engineer you're in a role where you you produce something which brings a profit and you get the fruit of that. Yeah. If you're a nurse you you do something which produces something, but it's not j necessarily a financial profit. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Great value, but we c we mustn't boil, yeah. Incredible value, but we mustn't boil that down to the amount of mammoth that ends up in your pocket at the end of the day. Each, you know, the similar thing as well. A waitress might uh might work more hours than the CEO of a FTSE 100 company. Um but it is just the case that they do not create the same value as that, you know, as that head of that organization. And you cannot magic up value. You cannot magic up monetary value from the waitress doing her waitressy thing. Um which is it's it's just magical thinking to say, well, they should be paid the same. Well, but they don't produce the same in terms of economic output. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

So like which is why that's why it's such good news that our our value isn't based on our financial position. Right. Um or even, you know, is is my job um considered worthy in some way. Yeah, like because nursing obviously is incre for in in our society we think that's incredibly worthy, teaching an incredibly worthy role. Um but even if it wasn't, our value is still not based on even that. Yeah. You know.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

No, that's absolutely right.

SPEAKER_03

And and yeah, tying value to the money that you earn is just it's a politics of envy as well, and it's just yeah, it's it doesn't it doesn't lead into good places. And then like one of the elephants in the room is the lifestyle choices that people want to make. And, you know, if you want to have a family and if you want to breastfeed your child, for instance, and you know, all the data says that that is best for children and that sort of thing, well then maybe a woman needs to take a career break in order to have kids and and all that that sort of stuff. But when you frame everything around the fact that we should utterly annihilate the gap in wages between men and women, you start to call women taking breaks to have a family a penalty. You know, like you read it in the literature, it's it's you know, it is described as a pen women are being penalized for having a family. Penalized That's divisive. That is divisive. No, that they're being penalized. They're being penalized for you know for you know for for wanting to have a family. And you're like, well, no, that's it's it's not a penalty. It's not a pe it's it's just it's a different choice and it leads to a different economic yield if you're just gonna count it up according to manna. But uh mammon, rather. That's right. Now that was communism, wasn't it? Just uh every day everyone gets the same but like if you if you make it your goal to annihilate that gap, then what are you gonna do about making a family and that and that kind of stuff? And and how at what radical levels are you trying to to reimagine society? And then, you know, what uh what are you calling women who choose to like devote themselves utterly to their to their family? And that's that's that's their main you know role and calling in life, and they don't they don't you know go out to work. It's it's actually the other radical feminists that are calling their sisters, you know, less valuable or you know and that's you know it's it's friendly fire from your own at that stage.

SPEAKER_02

Um I don't think it feels very friendly sometimes though, unfortunately.

SPEAKER_03

Oh, exactly. Um okay, so that that was so we've we've solved the gender pay gap, though. So that's wonderful. What do you guys think? Uh we'll we'll get into comments. Uh there have been some great comments uh already. Rowena McEwen says, yes, this whole idea that life is about the individual, so the woman getting what they want, or the man also, but yeah, why not work together instead of banging heads? Um yeah, this this war between the sexes, as though every male gain is a female loss.

SPEAKER_04

I don't get it.

SPEAKER_03

Um Nathan Veal has asked, Do you guys think that there will be any serious infringement of civil liber liberties or freedoms with regards to preaching the gospel in the next ten years? Is Jordan Peterson part of the last generation of academics who value freedom of speech? Uh I think undeniably, yes. It will be so much harder to preach the gospel and and it's already extremely difficult to preach um the fruits of the gospel. As we're about to look at when we look at our sex video, when we look at our our video on sex and sexuality, uh it is all already very difficult just to to read out the Bible in public.

SPEAKER_02

But it it may and I agree, but I wonder whether I wonder whether in some way it will it will help the gospel.

SPEAKER_03

Yes, oh Jordan Peterson will.

SPEAKER_02

No infringement.

SPEAKER_03

Oh, okay.

SPEAKER_02

Because I and and I mean I'm not basing this on any data, to cook this up in my head entirely. Um I wonder whether when Christianity is comfortable in society and it's all acceptable and seems very nice, it loses its edge and we don't preach it very well. Right. And and then actually if we when it starts to be more marginalized, actually when the church I mean I think if you look at in the you know, you look in Acts, you know, when the church is persecuted and I'm not one of these Christians who've got a persecution complex, you know, everything is persecution against Christians, I don't think that. Yeah. But when the church persecuted, actually the church grew. Yes. And it was because the church, when it was facing pressure, probably had to pray more and you know be more committed. It weeded out those who were more nominal and were just in it for whatever other reason. Yeah. And I wonder whether there will be a time of that, you know, as things fall apart a little bit in, you know, the Church of England side of things. We don't quite know what happened there. Mm-hmm. But I do wonder whether actually it it might be a bit of a blessing in disguise that as the church is, you know, squashed more, you're left with only those who who really want to be there praying harder because they're feeling it more.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. And isn't this interview an example of what might happen when it's more difficult to have your point of view? So Jordan Peterson, if he just articulated every single one of the points that he managed to get across in thirty minutes, if that was just a separate YouTube video, it would not have three and a quarter million views. You know. The very fact that there is this alternative out there and things are uncomfortable, actually people start to take n take note. Um yeah, but I think we need to learn from people like Jordan Jordan Peterson about how to best persuade people who disagree with us and and and how how to how to now occupy a position where we don't have cultural power. I think we n we need to relearn what it means to be a New Testament church, like in the Book of Acts that's being persecuted, rather than just assume that we've got the cultural power and we've got a seat at the table naturally, because we're Christians.

SPEAKER_02

And of course, you know, when we say being persecuted, we don't want to belittle that term you know, because obviously there are people around the world being persecuted, you know, like being crucified and you know, still today and beheaded, and obviously we I don't want to put anything that's happening here on anywhere near that level.

SPEAKER_03

Someone calling me a bigot is like Yeah, exactly, exactly.

SPEAKER_02

And that's why I think that sometimes Christians have a persecution complex. It's like, oh you know, I was at university and my housemate asked me to turn down my Christian music. Oh man, Babylon rising again.

SPEAKER_03

Yes, persecution should not be that complex. It is our context, but it should not become that complex. How about that? Um So the the third clip, and this is the big gotcha moment. I mean, this is this is this is where everyone's like punching the air because Kathy Newman is trying to do a gotcha on Jordan Peterson and oh how the tables have turned. Uh let's let's watch this as Kathy Newman brings up the issue of freedom of speech.

SPEAKER_01

You cited freedom of speech in that. Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?

SPEAKER_00

Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we're having right now. You know, like you're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It's been rather uncomfortable.

SPEAKER_01

Well, I'm I'm very glad I put you on this.

SPEAKER_00

You get my point. It's like you're you're doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell's going on. And that is what you should do. But you're exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me. And that's fine. I think more power to you as far as I'm concerned.

SPEAKER_01

So you haven't sat there and I'm just trying to I'm just trying to work that out.

SPEAKER_00

I mean, gotcha.

SPEAKER_01

You have caught me, you have caught me. I'm trying to work that up to my head. I took a while, I took a while.

SPEAKER_03

And that was the most human moment, wasn't it? Like from the whole debate. In the gotcha moment. And she smiles, and you almost think, oh, here's an opportunity, you know, the the mask can slip. And can we now have a conversation? I don't know. How did you react to the gotcha moment?

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, I mean it's interesting, so in in his own analysis of it, he's uh Peterson himself is is slightly disappointed that he said gotcha because he realizes there was a moment there where the the front dropped. Yeah. You know, there was a moment of something suddenly clicked there, and it was like, well maybe we can have a real conversation now. And he slightly dropped the ball, he felt by jumping in and kind of going gotcha, you know, like point scoring. Point scoring. Yeah. Yeah, and I and I agree with that, you know. I think it was a bit of a shame. But the the the thing I really were punching the head to well, you know, I said it it it what I really like is that in his kind of analysis of it afterwards, he he says, I want to sit down with Kathy again. Yes, because he felt that moment, you know, he said I felt like you know he was talking to the human there rather than the ideology of channel four and the front that had to go there.

SPEAKER_04

Yes.

SPEAKER_02

Um and I think that's important for us as Christians that in these discussions it's very easy when we come up against someone who disagrees with us to think of us and them and like the enemy, and they are just the you know, I think on our this ties in with the video we're gonna talk about now. You know, often we think someone on the other side we just go, Oh, you're the worst person in the world. And actually there is an opportunity there to kind of say, Look, we disagree, but let's sit down as human beings and chat about this.

SPEAKER_04

Yes.

SPEAKER_02

Um, and it's a shame it didn't it never quite got there, but he wants to do that. I mean, I hope I hope it happens. I hope they do kind of do a revisit and allow to go a bit deeper and that would be amazing.

SPEAKER_03

I've I've just put on the uh on the um comment section the video that um Paul's talking about where where Jordan Peterson analyzes his interview, which is fascinating, absolutely fascinating. He doesn't come out of this with a sense of triumphant joy. He he sort of said, Well, you know, it was it was a win, but it was not an optimized win because the best thing would be to sit down and actually actually learn from one another in a conversation rather than have to be in this adversarial thing. And he was actually very sobering about um you know our society and the way that it is just this big punch-up between left and right and globalists and nationalists and you know, feminists and men's rights activists, and and just we're at each other, and we just need to learn to do a lot better at talking.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, and at the end of the all those discussions, it's not it's not a case of wow, we've we've learnt a bit more about each other and getting along and how we can possibly both change in different ways. Right. It's just well, we won that one, or you lost, or whatever it is, you know. Who was wrecked?

SPEAKER_03

Who was destroyed? Yeah, and and and it's just so so unfortunate that we we have that win-loss zero-sum game thing. Again, it's everything everything is just described as war. Um and then an interesting twist, I mean, like one th one thing I think we can learn as Christians in terms of uh persuasion is I think the way that Jordan Peterson like got her to rethink was basically he said, now Kathy Newman, you already believe that freedom of speech trumps someone's right not to be offended, because look at you, right? Yeah, your entire career is based on freedom of speech, and if people get offended, well people get offended. And I th and and I don't think she'd ever put two and two together in in that sense. I think she has this this ideology up here that says, you know, you have a right not to be offended. I don't know where that comes from, but there there is this like ideology that's up here that has always gone unexamined, and then he he sort of says, Okay, Kathleen Newman, just look at where you're standing. You are standing on this foundation that says freedom of speech is incredibly important, and I'm a journalist, and I'm gonna exercise it all that I can. And he was just like trying to get her to see what she already believed and then apply it to this other thing that she that she said that she believed. And it was that dissonance that actually got the you know, caused the gotcha moment and could cause metanoia, which is the Greek word for repentance, and it means rethinking. Um so I think in Christian persuasion that's that's a really um good tactic, if I can use that word, where you you you tell someone and you uncover what it is they're already assuming. Like you're already assuming the equality of peepils, and you you're already assuming this and you're assuming that and you're assuming this about the nature of reality. Well then how does that fit with what you believe over here? I mean, come on. You know, so I think that was that was a very persuasive moment for that reason. Um in the aftermath of this uh interview, I mean it's very interesting. If you Google now, if you Google Peterson Newman interview or Peterson Newman video, you don't instantly get the video. What you instantly get through Google search results is, you know, a a few articles that say um, you know, Channel 4 have employed a security company to have a look at online abuse that Kathy Newman has received, and they they haven't enumerated, you know, how much of this is of a criminal nature or is anything of a criminal nature. or, you know, even an example of, you know, this this online abuse. Um and yet I don't know, I d I I do I am a little bit cynical about that, that that all of a sudden even the search results are trying to recast how we see things and then suddenly Kathy Newman is a victim of these horrible trolls and that kind of thing. And it would be horrible to be Kathy Newman and have 50,000 negative comments coming at you. I mean that would just be devastating and appalling. But should we call the cops at that stage and should should we reframe everything according to a victim narrative about Kathy Newman? I don't know. You know, may maybe the law's been broken and if so, like let the law do its work and you know I take it all back. But I'm a I'm a little bit cynical about it.

SPEAKER_02

Well particularly because no one's produced any actual screenshots of particular things. Of course people have said you know people have been critical and rude because it's the internet.

SPEAKER_03

And some of them will be totally misogynistic.

SPEAKER_02

Absolutely but but there's a there is a difference between that and you know kind of breaking the law stuff isn't there. I mean we don't want to we don't endorse any of those things, people being rude. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you put on you know even if you if you if you've got ten subscribers on YouTube and you put videos up, someone's going to comment on it and say it's rubbish and whatnot.

SPEAKER_03

I have been wished dead in the most uh imaginatively vicious way is on the comment sections of of blogs. And I've apologized for that I saw through that avatar. I knew that was the Fisonator. Anyway we've we've spent forty five minutes talking about uh Peterson. We could spend another 45 minutes talking about Peterson but um shall we move on to our thorny question for this week. Out of the frying pan, into the fire let's talk about sex baby let's talk about uh why are Christians so weird about sex? That was our thorny question that went out uh last night. It tends to be a Monday evening that we uh drop these videos on Facebook and on YouTube. Uh and Andy do you want to um show us the first two minutes of it and then we'll discuss why are Christians so weird about sex? Today we're going to have a frank and mature conversation about Christians weird about sex? That is, why do we Christians insist on keeping sex within the context of one man and one woman in a lifelong relationship called marriage? That's different from the modern view. So why? Well the first thing to say is that the Bible has always been weird about sex. The Old Testament preached a markedly different vision for sex than the Egyptian and Assyrian cultures that surrounded it. The New Testament was very different to the Greco-Roman culture that surrounded it. Therefore the Bible does not need to move with the times because it was never preaching the morality of its time ever. The vision the Bible casts for sex and marriage and human flourishing has always seemed to come from another place. So the Bible is weird but let's be clear the modern secular view is weird too.

SPEAKER_02

And what is weird? White, educated industrial rich, democratic. That's who we are in the West and it's weird. We're a minority in the world today and an even smaller minority in human history. The way we tend to think about and categorize sex today is completely unknown to and at odds with the vast majority of human thought. Problem is we don't tend to recognise this. Many just assume that our white educated industrial rich democratic worldview on sex is the measuring stick for how all sex should be viewed. And so in this context secular people may see the Christian view as very narrow one woman and one man for life seems so limited. But in fact much like the Bible's view today's weird views on sex are just as much an anomaly in our world and its history. So maybe all of us need to try and bring a bit of humility to this discussion. We see you as weird, you see us as weird. Okay, let's acknowledge that we're all sexual weirdos. I'm a weirdo. Christians let's not clutch our pearls and act all shock that the world disagrees with the Bible it always has. And non-Christians don't be surprised if Christians disagree with the modern secular view of sex. Pretty much everyone else in the history of humanity always has. Let's all be weirdos and let's listen to each other without assuming the worst.

SPEAKER_05

You are the worst human being I have ever met.

SPEAKER_03

Because so uh this is our approach to answering the question uh why are Christians so weird about sex and you can watch more of it uh on YouTube or on our uh Facebook page but what how are we trying to approach this question? What's the what's the strategy here?

SPEAKER_02

Well we're doing this I mean we've got two parts to this video and I and I feel very much that this first video is really more just laying a bit of a a groundwork isn't it saying look um Christians we need to realise that our view is not the norm and never has been right um you know I've heard people say oh you know the Bible's views are very of their time and you can say well they're not of their time actually they're completely opposite of their time and they still are and so we need to come to the you know this conversation with that view as Christians, remembering our view is not the norm, that it's weird. But also in our society we need to remember as we have this conversation as you come up against Christians with different views that even Western views now are not the norm. Right. You know if we look around the whole world today our kind of view, that weird black white educated etc that we talk about in there is a minority in the world today and it's an even smaller minority in world history. Yeah. You know it's an anomaly a bit of a blip in many ways. Right. Um and so we need to kind of come as we I think we say in the video with we need to come with humility to it if you know because it is it's a difficult conversation.

SPEAKER_03

Yes. So I as a Christian am weird my non Christian friend is weird just we're just weird in different ways. I mean we we happen to think that our our weirdness is from heaven, right? Yeah. Um and so that that you know absolutely has to play a role but whether therefore our weirdness should be enforced on an unbelieving population, well the the Bible is never written from that perspective. Yep. You know I think sometimes we cast the position that, you know, the glory days, the Garden of Eden was basically in the 1950s and the fall happened somewhere around 1963 and you know ever since then we need to like get back to legislating for the bedrooms of of the nation. And and that's kind of the way that we cast things and we always cast things as we have a morality about sexuality and the rest of the world is purely immoral. They have just you know cast off the shackles and they are just purely amoral. Whereas actually certainly the way the world sees things is that you know Christians are weird but we have a different morality. Not not just that we are trying to be immoral, you know the the world has strong, righteous feelings about how sex is to be used righteously. And they don't just look at Christians as being moralists, they look at us as being immoral. And we need we need to like wrap our heads around that rather than just like shout liberty in the whole time to them because that's not how they see themselves. Like the the world is just pursuing it's just centering itself around a different axis of of what is righteous about sex. But yeah if we could just stop clutching our pearls on both sides and say, I can't believe you're different to me. Like yeah and this this is where the Buddhism and vegetarianism kind of analogy comes in. You know analogies in this area are fraught with danger. Analogies in anything are fraught with danger because people will say ah are you saying X is like Y in every sense No that's not how an analogy works. But one of the things an analogy does is it does what Jordan Peterson did to Cathy Newman. It's it says why don't you think about this issue in a context you're already familiar with. You're already familiar with the freedom of speech thing because you're a journalist okay so think of it in that realm okay are you there? Are you in that realm? Now think of it in this realm. And I think that's what an analogy does and I think with the Buddhism analogy you sort of say to people look you know how we disagree about whether meat is murder or not you know that you know you know there's that moral disagreement. Well let's let's sit with that moral disagreement for a little bit and just as the Buddhist does not hate you because you're eating a bacon sandwich, so the Christian does not hate a gay person because they have gay sex. You know and and can you sit with that? I I don't know, it's it's been fruitful for me. What do you think about that analogy?

SPEAKER_02

Yeah I think I think it's a helpful one isn't it and um it like you say it it does do that similar thing to what we see in the interview with Peter Newman trying to say well it is like this you know we said you you don't get a you don't see very often I've not heard anyone you know someone saying oh you don't believe in eating meat I do and then the person turns around and says oh you eat meat well you know I hate you you're a terrible person and then the person says back to them oh well you're a complete caraphobe meat bigot. Meat bigot. Yeah um you don't really see that and the vegetarian saying no no no I don't hate some of my best friends some of my best friends eat meat you know um you don't see that happening um but I think it is a helpful analogy and actually and and that and that kind of comment there it's something that bugs me a little bit because you know people sometimes say look I don't hate gay people some of my friends are gay and people say oh that doesn't matter. Right. And I want to say well you know what it really matters to my gay friends. Right. You know it might not matter to you but it really does matter to my gay friends whether I'm a homophobe. Yes. Because you know if if I really do because I'm a Christian, if I really do hate gay people I'm probably they would sniff it out. They were yeah they'd probably get that and not want to hang around with me or share a house with me and various things like that or come to my wedding and all kinds of stuff. Yeah. So actually that it really does matter. Yeah. I think it it just shows, doesn't it that if you you know if you can exist side by side, it just shows up the the fact that it just because you have a disagreement on this doesn't mean that you hate somebody.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. And so all we're trying to do at this stage is kind of clear the ground and just sort of say can we express a weird view? Like literally we're just kind of say you know, I know this is not what you think. But could can we can we can we call meat murder? And you're like, ooh, ooh that's that feels yeah okay it will feel uncomfortable if we start calling meat murder. And you know I am kind of calling you to change. If I think meat is murder then I probably think you you shouldn't have a Big Mac, right?

SPEAKER_02

So you're saying what I'm doing is wrong.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

Well of course yeah but yeah I am I actually am it doesn't mean I hate you that I hate you and this is the end of the story.

SPEAKER_03

And actually my vegetarianism is not the center of my faith. It's not like I'm going around in you know the world is the as the meat police. It's it's it's just uh it's a corollary of my faith. It's it's a what's another word for corollary?

SPEAKER_02

It's an outcome.

SPEAKER_03

I'm sure you don't mean like corollary Corollary Corollivery. Coral ru. It flows out from my faith. But it's not the center of my faith. You know and and a Buddhist, you know, the what defines a Buddhist is not whether you eat meat or not. There's a whole view of life and let's have a look at that view of life and then over here yeah there's a thing about meat eating. And in the same way with Christianity it's not like we go out into the world as a sex police. You know it's it's there's a whole view of life and next week we'll get into what that whole view of life is. And the center is not sexual ethics it's not even ethics.

SPEAKER_02

No. And I think you know this is why I mean ironically considering we're live on Facebook and we do YouTube videos and all that stuff I'm I don't really like having these kind of discussions over the internet with people. Yeah because I think it's very different face to face in relationship. Yeah. Because when you're face to face in relationship you might disagree but you're chatting with your friend over these issues, whatever the issue is whether it's this or something else and you're sitting or you're having a beer or you're eating lunch together you know, you're spending time with each other's families or whatever. Um you're treating each other like human beings. It's not just a a kind of faceless avatar on the other end whose tone of voice you can't hear. And generally we assume the worst as well about people when they're when you read a comment on the internet you assume their motives, what's going on in their heart. You know they've said this therefore they must hate so you're saying but actually when we do this in relationship, you know and I think that's what was great about the Peterson thing with Newman that he's saying there was that moment where there was that kind of the the walls came down and we could have a conversation as people, human beings. Right with feelings and emotions and I think we just need to do more of that you know and you know I I I don't generally like to engage in lengthy debate like that via typing on Facebook or stuff. I think it's generally unfruitful but but can we clear a space?

SPEAKER_03

And and that's that's part part of what the whole weird thing is trying to do it's part of what the Buddhist analogy is trying to do is just to clear a space and say, can I just go to thirty thousand feet and tell you a great story it's about the you know the eightfold path, the four no noble truths and enlightenment if I'm a Buddhist. Or it's about a love story between the father and the son who you know makes the world in the Christian case. But you know can we how how do we clear a space? And a lot of it's got to be interpersonal. It's not it's not because you've got better arguments or you can you know you can out argue somebody else.

SPEAKER_02

And also I think what do you c what there isn't time for in those kind of interviews like we said is contemplation. Right. And I think you know often if you if someone says something like an interview like that, there's those gotcha moments isn't there like points scored and I think actually we both sides, you know whether we're Christian or not, whatever the d dispute might be over, we need to come to points where we say you know what that's a good point you've made there. Right. And I don't really know what to say to that. And I'd like to go away and think about it more and muse upon it. And it shouldn't be just like you know like yeah you know and I think sometimes I I feel it, you know, in my own pride where sometimes when someone says something I feel like oh man I've got to come back with something now.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

So I can't back I mustn't back down on it because that would be like seen as a weakness.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

But actually just be like, yeah you know what I hadn't really thought of it like that.

SPEAKER_04

Right.

SPEAKER_03

Maybe I need to think about that a bit more because it's not a zero sum game where you win and I lose it's actually we're in the situation I think everyone loses in that situation, don't they? Yeah absolutely next week soundbite that's that's a good note to leave on really uh next week uh our video is going to look a lot more at what the five foundations for sex are we kind of uh laid those out uh in the video and we'll talk more about that. Um so lots more to be said on this topic and I'm I'm sure that uh two videos uh won't do any justice to it either um but we love to keep the conversation going so keep those comments coming on Facebook we'll have a look at those uh this afternoon uh this will remain on our speaklife uk page on Facebook so do like us there if you haven't uh already liked us on Facebook we've got loads more things uh to show you on there uh on YouTube really helps us if you subscribe to our YouTube channel because uh then we come further up in the searches and when people Google you know weird sex videos they might find us hey which would be a bit of a redemption so your click could save someone from smut why don't you do that so like us on Facebook and subscribe on YouTube our podcast which is the audio of this conversation drops on Friday so get that where you get your podcasts but uh I think that's pretty much it for this week.

SPEAKER_02

Absolutely well so yeah thank you for joining us and uh tuning in and and if you're tuning in later thank you as well. Ciao for now take care