In this episode, Trent and Evangelical apologist Randal Rauser have a spirited discussion about whether they would want their children to be martyrs, whether we should be Christians if Christ did not rise from the dead, and whether they would rather be a “good Muslim” or an “evil Christian.”
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Counsel of Trent podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn: He’s back! Or we’re back, I should say. Welcome to the Counsel of Trent podcast. I am your host, Catholic Answers apologist and speaker Trent Horn, and we have a returning guest, Randal Rauser. If you listened to previous interview, Randal and I talked about annihilationism and whether Hell is eternal or not, whether Hell is lasting in its effects or not. If you missed that dialogue, you should definitely go and check out our previous episodes, there’s a wonderful exchange between the two of us.
And today, we’re going to take something a little more, not necessarily light hearted, but more of a fascinating set of dilemmas and questions. So we’re going to talk about that today. Let me of course welcome you to the Counsel of Trent podcast.
I am your host, Catholic Answers apologist and speaker Trent Horn, and I want to give a special thanks and shout out to our premium subscribers. You all make this possible, let me fly in Randal to sit across from each other at the studio. We’ve done other dialogues before where it’s been on Twitter or Skype. And those have worked out fine, but there’s just something else being able to sit across the table and have these important conversations about theological, moral truths. Truths of divine revelation God has given to us.
And, let me of course, re-introduce mister Randal Rouser. Randal, welcome back.
Randal Rauser: Great to be back. Thanks for having me, Trent.
Trent Horn: And just a quick summary, you’re an evangelical theologian who teaches in Edmonton, I forget the name of the school. Taylor, or?
Randal Rauser: Taylor Seminary, in Edmonton.
Trent Horn: All right. So today, what I thought would be fun for us to have dialogue about, we may agree, we may disagree, we’re going to find out. Your blog, website, Tentative Apologist and your blog. I’ve noticed, every so often, you will ask these great uncomfortable questions of people to get them to think about their world view, including, for Christians to think about, as kind of a series of polls, to take people’s pulse.
Randal Rauser: Twitter surveys.
Trent Horn: Oh, so that’s-
Randal Rauser: Yeah, from Twitter.
Trent Horn: … So, where did you get the idea to start doing that and how have they been received?
Randal Rauser: Well, I’ve been on Twitter, I don’t know, six, seven years. But I’ve seen on Twitter you can just post simple polls and get people to respond. And so I thought you know, it’s a nice tool to get people dialoguing on social media and responding maybe to some things that might pique some deeper reflection in their own lives. So that’s certainly the platform I’ve tried to use it for.
Trent Horn: So what I’ve done here is I’ve collected a few of the questions you have asked in the past as well as a few other ones people have posed. For us to answer, and see what we think of them and how we would respond. So, let’s dive right in, shall we?
Randal Rauser: Excellent.
Trent Horn: All right, here’s the first one, and listeners, I want you to see, how would you respond to these. They’re not as straightforward as you might think for many of them. Really put on your thinking caps, what would you do in these situations, or respond to these questions?
Christian parents, your child is at high school when a shooting breaks out. The gunman is asking kids if they believe Jesus is Lord. If they say yes, they get shot. The shooter walks up to your child and asked if they think Jesus is Lord. How would you want them to answer? I’m pretty sure you did ask this at some point.
Randal Rauser: Yeah.
Trent Horn: Okay, yeah. So this is a Rauser original. So, what’s your answer to your own question?
Randal Rauser: I much prefer asking it to answering it.
Trent Horn: Right?
Randal Rauser: So I guess the place I want to start is, what if-
Trent Horn: Why’d you ask this question?
Randal Rauser: … well, I can’t remember if there had been something in the news about it in particular, but of course, there was that famous, infamous or whatever. The Columbine shooting, 20 years ago actually just last month. And there was that one young lady, I believe it was Cassie Bernall, who was the one that was said to have been asked this question and responded yes and lost her life. So, these are, I mean, there are questions, God forbid they should ever have to be answered. But you know, we do live in a world where you may have to face them.
So for me, I mean, the beginning, to think about it, is first of all, the heart of Christian discipleship is taking up your cross. And I think too often in comfortable western society, we don’t think about what that could actually mean. You know, we think it’s about something relatively small, questions like giving up a space in traffic for someone merging rather than it might actually be about giving up your life. And of course there are people that face these questions around the world. There are martyrs every year for their Christian faith.
So, what would I want for my daughter or what would any Christian parent want for their child? Well, of course part of me wants to say lie and survive. Another part of me, so I’m saying that a conflict within me, sometimes it is tough to answer these.
But ultimately, I would want my daughter to be formed with the kind of character, love, courage, boldness, wisdom, compassion for others, and the desire to be a witness for the Kingdom that would ultimately lead her to, in her own moment, decide what is the thing to do.
Now, I’m still not answering it. And this is in part because for me it’s a little bit complicated that, for example, there is a difference between when early Christians faced this under the Roman state, let’s say in the Decian persecution of 250 and 251, Christians were said, you have to burn a libation to Caesar or give up your life. And that was an institutional statewide policy.
And it could be different, if it’s, let’s say a person that you knew to be clinically insane, for example. Or you knew a person, here’s an interesting on, I’ll just throw this and then throw it back to you.
What if you knew this person, and they had been raped by a clergy member, by a Baptist pastor or by a priest or something. And they said do you believe in Jesus? And hidden in that question to them is do you believe in the person that would not care when this priest was raping me or this pastor was raping me? That gets into a more complicated area honestly, because it’s kind of the question, tell me about the God you don’t believe in because maybe I don’t believe in that god either. Sometimes questions are a little bit more complicated. So.
Trent Horn: And that’s where, when the question, because you phrased it as, how would you want them to answer? You didn’t phrase the question would you want them to say yes or no, because when we are allowed to use different words, we can provide answers to deal with those kinds of ambiguities and when we have more words at our disposal, we can unload those loaded questions. When you’re stuck with just saying yes or no, then you’re right, sometimes you’re at the loaded question, you’re, I can’t answer that question, because it’s coming from the wrong basis. So I appreciate your distinction between what do you do with a clinically insane person that has asked you a question and they simply want you to answer in a certain way to live.
For me though, I would say ultimately I have to give deference to first, speaking just for me. It’s different with your own child, of course. That I could never say something that could normally be interpreted as to being denying who Jesus is. We talked about annihilationism last time. We referenced Matthew 10:28, fear not him who can kill the body, but him who can destroy body and soul in Hell. And that seems to be a consistent theme throughout the New Testament is to not fear those, whatever their motives may be, to bring harm upon you, but rather, fear the judgment of God. Fear denying Him, showing that you favor this life more than life you would have with Him. Now that’s for me.
Now I think when we talk about martyrdom, I think we would agree on this, it’s always bad to talk about it with a certain, not callousness but not appreciating the gravity of it. Like thinking, oh well if I was in that situation, I would say yes. I always say, when I have people ask me about that, oh I would pray to have the grace to say yes in that situation. Because it’s very different when the barrel is at your head, you know? And sometimes people don’t appreciate that, when we talk about these kinds of questions.
Randal Rauser: Yeah, and you know, here’s another analogy, like, what would we want for our child if our child had the opportunity to risk their lives to save another person, or to save themselves in more of a self serving way. And I would want to have raised the kind of child who would be selfless and would be willing to give up their own life for someone else. As much as I would hate to lose my child in the possibility. And if I would say that, why wouldn’t I say that about having the willingness to be a witness for your faith even if it meant giving up your life?
But I just, one more thing, I would say sometimes we think in ethics, we often focus on the dilemma ethics and the Pandora’s Box approach to ethics. Whereas, and that’s been very common in the modern last 200 years, but I think a deeper approach to ethics is to focus on what are the virtues that we need to inculcate or develop as good people. And then you’ll have the wisdom to know how to respond in those situations.
Trent Horn: So you must be a big fan of Alasdair MacIntyre then. Virtue theory?
Randal Rauser: Yeah, Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue for example, one of his well known books. And tapping into a deeper Aristotelian tradition of ethics that goes behind the modern age.
Trent Horn: Because that helps us too, because you give these what about this and these different situations, a virtuous person is able to thread the needle even when the situations become varied.
So for example, if you have the madman, the clinically insane person that asks this question, and you’re able to give a particular response. Do you believe in Jesus? You could give an answer like well I believe in Jesus, but it’s a Jesus you might not have met yet. Or you know, something like that. And then you pique their interest and so, you know, you’re able to thread the needle there of affirming your faith without affirming the loaded question the maniac’s asking you.
But I would agree with you that I think, and I want to move on because we’ve got so many good questions we could talk all day about all of these. I would be impossibly proud of my children if they were to be martyrs, and it’s only that impossible sense of pride that would carry me out of the darkness that would envelope me at their deaths, essentially.
And so I think that, because I mean I’ve thought about that too, it could happen and I always pray for the grace of God if it were, if something were terrible were to happen to one of my loved ones. You always wonder, it’s like C.S. Lewis wrote the two books on evil, he wrote Problem of Pain and A Grief Observed. And I always, I’m sure, I don’t know if you’ve read both. It’s funny. Problem of Pain is, that’s the professor’s approach.
Randal Rauser: Yeah, apologetic. Argument.
Trent Horn: The Grief Observed is when you’re in the thick of it. And so it’s neat to compare the two, to see how it’s okay, like in that book, Lewis calls God a monkey imbecile, you know, after the death of his wife. But I think that that shows that it’s okay to firmly believe in God but still to have those natural emotions to feel. It’s like in 1 Peter 5, it says cast all your anxieties on Him, for He cares for you. Sometimes we don’t think about that so much.
Let’s, here’s the second one. If the bones of Jesus were definitively identified in an archeological dig, would you cease to be a Christian? Many Christians, this is straightforward. May not be as straightforward for you though. I’ve seen you allude to the answer’s not straightforward.
Randal Rauser: Yeah, we have, so a lot of people though go to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, that if Christ has not been raised, our faith is in vain. And yeah, that is certainly true. I think the bigger problem here. Well, perhaps, people have to realize that some people retain a professed Christian faith even after rejecting the Resurrection of Jesus as a historical event, so Rudolph Bultmann was a famous Protestant theologian of this.
Trent Horn: I just interviewed, we’ve only had a few guests on the podcast who disagree with me, but I interviewed Reverend Dwight Welch who is a chaplain at a university and he does not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, so. Yeah. We just had here on the podcast.
Randal Rauser: Oh, there you go. So, another one was a close friend of N.T. Wright, now N.T. Wright is probably the world’s leading authority on the historical Resurrection and his close friend Marcus Borg came from a liberal Protestant background and didn’t accept the Resurrection as historical event. But professed to be a Christian. How do people like that make sense of their Christian faith?
Well I can sort of ask that question by putting myself in that same situation. And it is a fact, so for me, when I say I’m a Christian, I believe that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, that Christ was raised on the third day, I believe all the great things of the gospel. But as well, I’ve experienced God in many different ways in my life personally. God, I believe, has revealed Himself to me, and Christianity provides me a framework to think about who God is. And some of my reasons for believing in God and God’s existence are independent of my reasons for being a Christian. Some of them are, they’re just general reasons to believe in God.
So if I came to believe that Jesus hadn’t been raised from the dead or probably hadn’t been raised from the dead, I would still have all the other stuff for which I am a Christian.
Trent Horn: And here’s something where I would agree with you, because some people will, even if Jesus did not rise from the dead, atheism is not entailed from that. So, for me, and I guess I’ll share a little bit of my answer to this, it’s a bit more straightforward I guess.
I would not be a Christian because I do believe the Resurrection of Jesus is essential to Christian belief. The bodily Resurrection of Jesus is what made that first century proclamation so different from any other messianic movement or pagan mystery religions. That without it, and I think this came across my interview with Dwight, that without it, you have something, you have almost the religion turns into secular humanism with religious veneer. You’re two steps away from somebody like Gretta Vosper at the United Church of Canada who is an atheist, and yet who is a minister.
So for me, personally, if the bones of Jesus were found, I would not be Christian. I guess I’d have to go back and say well, the arguments for God seem to show there’s a God who’s infinite, who created the, I’m a monotheist. Maybe I would be, I’d look at Judaism or Islam. I’d probably end up back in Judaism. Which makes sense because half my family’s Jewish. My grandfather immigrated here, he was Hornstein, and he changed his name to Horn because somebody beat him up in the Army for being a Jew. So, if that guy had not beaten up my grandfather, it’d be the Counsel of Trent podcast with Trent Hornstein. So, one little act in the past had ramifications in the future.
So I guess that’s how, for me that’s how I’d take it but you could see Christianity as deeper or different than that or?
Randal Rauser: Well, let’s say that a person has, for example, that they prayed to the Christian God and received healing for that, and it was a significant healing. Now how do they interpret that, right? If they come to believe that the Resurrection is not historical event. Well I could see that they could still think God is revealed in Christianity and maybe something like the way that the liberal mainline Christian church has proposed, because I still have these healings that have occurred in my life, and I’ve seen God work in other people’s lives within the Christian community and the Christian church.
So I just think there’s a thicker narrative in the lives of many people that would make that for them a more complicated question. That their Christian faith doesn’t stand or fall only on the historical Resurrection but upon the way that God has revealed Himself to them in their lives. And it just gets me a sympathy for people like Marcus Borg to understand where they might be coming from.
Trent Horn: Also I think though when this question is asked, and it’s posed to us, and this also happens in philosophical discussions and debates, is the problem of counterfactuals and what I would call impossible counterfactuals.
Somebody would say, would you, you know, because some people have asked this. I think William Lane Craig was asked this in a debate once and it seemed to stump him. Not stump him but he gave a response a atheist thought was a bad response but I don’t think it was bad at all. That someone asked him, “Dr. Craig, I took you back in a time machine, right now, and you saw Jesus is in the tomb and he didn’t rise, would you still be a Christian?” And I think he said, “Well yes because it’s been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit.”
And so for me if this was really posed to me, it would just say well, I just don’t think this is a state of affairs that could ever actually attain. That it’s, you know, you’re asking me something that would just never really happen. It’d be like if somebody asked me, well if it turned out that rape was moral, would you continue to have moral objections to rape? Be like saying, well I guess no, but that just won’t come about, basically. You’ve asked an impossible counterfactual.
So do you see, so I think with Craig and the time machine and the Resurrection, I’d be more apt to believe that oh, I’ve been the victim of some hoax or some scam or something’s not quite right here. To give up all the other evidence as well as that personal evidence of the Resurrection too, because it’s not just historic, because there’s historical [inaudible 00:17:30] to the Resurrection but a lot of people have personal evidence in their own lives as well.
Randal Rauser: So I’m going to maybe push back a little bit in an interesting way and that is that Christians have often worried about the idea of Christianity being in principle falsifiable, because it is based upon historical event in a way that Buddhism for example simply is not. And the irony is that sometimes, Christians, they end up going in that direction of de-historicizing the Resurrection precisely because they want to place it beyond the realm of critical possible refutation.
So ironically enough, Rudolph Bultmann, one of the reasons he was drawn to treat the Resurrection as historically insignificant for the Christian faith was because he didn’t want to have a faith that was potentially falsifiable. And I think Luke Timothy Johnson, sometimes in the way that he has written about the Resurrection as a contemporary example, and I’m not saying by any means, I mean I think he’s just an orthodox Christian by my understanding, but nonetheless you can see some potential de-historicizing elements like in terms of well, the Christ that we experience in our lives is the real Christ. To talk about that separately from the historical event.
So I would want to remain committed to the idea that in principle I could understand this historical claims and being shown to be false just like any other historical claim could potentially be shown to be false.
Trent Horn: Yeah, and I don’t want to misinterpret myself in what I just said, that I think it was that particular example pops up in my mind, that if somebody asked. There’s a difference between proposing this as something possible, and I guess I would take, still hold the view that if the central element of the Christian faith were falsified, then I would no longer be a Christian, but I just don’t see how in practical, practicum, that would come about.
But then I guess you could even widen the counterfactual more. It’s like if somebody said, if we showed that God as He’s classically defined did not exist, irrefutably so, would you still be a Christian or believe in God? I just feel to me it’d be futile to just try to live a secular humanism with God language at that point. Instead of just embracing the truth as it is.
Randal Rauser: Right, well on the historical Jesus question, Paul Meier wrote a book, he’s an old ancient historian but he wrote a novel called A Skeleton In God’s Closet about 25 years ago now, 1994. And he actually explores that from a character named Jonathan Weber who’s on an archeological dig in the middle east and he’s working with the tomb of Joseph of Aramithea and they pull out an ossuary or a bone box that has apparently the bones of Jesus in it.
And this makes it very practical, so it is conceivable that you could come across that kind of evidence. Maybe you’d come across some documentary letters that the apostles actually had this scam they were trying to pull and, I mean it’s possible that you could discover that kind of information, so it’s worthwhile asking a theological question related to the historical question.
Trent Horn: Yeah, and I think, I guess I would say that the practical elements are maybe not non-existent, but I might say vanishingly small, just the same as if I were to go home and find a bunch of documents that prove my wife is a secret Russian spy or something like that, but who knows? I’ll see how well she can make borscht later today.
Let’s try another question while we still have some time with, and we might even spill this over into a part two, I think. This is an interesting one. Would you rather be a gravely sinful Christian or a morally upright Muslim?
Randal Rauser: Yeah, so that’s stated in a loaded way. Actually, talk about a concrete example of that, because of course some people will have various protests. But this is actual historical example, 1994. The Rwandan genocide. So there was a Muslim. Well first of all there’s a Christian Adventist minister named Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, and he was Hutu, so he was a member of the ethnic group that was trying to eliminate the other group, the Tutsis. And some congregants who were Tutsi, so the targeted group, they secretly contacted him because they were hiding for their lives and they’re asking him for help as their pastor. And instead, he turned them over to the Hutu militias and they were butchered. So that’s the Christian guy.
And then there was a Muslim guy, Mbaye Diagne, and he worked with the UN peacekeeping forces in Kigali, in Rwanda, and every day he floated the orders to stay within the encampment and instead he went out, risked his own life, and simply using jokes and boxes of cigarettes, he managed to get Tutsis into his Jeep and to get through Hutu checkpoints joking with them, trading the cigarettes, giving jokes. And getting them into the complex, and he saved over 70 lives before he was blown up by shrapnel.
So my question to people is, as a Christian, would you rather have the life and legacy of the Christian, or would you rather have the life and legacy of the Muslim? And when given those options and of course, thankfully we don’t really have to choose. We can have right belief and right action, but given those choices, I would personally, personally I would rather be the Muslim guy in that context.
Trent Horn: So I think you’ve asked this question, because there’s a strain in some Protestant theology, evangelical theology, especially those who were the Free Grace movement, and Robert Wilkins I think is his name, and a few others. Who would hold that salvation is, grace is so free that your own personal conduct does not affect it in any way, shape or form. That what matters is faith. They have a website, faith alone dot org, or faith alone dot com, that you are saved by faith alone.
And Charles Stanley wrote this in his book on eternal security. That you become a serial killer, your conduct is not what saves you, it’s your belief in Christ. And I think these kind of questions challenge us, especially those who might be onto that view. Is that really what matters, just the content of your belief, or does conduct play into this as well? But I think you and I would agree most people would see that belief and conduct are not separate islands. I mean, what you do flows from what you believe, hopefully.
Randal Rauser: It should, yeah, yeah. But it certainly is possible to have this kind of situation where some people who are not Christians are living more like Christ than the Christians are.
Trent Horn: Here’s my answer to the question, then. Because I agree it’s a little bit loaded so my answer has to be qualified. I would rather be someone who is a non Christian who remains morally upright, or strives to be morally upright, through their entire life than a Christian who remains in mortal sin for the rest of their life.
Because there, if you were a Christian and you understand and as Catholic, although it’s funny that Protestants, some Protestants don’t believe in the concept of venial and mortal sin, but I think when it’s broken down it’s clear. There are things we do as Christians, we stumble every day. We sin every day, the righteous man fails seven times, falls seven times a day. There’s some things Christians don’t do, like turn people over to genocidal maniacs, you know, willingly, to do that. Christians don’t do genocide. There’s a bumper sticker for you.
But, so we would call those like, mortal sin. So someone who professes to be Christian, who is a Christian, but remains in mortal sin for their entire life, it would seem clear to me that they’ve died apart from God’s friendship and have forsaken eternal life. So in that case, I’d rather be a non believer who has a chance, that is not someone who willingly forsook this gift.
But, if the choice is between, in the moment, a Christian who is in a state of mortal sin and a non believer who is morally upright in that moment. I would pick being the Christian because I have received the grace of God, and so I trust more in motivating that towards repentance, towards being restored to what Christ desires for me.
So, if there’s a possibility of having the grace, I’m going to pick it. But if it’s the choice of just, you know, you’ve rejected it perpetually until death, I’m not going to. So I guess that’s how I qualify the answer. I don’t know what you think of that.
Randal Rauser: Well, I’ll push back a little bit, because you.
Trent Horn: I think this is the eighth pushback we’ve had together, but that’s fine.
Randal Rauser: That’s what makes it fun. You yourself said that action, or beliefs and actions are really connected, that one flows out of the other, so for example, this guy Ntakirutimana turns over members of his congregation to the Hutu militias. That may have been the first visible evidence we had of the kind of character this person had underlying that. But in all likelihood, his actions were borne out of a prior character. And so that is something that’s more of an enduring problem, so I’m not sure that we could have quite the contrast you’re suggesting.
Trent Horn: Well that goes back to a discussion about the nature of grace and nature. About whether grace, because Catholics believe that grace perfects nature rather than that grace destroys nature and replaces it with something else.
And so, what I believe is that even people who have, there are some people, and this is a problem that atheists, people come in with all the time. And C.S. Lewis dealt with it, why do you have these really nice upstart, really nice, morally upright non Christians, and you’ve got some of these curmudgeon, mean, distempered Christians. It should be the case that if you become Christian, won’t that all change.
And Lewis asked the question, he says well it’s kind of like, he uses the analogy of Bright White toothpaste. That the question is not, he does it more politically incorrect than I do, obviously, but he says you know, the Negro who has great teeth, who doesn’t use Bright White, well he just has a natural disposition to have really nice teeth. So Mrs. Marmalade or whatever, not marmalade, Mrs. Marvel or whatever who’s in England who’s a cantankerous individual, even after becoming Christian, she may still have remnants of that cantankerous nature. The question is not comparing those two, question is what does grace do to her? Would she be worse or better off with or without it?
So for me then, if picking a momentary element. You’re right, people have underlying characters, distempered, inclined toward sin in different ways. But having access to the grace of Christ, I feel like that there is that contact with who God is, with His partaking of His nature, that is something that I would still want to be able to receive and hope for, to have repentance in that regard. To be restored to the full reception of that grace. And that’s just hoping for that, so I guess that’s what I put in there.
Randal Rauser: Yeah, I think that’s a good point, I like to say the same thing as, you can’t just judge two people against one another, you have to judge them against where they started from and if one person started much further back, then the fact that they’re still a jerk may actually not be evidence against the Holy Spirit’s work in their life, because look at what the Holy Spirit actually has done for the last ten years, they were a mega jerk ten years ago.
Trent Horn: Well, I think we only made it through three. But we’ll do some more. This is fun, and I think it’s important for people that the reason I wanted to have you on the podcast is I think people have seen this from the work that I do and I’ve enjoyed your work as well. I don’t agree with it, you don’t agree with all my work, and that’s fine.
But one thing we do agree with is carefully thinking through these issues. I don’t like trite and pat answers. I want to be able to really think it through, that I’m comfortable and haven’t just shelved a concern. That it’s been addressed. And so, the discussions we have, I hope it encourages whoever’s listening to have a spirit of critically inquiring about the views we have, the problems we have. I don’t think a problem necessarily means you should jettison the whole, just because there’s a problem maybe you can’t solve, doesn’t mean you should jettison the whole apparatus. But we shouldn’t’ just have a cheery ignorance either. Randal, what do you think?
Randal Rauser: Yeah, well I like to, sometimes my students in seminary, they’ll say well what’s the right answer? And I push back and say you know what, the whole challenge is for you to think through, what do you believe the right answer is and why? So rather than get to the, and sometimes there isn’t a clear right answer but also sometimes you have to arrive at it on your own. And so I’m happy with questions, I’m happy with having the room to ask hard questions and have doubts sometimes and not exactly know how to answer every question that I myself raise, and I think there’s, it’s a healthy place to be actually.
Trent Horn: Fides Quaerens Intellectum, I think. Faith seeking understanding. Absolutely. Randal, glad you’re here. Let’s continue our discussion a bit. Stay tuned for a part two, more questions and dilemmas I think you’ll like with Randal Rauser, here on the Counsel of Trent podcast. And thank you all for your support to make this possible, I hope you guys have a blessed day.
Speaker 1: If you liked today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only contact. For more information, visit Trent Horn podcast dot com.