Hi, how are you? Doing well, God bless you. I'm Tony and you are? Blake, nice to meet you. Blake, nice to meet you too. So what are you studying? Computer science. Yeah? Yeah. What year are you? Second year. My daughter's a third year English major. Awesome. Yeah. So, I think you're a pastor around here? No, no, I, uh, we attend a church in Davenport, and, uh, full-time street evangelism is my ministry. I'm a retired deputy sheriff by trade, and so... Oh, well, thank you for your service, sir. Oh, thanks, thanks, thanks. How about you? Do you have any spiritual beliefs? Uh, not really. No? Okay. I'm sorry, your first name again is? Blake. Blake, okay. Um, might I ask, what do you think's gonna happen to you when you die? Uh, I'm comfortable with the nothingness. The nothingness? Yeah. What do you think is more important, what we believe or whether or not what we believe is true? I would say what I believe is irrelevant in a large scale of things. Okay, why is that? Well, let's say I immediately say I stop believing in gravity. If I were to drop this bag of books, it's still false. Yeah, I agree. Let's say I hold something in high esteem. Let's say I find that person right there to be an amazing person. In the long run, that doesn't matter. History will forget all of us. Yeah, well, history will forget most of us, certainly. I'm confident history will forget me. I'm not going to do anything famous or noteworthy in all likelihood. That's off the subject, but I think parents do their kids a disservice when they tell them they can be whatever they want to be. Oh, definitely, yes. When you tell you're one of however many billion children there are, that you could be president of the United States someday when there's been 40-some presidents, right? So I think we ought to prepare our children to find contentment in anonymity, almost, in a sense. All right, so you would see that truth is more important than belief. Yep. How would you define truth? I would define it as a non-subjective thing, wherein what someone may find true doesn't matter. What's only true is the laws that govern our current reality. The constant, non-changing laws. the laws of logic are constant and non-changing. They're not subject to our opinion, they're not subject to our location, they're not subject to the century in which we live. Two and two will always be four no matter what man says. The law of non-contradiction is going to be stable no matter what man tries to do with it along the way. So those laws, I would say those laws are eternal. Those laws aren't natural, right? They're not a product of... Eternal until we find a place where they don't apply. Well, okay. Yeah, I would... I understand that. Certainly I understand that framework. But, you know, they're immaterial. So they don't fall within the realm of naturalism, because for that we would have to be able to see it, quantify it. But those laws, like the laws of logic, like the laws of mathematics, they're immaterial. They're not subject to space, time, what have you, belief, and that. And I see those laws, those, in a sense, supernatural laws, as reflections of the very character of God. Just as those laws are immaterial, God is immaterial. God is spirit. I believe that truth... We all have to use the word believe at some point. Truth, as I understand it, is that which comports to reality as perceived and determined by the mind of God. Anything beyond that is subjective. I would say that is true with morality as well. I'm going to hazard a guess. You seem like a really nice guy. You stopped to talk to me. I'm going to hazard a guess that you believe it's wrong under any circumstance to kidnap, murder, and bury in a shallow grave a small child. Yes, but that is because of the culture I was raised in. Morality is entirely subjective. Well, I would disagree with that. Because while there may be societies where that kind of behavior is acceptable, I believe that every human being knows that that is wrong because they were created in the image of God and God has written those laws on people's hearts. Alright, so, tonight, are you going to go home and be your wife? No. In Zambia, that is a very rational practice. Sure. Doesn't make it right, though. Doesn't make it good, doesn't make it moral. Through our cultural lens, it does not make it right. If we were born there, raised in that culture, we wouldn't know any different. That would be our norm. However, here, where we're conditioned that violence against another, you know, my ability to punch in is where your face meets. That's considered wrong through our perspective of them. Not necessarily to the person who puts their fist through my face. Yes. Right. Now while we have laws that govern those things, we... No, that's just the old example from the 1930s doctrine. when they were debating free speech and violence, wherein my ability to punch ends when my fist meets your face. Which is basically saying, I have the freedom to punch the air until I meet your face. Right. But at the moment we're not discussing freedom. as is determined by the laws of a given society. Yes. Sorry, that was a bad example. No, I don't think it was a bad example. It's just that it kind of goes off of what we were talking about, which was morality. Because laws can be enacted that are immoral. Yes. Right. And so it sounds like, and obviously I don't look forward to your mouth, it sounds like, Blake, that you would assert that morality is determined by the society. Yes, sir. Should each society then be left to its own devices to determine its own morality for its own country? I believe that best left alone, societies will sort themselves out eventually. Like we've seen, immoral societies tend to perish with time. Would it be wrong for one society to impose the standards of its society upon another society that disagrees? I would say, if it is a fact, well, society A is, I would assume, the larger society trying to impose on society B, correct? Well, larger or smaller doesn't matter. Let's say one nation imposing... If one is affecting the other's interest, no, it is not wrong. However, if we were to just go to the middle of Africa and impose or colonialize, yes, that would be wrong. Why? By what standard would it be wrong? I believe that would be seen as warmongering, sir. By what standard, though? By our current standard in the Geneva Convention. Okay, so if someone disagrees with the Geneva Convention... No, look, first of all, when I ask the why question, I'm not disagreeing with your premise. I'm not disagreeing that we shouldn't simply arbitrarily go to another nation and impose our will on that nation just because we've got nothing better to do with our money and resources at that time. So, the why questions I'm asking is to get to... who or what determines the standard by which that is right or wrong? It's usually based off of the early constitution. In our case, it was the Magna Carta that developed into the constitution that developed into a set of laws dictated by Puritan religion, which then became very diluted in the early 1900s up to the 1970s. where we began to let degeneracy run the country. So what you're describing is how laws were established basically in the Western world. No, that's how our morality became what it is in America. Through a mixture of early drug users that came to settle the country and then puritans that came and helped to reset the country. Drug users? I haven't heard that premise before. Oh yeah, Christopher Columbus was a massive opium head man. Okay. It is an amazing story if you look into it. Oh, okay. So if another society disagrees, would we have any right to impose upon that society and say, you've got to believe what we believe? Not without just cause. What would be the standard for just cause? if they were to come to our society and try to impose on us first, or if their ideas were hurting us, i.e. in the Muslim world, their idea is that we should all die. And they've been enacting on that by things like 9-11, the Florida club bombing. But thus far, Blake, what you've offered me as far as a standard is simply our society's disagreement with it. okay so so then we can't really say then that the muslim i agree with you that what the muslim not all muslim certainly but but what uh... but the basis for a much of the muslim religion that would say that we as infidels ought to die i would say that is i would say that is wrong uh... so i'm agreeing with you on that but if the standard is our society saying that's wrong and we should and we can then And we can then impose our will to stop that which we think is wrong and affecting us, then we cannot say that another society is wrong that is operating on the same way, on the same premises, on the same standard, but inflicting that upon us. We can't say they're wrong because they're doing the exact same thing we are. Well, I believe it's about who incites it. We use 9-11 as just cause to go over and invade the Middle East. That is seen as a moral action because it wasn't cited against us. And Muslims would cite us bringing everything from blue jeans to pornography to the Middle East. That was justification for them doing what they did. Yes. Okay, so if the standard, again if the standard is a society determining that this is our right and wrong, I never said it wasn't hypocritical. We live in a really **** system wherein morals are just basically dictated by the loudest majority. Okay, and that's... and... and... good. Good. I agree with you that there's a lot of dictation by men in that. What I would assert to you, though, that there is a moral standard that does govern every human being, every society, but most simply live in rebellion to that, and that is the law which God has written on our hearts. Because that is not arbitrary. It's not an arbitrary standard. It is a universal standard, because God, who is eternal, and who created space and time, and who created you and me, determined what right and wrong is based on his own perfect moral character. And so, when I say that I believe it's wrong, to murder a small child and bury them in a shallow grave, my appeal isn't to my individual morality and my appeal isn't to the laws or the morality of our nation, my appeal is to the universal law that was written on every human being's heart, which is do not murder and to love your neighbor as yourself. Which is not arbitrary, which is not subjective. Anything short of that is subjective. Yes it is. There's a tribe that hasn't been touched by man yet. They're just studying to the bronze age. How come whenever we try and interact with them, they usually murder the crew? Well, good question. Because when sin entered in the world through the sin of Adam and Eve, so sin and death infected all of creation and cursed you and me and every other human being with a sinful nature. They still have that law written on their hearts because like you and me, those people were created in the image of God as well, regardless of location or or culture, or color of skin, or whatever. As human beings, we were all created in the image of God. They know the difference between right and wrong the same way you and I do, and they suppress that truth the same way you and I do, by our unrighteousness. So they know, regardless of how many eons they've lived doing that, they've known from the very beginning that to murder another person is wrong. They know that the same way you and I do. So that's why they murder. Because they were born with that sinful nature and their desire is to not worship the God who created them, but to break the laws he's written on their hearts. So you're a biblical fundamentalist then, correct? I don't know if I would say fundamentalist, but... Literalist, sorry. Well, I don't know if I would say literalist either. I mean, I believe the Bible is true. God, I believe the word of God is inspired. God has said of himself in his word that his word is infallible and inerrant and profitable. for every aspect of human life and God as our creator is the one who governs all of creation, who's determined what right and wrong is, what morality is and isn't and everything short of his standard is just man's attempt to replace God with himself. Okay, so you believe both the Old and New Testament? Yeah, absolutely. Okay, then How do you see heaven as a happy place if we are forced to do nothing but praise God and be happy? In my sinful flesh, before I was saved by the grace of God alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, I would have seen heaven exactly the same way. Because I don't rule heaven. Because I'm not the king of heaven. Because I would then be subject to the authority of the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords and I didn't and I didn't want that But here's the thing. I have a small dog at home. Her name's Roxy Chihuahua mix. She loves to chase squirrels up the tree Okay, she can get about five six feet up up the tree, but she can't climb a tree like a squirrel Neither can she make a nest in the tree and give birth to baby squirrels because she's a dog. She's limited to her nature, right? Yeah, if If by some miracle her nature was changed from a dog to a squirrel, she would behave like a squirrel. So you and me in our sinful flesh, you and me if we're dead in our sin, we can only act according to our nature. Our nature is sinful. And so everything we do, no matter how good we might think it is in our own mind, has some vestige of sin in it. Pride, selfishness, whatever it might be. And the desire of our flesh is not to do anything to please God, not to worship Him as we were created to do, but just like Lucifer, who desired to be like the Most High God and was cast out of heaven. And as Satan, as we know him today, it's the oldest sin in the book. We want to usurp the authority of God. That's our nature. But if God, who is holy and righteous and just and also rich in mercy and kindness, changes our nature, literally causes us to be born again from above, We will not only have the capacity to love Him freely, but the desire to do so, because our nature is changing. This is how He changes the nature of the human being. 2,000 years ago, God the Father sent His Son to earth in the person of Jesus Christ, truly God, truly man, and without sin. Unlike you and me, He lived a life of moral perfection and thought, word, and deed. It is... Give me two minutes and I'll be done. He lived a perfect life from cradle to grave that you and I cannot possibly live because of our sinful flesh. And at a time appointed before the foundation of the world, he voluntarily went to the cross. He suffered and died a horrific bloody death he did not deserve to take upon himself the punishment we rightly deserve for our myriad sins against God. And then he forever defeated sin and death when he rose from the grave. And what God promises is that we receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ alone. He will change us, literally take our heart of stone that's at enmity with God and give us a heart of flesh. We'll begin to love the things that God loves. We'll begin to hate the things that God hates, namely our own sin. and we'll receive forgiveness for our sin, not on the basis of anything we've done to earn it, but on the basis of God's grace and love and mercy that would allow his son to die on behalf of sinners like us. Very good talking to you, Blake. I appreciate the time. Thanks for standing out here in the cold. No problem. All right. Take care. All right, you too.