Podcast appearances and mentions of Peter Williams

This week on Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams is joined by Roger Partridge from the New Zealand Initiative to unpack his new report: Unscrambling Government: Less Confusion, More Efficiency.Right now, New Zealand has 81 ministerial portfolios, 28 ministers, and 43 departments. That's three times as many portfolios and nearly twice as many departments as comparable countries. No wonder things feel messy.Roger argues this sprawling Cabinet structure makes it harder to know who's accountable, pushes up costs, and slows down solutions to big challenges like housing, welfare, and climate change. In short: too many cooks, not enough results.Support the show

Hello Youtube Members, Patreons and Pacific War week by week listeners. Yes this was intended to be an exclusive episode to join the 29 others over on my Youtube Membership and Patreon, but since we are drawing to the end of the Pacific War week by week series, I felt compelled to make some special episodes to answer some of the bigger questions.   Hey before I begin I just want to thank all of you who have joined the patreon, you guys are awesome. Please let me know what other figures, events or other things you want to hear about in the future and I will try to make it happen.   So as you can see the title of this episode is, Why did the Japanese perform so many Atrocities during the Pacific War. Phewww, its honestly a difficult one to tackle, for there are countless reasons. I had a university professor who taught; ancient and modern Japanese history, history of the Japanese empire and the Pacific War. He actually answered this very question in a single lecture and in many ways I found it to be one of the most illuminating things I ever learnt about the Pacific War. To truly understand the reasons why they did such horrible things, you actually need to learn the general history of Japan, particularly the changes from Tokugawa, to Meiji, to Showa. I am going to do my very best, but I know many of you might be asking “what were the worst things they did?”, not everyone takes a special interest into such a niche part of history. May I recommend for those with strong stomachs “the knights of Bushido” by Edward Russel that covers pretty much all the atrocities of the Asia-Pacific War. For those of you who like darker things, check out Unit 731: Japan's Secret Biological Warfare in World War II by David Wallace and Peter Williams, absolute nightmare fuel.   I can't go through the entire history of Japan, but I think it's important to start off with the first Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895. This was the first time the Empire of Japan fought a true war with a foreign nation, that being the Qing dynasty. At this point in time, there really emerged a sort of, to be blunt, race war. The Chinese had historically referred to the Japanese as “woren”, a racist term meaning dwarf. Now historically the Japanese had always revered the Chinese, kind of like in the way a little brother looks up to his big brother. In tokugawa Japan they would learn from the Chinese, but as the Meiji restoration began this dramatically changed. Japan watched as the Chinese were humiliating and abused by the western powers and failed to modernize. Meanwhile Japan emulated the best of the west, to modernize and become a great power themselves. In many ways, Japan saw itself become big brother and now China was little brother. The Meiji restoration had an element of nationalism built into it that would explode come the Show era. Japan for its entire history had this belief they were the “Yamato Race” dating back to the 6th century. Now while the Meiji restoration sought to emulate the west, they also emulated racism and propaganda, which in the 19th century was kind of a big deal. The Japanese government gradually began a long term campaign promoting the idea the Japanese, or Yamato people were superior to that of the other asian races. Who was the next big asian boy on the block? China, so it was inevitable they would direct a lot of racist attitudes towards the Chinese. During the first sino-japanese war, the Chinese, particularly Manchu had a habit of performing atrocities upon the Japanese. They would often cut off body parts of Japanese soldiers in grotesque manners and leave them to be found by their comrades. This was honestly a pretty typical thing of war in the region, but it did also have a racist element to it, the Chinese certainly saw the Japanese as lesser people. Just before the battle of Port Arthur, the Japanese found mutilated remains of the comrades, here is a passage from Makio Okabe who was there:   As we entered the town of Port Arthur, we saw the head of a Japanese soldier displayed on a wooden stake. This filled us with rage and a desire to crush any Chinese soldier. Anyone we saw in the town, we killed. The streets were filled with corpses, so many they blocked our way. We killed people in their homes; by and large, there wasn't a single house without from three to six dead. Blood was flowing and the smell was awful. We sent out search parties. We shot some, hacked at others. The Chinese troops just dropped their arms and fled. Firing and slashing, it was unbounded joy. At this time, our artillery troops were at the rear, giving three cheers [banzai] for the emperor.   The Japanese performed a massacre at Port Arthur, butchering perhaps up to 3000 Chinese civilians, some claim 10's of thousands and in full few of western war correspondents. It became a huge controversy that destroyed the image of the IJA internationally and hurt the Japanese governments efforts at riding themselves of unequal treaties with the western powers. The Japanese learnt a hell of a lesson and an Imperial Proclamation was made in 1894 stating that Japanese soldiers should make every effort to win the war without violating international laws. According to Japanese historian Yuki Tanaka, Japanese forces during the First Sino-Japanese War released 1,790 Chinese prisoners without harm, once they signed an agreement not to take up arms against Japan if they were released.   During the next major war the Japanese performed a dramatic 180, well at least to their enemy. During the Russo-Japanese War, over 80,000 Russian POWs were held by the IJA who were treated in accordance with the Hague conventions of 1899. The Japanese paid them for labor, housed them in conventional POW camps, made sure they received good medical treatment, ironically better than the Russians were capable of. The Japanese did all of this, making sure the foreign war correspondents wrote about it. It was a massive PR stunt in many ways. The Japanese were emulating how a world power should act, because they sought to be one. Meanwhile the Japanese swallowed their pride at being called yellow monkeys, as the prevalent Yellow Peril ideology was being pushed by Kaiser Wilhehelm and Tsar Nicholas II heavily. The Japanese treated the entire war like gentlemen and suffered horrific higher casualties than necessary because of it. But something many people don't take much notice of, because the IJA made sure of it, was they horrible treatment of the Chinese during the war.   Now the Russians in Manchuria looted, killed and raped many Chinese, pushed quite a bit by the Yellow Peril. The Chinese, certainly the Honghuzi bandits were working for the Japanese to attack them, so its not like they had no reasons. The IJA was more professional and had orders not to molest the Chinese, as they were helping the war effort, but this did not prevent it. The Japanese also looted, killed and raped Chinese. The Japanese would often wave it off as reprisals against potential spies. I only bring this up as it was very apparent, the Japanese treated the Russians much different than the chinese.   Fast forward to WW1, the Japanese had a battle against the Germans and Austro-Hungarians known in the west as the Siege of Tsingtau. The Japanese took up an identical methodology to the Russo-Japanese war with their approach to the Germans, but even took it a step further. After winning the siege, the Japanese seized nearly 5000 German POW's who were treated with a surreal amount of respect. They were brought back to Japan and housed for the rest of the war in 12 cities around Tokyo and Kumamoto. The POW's enjoyed humane treatment and a rather famous event occurred at the Bando camp where a large orchestra was formed of German POW's who toured the nation performing 100 concerts, lectures and plays. Evidence the Germans were treated well can be seen in the fact 170 prisoners never left Japan and sought wives and lives there. Now is this all a feel good love story, no, just like during the Russo-Japanese War, Japan was playing up the PR, for during WW1 they wanted official recognition as a world power and that of being racially equal to the whites.    Japan was officially recognized as a world power during the treaty of Versailles, but when Japan gave its racial equality proposal, President Woodrow Wilson of the US and Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes refused to allow it to pass, even though they received majority votes. Now The Japanese had been for a lack of better words, fucked over, during the first sino-japanese war when the triple intervention of France, Germany and Russia stole away their war earning of the Liaodong peninsula. During the Russo-Japanese war, Theodore Roosevelt limited the Japanese war gains and now here after WW1 the Japanese received another humiliation. To the Japanese, it was the last straw and it was a major reason they went to war with the west, who they viewed, and honestly rightfully so, would never see them as equals.   Ompf, lot of history there, but now we come to the Showa era, which was molded by the feelings of the past decades.   In 1937 Japan and China enter an unofficial war that saw one of the worst wartime atrocities in human history, the rape of Nanjing. It began on December 13th of 1937, lasting 6 or so weeks seeing the murder of possibly 300,000 civilians and pows, the mass rape of 20,000 and untold hardship upon the Chinese people. The Japanese followed this up with numerous other massacres in China such as the Changjiao Massacre claiming possibly 30,000 Chinese civilian lives, the Alexandra Hospital Massacre killing 200 patients and medical staff in Hong Kong, the Laha Massacre on Ambon island where 300 members of the Gull force were executed, the Bangka island massacre where 60 Australian and British soldiers and 22 Australian nurses were murdered, the Parit Sulong massacre in Malay where 150 wounded Australian and Indian POW's were executed, the Bataan Death march where negligence and brutality took the lives of 650 Americans and perhaps a possible 18,000 Filipinos, the Manila massacres claiming the lives of perhaps 54,000 filipinos including women and children in the Philippines, the Balikpapan massacre in the dutch east indies taking the lives of 78 Dutch Civilians, I can keep going and going. Where the Japanese went, massacres and horrors occurred.    Again if you really want to delve into these stories check out “the knights of Bushido”.   The Japanese also had the infamous special units like 731, who conducted horrifying experiments on civilians and POWs like vivisectioning live people without anesthesia, testing biological and chemical weapons on live people, the freezing peoples to study frostbite treatment and giving people sexually transmitted diseases to study. Lt General Shiro Ishii's unit 731 deployed plague infested fleas, cholera, bubonic plague and other nasty weapons upon Chinese civilians killing perhaps up to 500,000. This was seen during the battle of Changde and famously during operation Sei-go also known as the Zhejiang-Jiangxi campaign.    The Japanese also enacted the infamous “Sanko Sakusen / three all's policy : kill all, urn all, loot all” in retaliation to the Chinese communists Hundred regiments offensive in December of 1940. Sanctioned by Hirohito personally, it is thought this act resulted in the death of 2.7 million Chinese civilians. According to author Werner Gruhl 8 million Chinese civilian deaths could be attributable to the Japanese.     So then we come back to the big question, why? So now that I've covered the loose history for coherency sake I want to list here the largest reasons for the atrocities and by no means is this official categories or even all of them, I am simply stating kind of my top ones I guess you can say:   Treaties signed or not signed War strategy and indoctrination  Ultra-Nationalism and Racism Surrender & the Bastardization of the Bushido code The Brutality of the Japanese military Treaties signed or not signed   Yes its time to talk about treaties, yawn. Now I said previously Japan did sign the Hague Conventions of 1899 and would ratify them in 1907. The Hague conventions did contain laws for prisoners of war, protection of civilians. Alongside this, in 1894 an imperial proclamation was made stating Japanese soldiers should make every effort to win a war without violating international laws. More significantly Japan “signed” but unlike the majority of other world powers did not ratify the Geneva convention of 1929. Why? To be blunt, the geneva conventions did not really benefit the Japanese military from their point of view.   First the Japanese had a very specific perspective on surrendering, they simply did not do it, so they did not expect many of their soldiers to ever become POW's, so how would it benefit them to ratify such a thing? If they are not going to have many POW's, why would they burden themselves with upholding all the conventional laws for POW's they would obtain during war?  Another glaring reason involved aerial bombing. Many Japanese leaders, like Kanji Ishiwara, believed the home islands would be subjected to massive aerial bombing if a global war broke out. If Japan was subjected to aerial bombing and ratified the geneva convention, this meant they would have to take the pilots who were caught prisoner. The Japanese believed this would encourage further bombing. Lastly the convention had rules for POW treatment that literally contradicted how Japanese soldiers were treated by their own superiors. More about that in the last part about the military's brutality, but summarized, the Japanese army were abusive as hell and to sign such a thing would literally contradict how they did things.   Emperor Hirohito personally ratified a decision to remove certain constraints of the Hague Conventions when it came to the treatment of Chinese POW's in the directive of 5 August 1937. This notification advised staff officers to simply stop using the term "prisoners of war". They would refer to their enemy as bandits, guerillas and such, anything but soldiers so they would not have to take any prisoners, though they typically did not leave anyone alive in China regardless. The Geneva Convention exempted POWs of sergeant rank or higher from manual labor, and stipulated that prisoners performing work should be provided with extra rations and other essentials. The Japanese in the later half of the war would be starved of provisions and resources, thus its to no surprise they could not meet these demands, even if they sought to uphold them. I will note in 1942, Japan indicated they would “follow” the Geneva rules and would observe the Hague Convention of 1907 outlining the laws and customs of war. Yet this is like a verbal confirmation, it had no legal basis, something the Japanese particularly loved to do during the war.   According to Dr. William Skelton III, who produced a document entitled American Ex Prisoners of War for the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, more POWs died at the hands of the Japanese in the Pacific theater and specifically in the Philippines than in any other conflict to date. For example in Germany, POWs died at a rate 1.2%. In the Pacific theater the rate was 37%. In the Philippines, POWs died at a rate of 40%.    Now these pieces of paper that were signed or not signed, what does this really matter when it comes to war, its obvious they were not upholding certain rules, but how did this quote en quote make them more brutal and perform more atrocities? Well here is the sticky thing, if you are part of the Japanese military and you know your nation did not ratify certain rules of war, this meant your enemy had no supposed legal basis to follow said rules against you either.    So I want you to think of two aspects of this. If your nation did not sign or ratify certain treaties, then you could not expect the enemy to respect such rules when it comes to you. But more importantly, what if the leader of your nation…just told you to believe that?    In early 1942, Great Britain, the United States of America and other great powers did officially let the Japanese know that they would, on their  part, observe all the provisions of the Convention and requested reciprocity. Japanese foreign minister at the time, Hideki Tojo gave a formal assurance that although Japan was not bound by the Geneva convention, the Japanese would apply it “mutatis mutandis” towards the Americans, British, Canadians, Australians and New Zealander POW's, note he most definitely did not extend this to the asiatic groups, nor the Dutch whom I guess he just forgot about. But this did morally bind Japan to comply with the convention. However the top brass of the Japanese military, notably Hideki Tojo in these cases, went out of his way to instill beliefs within the military as to what they should expect from the enemy. As you will see in the next points, this was basically a type of indoctrination.   War strategy and indoctrination    The leaders of Japan knew full well how unmatched they were in terms of resources and productivity before they began the war with the west. How could they possibly win the war? The IJN was dead set on a decisive naval battle, but for the IJA to compensate for their lack of resources, they believed their “spirit” would overcome the enemy. In many ways this spirit meant going above and beyond normal human endurance, to literally outperform the allies and notably to conduct the war with absolutely zero mercy. Once Japan lost the initiative in the war, after Guadalcanal, the IJA were forced to fight a war of attrition. Now they would prolong and exact maximum casualties upon the allies hoping to force them to the peace table. The idea was quite simple, the IJA would do everything possible to make the allies believe they would never give up and it would far too costly to defeat them. How does one go about achieving these aims? Well the IJA officers would tell you “by steeling your hearts”. To achieve all of this required extreme indoctrination.    Japanese children grew up in regimentation, they were desensitized to violence through tales of martial glory, and were taught that their purpose in life was to serve the emperor. Upon entering  military service, they were trained out of any individualistic spirit, and taught that compassion was a weakness and had no place in the field of war. The soldier's motto was faith equaled strength.  Faith being devotion to duty and service to the Divine Emperor. Apart from ideology and spiritual toughening, training in the Japanese Imperial Army was also extremely harsh and violent. This was not even particularly a special aspect of Showa Japan, it went all the way back to the Meiji era. From a young age children's education directed them, like a pipeline for military duty.   Now at the offset of the war, Hideki Tojo released the “Senjinkun” “instructions for the battlefield”. This was basically a manual for soldiers on how to conduct war. The document was used to establish standards of behavior for Japanese troops and improve discipline and morale within the Army, it also included things like a prohibition against being taken prisoner. It stated if you were captured by the enemy, because Japan did not sign or ratify certain treaties, you would be killed or tortured by the allies, and if you survived you and your family would face shame back home, and punishment resulting typically in 6 months of prison.   Here is a small excerpt from the document Those who know shame are weak. Always think of [preserving] the honor of your community and be a credit to yourself and your family. Redouble your efforts and respond to their expectations. Never live to experience shame as a prisoner. By dying you will avoid leaving a stain on your honor.   The purpose was basically psychological warfare, against their own army. Those like Hideki Tojo believed Japan could only defeat the resource rich Americans with spirit. Thus the manuals like Senjinkun demanded the forces not ever surrender, because the allies would do horrible things, it was shameful to do so and there were disciplinary actions for any who did. In 1942 the Army amended its criminal code to specify that officers who surrendered soldiers under their command faced at least six months imprisonment, regardless of the circumstances in which the surrender took place. This change attracted little attention, however, as the Senjinkun imposed more severe consequences and had greater moral force.   In a report dated June 1945, the U.S. Office of War Information noted that 84 percent of one group of interrogated Japanese prisoners, many of whom had been injured or unconscious when captured stated that they had expected to be killed or tortured by the Allies if taken prisoner. The OWI analysts described this as being typical, and concluded that fear of the consequences of surrender, “rather than Bushido,” was the motivation for many Japanese battle deaths in hopeless circumstances–as much as, and probably more than, the other two major considerations: fear of disgrace at home, and “the positive desire to die for one's nation, ancestors, and god-emperor.”   Something barely talked about in the west, was during the Pacific War, the Americans had a habit of taking human trophies. Human trophies were Japanese skulls, gold teeth, finger bones and such. The famous novel “With the Old Breed” by Eugene Sledge spoke of his personal accounts of these actions, its a rather gruesome and dark part of the war. Now some of these actions were publicized, despite the US military's efforts to quell and hush it down. Time magazine famously had an iconic photo of a woman whose enlisted boyfriend sent her home a Japanese skull. FDR also famously was given a letter opener carved out of Japanese bones. These stories were seized up greedily by the Japanese government who used them as propaganda to prove to their soldiers what would happen if they were captured. It had a profound effect as you can imagine. And this was not limited to Japanese soldiers. The propaganda machine would contribute at the end of the war to mass civilian suicides on Okinawa and Saipan.   Back to the POW subject. When it came to the treatment of POW's, Hideki Tojo began submitting in May of 1942 a series of memorandum, basic orders as to how POW's should be treated. “Prisoners of war can be used for the enlargement of our production and as military labor, white prisoners of war will be confined successively in Korea, Formosa and Manchuria. Superior technicians and high ranking officers -- Colonels and above -- will be included among the prisoners of war confined in Formosa. Those who are not suitable for use in enlargement of our production will be confined in prisoner of war camps which will be built immediately on the spot.Although the working of prisoner of war officers and warrant officers is forbidden by the Regulations of 1903, the policy of the control authorities is that under the situation of our country where not one person now eats without working they want them to set to work. It is desired that you give proper orders on this.The present situation of affairs in this country does not permit anyone to lie idle doing nothing but eating freely. With that in view, in dealing with prisoners of war, I hope you will see that they may be usefully employed. In Japan, we have our own ideology concerning prisoners of war, which should naturally make their treatment more or less different from that in Europe and America. In dealing with them, you should, of course, observe the various Regulations concerned, aim at an adequate application of them . . . At the same time, you must not allow them to lie idle doing nothing but eating freely for even a single day. Their labor and technical skill should be fully utilized for the replenishment of production, and contribution rendered toward the prosecution of the Greater East Asiatic War for which no effort ought to be spared."   Thus in the end as a grunt in the IJA you were led to believe: if I am captured I will be tortured, killed maybe turned into a letter opener, or someone will place my skull on their mantle. If I surrender and survive and make it back home, I will be severely punished and worst of all me and my family will be shamed. I could not expect any humanity from the enemy, because my nation did not sign or ratify treaties like the Geneva convention. More so, because my armies conduct was so unbelievably barbaric, I could only expect the very same from my enemy. It was a vicious cycle. You perform atrocities, expecting the enemy to do the same, and thus it just keeps perpetuating itself. Ultra-Nationalism and Racism   Now we spoke a little bit about the concept of the Yamato race, the Japanese were indoctrinated to believe they were a superior race and that their emperor was something akin to a living god. Until this war, the Japanese empire was on a hell of a winning streak going all the way back to the Meiji Era. For the first half of the Pacific war, the Japanese won nearly every battle. This led to something historians called “victory disease” that made them become somewhat arrogant and cocky, but it also made them feel “superhuman”. The allies' news reporting at the beginning of the war began to frantically refer to the Japanese as “supermen”or  “super jungle fighters”. Particularly because of the Malay campaign, the Japanese soldier just seemed to be tougher, could survive harsher jungle climates, even doing so with less food or war materials. The Japanese read the allied news reports and came to the conclusion that had been driven down their throats by their government, indeed the Japanese spirit was winning the war. The Japanese public ate this up in their propaganda and it perpetuated their ultra-nationalistic beliefs. The Japanese truly came to believe they were destined to rule the asia-pacific. Look at the results in China for example. Within a short amount of time they conquered much of China, though the public really had no idea how bad the China was bottled down by 1940. Then came the greater east asia co-prosperity sphere propaganda, which is an excellent example of their megalomania.    Yet alongside their ultra-nationalism, seen more strongly perpetuated against other Asian groups, the Japanese also indoctrinated their public with racism against them. The Yellow Peril of the 19th century and anti-japanese or anti-asian racism fueled the Japanese soldiers. The Japanese as a people had faced brutal racist hardships historically at the hands of the west, particularly from their point of view from America. There was the slights against them during the first sino-japanese war, the infamous triple intervention of france, germany and Russia stealing away their prize that was the liaodong peninsula. Then during the Boxer rebellion they faced racism, not being allowed to lead mutli national army formations, despite them being the lionshare of said military force. The Russo-Japanese war saw from their point of view, America stealing their war prizes. Last but not least, after WW1 they were told to their faces that they were a world power, but not racially equal. The Japanese faced anti-Japanese and anti-asian immigration laws when it came to America in the form of the gentleman's agreement and Australia's “great white Australia policy”. During the war, the American propaganda machine began pumping out racist caricatures of Japanese as rats, goggle eyed  bucktooth people, literal yellow monkey's.   For the IJA the pacific war in many was a holy war directed at the arrogant whites who had abused them for so long. This will probably sound controversial, but indeed, the pacific war was very much a race war. If you are not convinced of that, I recommend reading “War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War” by John Dower. The human trophy taking, anti-japanese bucktooth, rat people cartoon propaganda, history of racial abuse like the japanese concentration camps, the gentleman's agreement, the stealing of victories during the first sino-japanese war, russo-japanese war and ww1 all plagued the mind of a Japanese soldier. To them in many ways, the “whites had it coming”. Which is rather ironic given how the Japanese would treat the other asian racial groups they came into contact with. But such is the contradictory nature of the Imperial Japanese military.    The Japanese also held racist beliefs about the westerners. The Japanese soldiers were taught the allies were akin to demons or beasts. They were described often as “the hairy ones” or “anglo-American demons”. Taught these men would rape women and girls, stample upon the civilians they captured with the treads of their tanks. The marines were especially dreaded.  According to a story circulated widely among the Japanese on Saipan, all Marine Corps recruits were compelled to murder their own parents before being inducted into service. It was said that Japanese soldiers taken prisoner would suffer hideous tortures—their ears, noses, and limbs would be cut off; they would be blinded and castrated; they could also be cooked and fed to dogs. As silly as this may sound, do remember the Americans were taking human trophies so the Japanese propaganda machine had its evidence. Tons of photos of skulls atop american tanks for example were displayed to the Japanese public. Another famous one was the cartoon appearing in an American servicemen's magazine, which was later reproduced and translated in the Japanese press. It suggested the existence of “Japanese hunting licenses, promising open season on the enemy, complete with free ammunition and equipment—with pay!    In terms of how the Japanese exacted their own racism towards their fellow asians. During the War the Japanese dragged into forced labor, Koreans, Chinese and southeast asians. 670,000 Koreans were brought to Japan to work mines and heavy industry, around 60,000 of them died to harsh conditions. Between April 1943 to May 1945, 41,862 Chinese were sent to Japan to work, 2800 died before even reaching the home islands. 6872 died in the work sites again from brutal conditions. When it comes to southeast asian numbers are hard to pinpoint but its safe to say at least 300,000 Javanese, Malay, Burmese, Tamil and other groups were mobilized to construct the Burma-Siam railroad between October 1942 to november 1943 and 60,000 perished. This all went for the men, for the women, all those racial groups would face the horrors of becoming comfort women, historians estimate there could have been 50-200,000 pressed into it. But for the Japanese, believing their were superior to these other asiatic groups, groups whom they would publicly say were like children, they as the father figure would guide, well they simply abused them.   So in a contradictive fashion, the Japanese believed they were superior and could do horrible things to their Asian neighbors while simultaneously decrying the racism cast towards them by western powers as justification for their brutal actions against them. These types of feelings and perspectives molded the mind of the average Japanese soldier, dehumanizing others has always been a standard military practice afterall.    Surrender & the Bastardization of the Bushido code   I think this is one the vast majority of WW2 history buffs know, the Japanese perspective on surrender and the bushido code. In the book “military trials of war criminals in the Netherlands east indies 1946-1949” Fred Borch had this to say about the variable of bushido for the brutality   As Japan continued its modernization in the early 20th century, her armed forces became convinced that success in battle would be assured if Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen had the "spirit" of Bushido. ... The result was that the Bushido code of behavior "was inculcated into the Japanese soldier as part of his basic training." Each soldier was indoctrinated to accept that it was the greatest honor to die for the Emperor and it was cowardly to surrender to the enemy. ... Bushido therefore explains why the Japanese soldiers who were stationed in the NEI so mistreated POWs in their custody. Those who had surrendered to the Japanese—regardless of how courageously or honorably they had fought—merited nothing but contempt; they had forfeited all honor and literally deserved nothing. Consequently, when the Japanese murdered POWs by shooting, beheading, and drowning, these acts were excused since they involved the killing of men who had forfeited all rights to be treated with dignity or respect. While civilian internees were certainly in a different category from POWs, it is reasonable to think that there was a "spill-over" effect from the tenets of Bushido.   It is very true, the Japanese soldiers and sailors were taught Japan was a sacred nation. Traditional samurai values of bushido were merged with modern training and weaponry. The government propagandized the figure of the Emperor as a living god who embodied the Japanese state, the Kokutai. Emperor Hirohito and his family were the spiritual essence of Japan. To even show your back to the enemy let alone surrender was deemed cowardly and brought dishonor upon your family. As written by Inouye Jukichi in 1910, something read by many Japanese “The Japanese warriors looked upon it as shame to themselves not to die when their Lord was hard pressed . . . their own shame was the shame upon their parents, their family, their house and their whole clan, and with this idea deeply impressed upon their minds, the Samurai, no matter of what rank, held their lives light as feathers when compared with the weight they attached to the maintenance of a spotless name”.    Young men of Japan were taught that "The greatest honor is to die for the Emperor" Additionally precept the Japanese were taught that it is an ignominy to surrender to the enemy. The combined effect of these two precepts was to inculcate in the Japanese soldier a spirit of contempt for Allied soldiers who surrendered, which, in defiance of the rules of war, was demonstrated in their ill-treatment of prisoners. They made no distinction between the soldier who fought honorably and courageously up to an inevitable surrender, and the soldier who surrendered without a fight. All enemy soldiers who surrendered under any circumstance were to be regarded as being disgraced and entitled to live only by the tolerance of their captors.   Surrender was unforgivable under their code, drilled into them through the Imperial Japanese education system and military. When the Japanese would come across vast swathes of the enemy surrendering, particularly if the enemy used up all their ammunition killing their comrades and then surrendered, well it added fuel to their brutality. One only needs to look at the deaths due to Banzai charges, take for example the incredibly massive one at the battle of Saipan seeing around 4000 dead Japanese. IJA officers brought ancestral katana's to the war, the Japanese cut off the heads of the enemies as it was seen to be honorable. When faced with death, many chose to commit seppuku, the bushido propaganda was intense.    A brutal practice emerged in the Pacific island hopping campaign, whereupon wounded Japanese would pretend to be dead or surrender only to explode grenades upon allied forces coming closer. This began to be noticed by US marines during the battle of Guadalcanal and Australians in New Guinea. This began a vicious cycle . There were of course Japanese who would surrender. Hell the Koreans forced into service often did try to surrender, but they would all be hampered by something. Because of the actions of those Japanese feinted death and taking down allied soldiers with them, the allied soldiers gradually began a practice of not bothering to accept surrender. It became a self fulfilling prophecy. Many Japanese made the allies believe all they could expect was a grenade death, thus the allies became more brutal to them. This simply led the Japanese to conclude their government was accurate about how the allies would treat them, so more and more did not surrender. An absolutely horrible cycle that went on to the very end of the war, though the allies did figure out means to get Japanese to surrender more in the last year.    The Brutality of the Japanese military   I think this is probably one of the most important factors, and its also one the “normies” would not know as much about. The Imperial Japanese military, more so the Army, had what I can only describe as a built in system of abuse. As described to me by the same university professor I keep bringing up in podcasts, picture a literal pecking order. Going from the highest ranked general to the very bottom grunt. Imagine each one who is higher than the other, routinely physically abuses them. For example, it was very typical for a colonel to slap a major across the face, the major would then strike one of his captains, and the abuse would continue through the ranks to the grunts who would have no one to abuse, thus they turned to POW's or civilian populations. This was not just an accepted part of the Japanese Imperial Army it was indoctrinated.    From day one of basic training, IJA officers taught their men, races like the Chinese were their blood enemies and racially inferior. These were people the Japanese would rule over one day. The trainers would toss the boys into rigorous training activities involving physical violence towards another alongside the notion any orders given by a higher ranking officer was infallible and to be treated as if the divine emperor himself, the living god was giving it.    The Japanese army even taught methods of torture that would be employed in all areas they occupied. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging. The Kempetai, were the ones doing the lionshare of these tortures. Other Army and Navy units, however, used the same methods as the Kempetai. Camp guards performed similar methods, local police forces organized by the Kempetai in the occupied territories also applied the same methods of torture. The Kempetai were administered by the War Ministry, trained at specialized schools who were maintained and operated by the War Ministry in Japan. Thus the conduct of Kempetai and the camp guards directly reflected the policy of the War Ministry.    The Japanese army leadership made sure recruits were physically and mentally abused, they were given strenuously duty tasks and pushed to their absolute limit. During the war given where they were deployed, take guadalcanal for example, the Japanese soldiers would be facing starvation as well. Being half starved, beaten and suffering the effects of war would drive anyone to perform horrifying acts. The life of a Japanese solider was simply at the whims of an extremely toxic management culture. The lowest ranking echelons received the lionshare of abuse and they took out their frustration with whomever they could find deemed lower than them, ie: POW's, civilians, etc.   All of these variables combined contributed to the creation of a military willing to perform just about any atrocity they thought necessary to win the war. It was a war they could not hope to win, but many of them went to their deaths trying to defeat the hands of fate. There are countless other reasons of course for the atrocities committed in cold or hot blood. Countless books have been written on this subject, please do check out the few I mentioned. With that again, a big thanks to you patreons, you guys are awesome. Please let me know what you think in the comments, and what you want to hear more about in the future. This has been the pacific war channel over and out.

From MPR News, Art Hounds are members of the Minnesota arts community who look beyond their own work to highlight what's exciting in local art. Their recommendations are lightly edited from the audio heard in the player above. Want to be an Art Hound? Submit here.Honoring Marley Kaul's legacy in book and galleryVisual artist Paula Swenson remembers painter and former Bemidji State University professor Marley Kaul (1939–2021) as a mentor and a creative force in northern Minnesota. Swenson is excited for a new retrospective coffee table book, “Marley Kaul: Paintings,” covering six decades of his work.Book launch events include:Sept. 18, 5–8 p.m. at Open Book in MinneapolisSept. 23, 5–7 p.m. at the Watermark Arts Center in BemidjiSept. 25, 5–7 p.m. at the North Dakota Museum of Art in Grand ForksA corresponding retrospective exhibition of Kaul's work is also on view at the Talley Gallery at Bemidji State University through Oct. 30.Paula recalls one memorable moment turned painting: My husband and I were over to his house, talking to him, and just at that time, a bird of prey flew under the deck — under Marley. It was just that fast. And later on in that month, we went to visit, and Marley had done a painting of that experience, of the bird flying underneath him, under the deck and out again. — Paula SwensonA call and response: Peter Williams at MCADIndependent curator and art consultant Esther Callahan recommends “Peter Williams: Homegoing — A Call and Response,” on view at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design through Nov. 1.Esther says: The longer you look, the more you will see the depth of connections that are built into the space. For example, there are sight lines in this exhibition that have artists like Russell Hamilton directly communicating with seangarrison that beautifully builds on the narrative that is foregrounded in this exhibition by Peter Williams in memory and remembrance of his passing in 2021. This exhibit itself is rooted in honoring the complex experiences of Black Americans through historical and contemporary narratives with both a really good sense of humor and candid honesty. It's really important to note that this exhibit is supported by a chorus of 15 Minnesota-based Black artists responding to Williams profoundly human, critical and beautiful work.— Esther CallahanSongs with names take center stageAllison Amy Wedell of St. Paul is Alto 2 Section Leader of the Twin Cities Women's Choir. She's looking forward to the comedic cabaret “What's In a Name?” happening for one night only on Sept. 22 at the Hive Collaborative in St. Paul.Allison says: “What's in a Name?” is the brainchild of local actress and singer Jen Maren and local pianist and teacher, Andrew Fleser, who noticed the impressive and varied array of songs with names for titles and decided we needed to hear as many of them as they could fit into one show! I'm already familiar with Jen Maren's work, especially in her role as the murderess Marjorie Congdon in “Glensheen” at the History Theatre, but I understand that for the first time, she weaved some original stand-up comedy in among the music.Fleser's gorgeous accompaniment and quiet zingers provide the perfect foil for Maren's raucous charm.— Allison Amy WedellCorrection (Sept. 20, 2025): An earlier version of this story misstated the singer's name in the comedic cabaret section and the Art Hound's name. The story has been updated with the correct names.

This week on Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams sits down with financial advisor and Stewart Group founder Nick Stewart to tackle a question too many councils would rather avoid: are skyrocketing rates making inflation worse?Nick explains how council spending flows through to households and businesses, pushing up the cost of living just as families are already struggling. Rates might look like a local issue, but the ripple effects are felt nationwide.If you've ever wondered why your grocery bill feels higher every time the council votes through another rates hike, this episode is a must-listen.Support the show

Heart of a Man is a men's community based our Carmel, IN. We exist to deeply connect men with a brotherhood equally committed to learning, growing, walking through life together and deepening in faith. Our mission is to build men into character-driven, committed disciples of Jesus, equipped to forge healthy, life-giving relationships at home, at work, and in their communities. Today's lesson is from Dr. Peter Williams, Principal and CEO of Tyndale House, Cambridge. He takes us through Matthew Chapter 1, where we see the remarkable story of Jesus' Genealogy and how the Lord crafted the story of history that brings us to Jesus. We also see how the Lord uses Gentile women in that very lineage and the power in this. Please visit us at www.heartofaman.org to learn more, to contact us, to purchase merchandise, donate to our ministry (we are a 501c3 and all donations are tax-deductible) or to join us in-person for one of our many Bible studies and classes!

Professor Gillian Harvey, Peter Williams, Nicola Centofanti, Tony Sacca, Phil Coorey, Rex Patrick, Mike Steer & your calls. Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram. Subscribe on YouTubeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Building anything in New Zealand has no shortage of challenges. Whether it be soaring costs, reels of red tape, or problems with supplying labour, our choked infrastructure pipeline deeply affects this country's economy and quality of life. CEO for Infrastructure New Zealand, Nick Leggett, joins Peter Williams for a deep dive into how can overcome these challenges so we can build faster, more efficiently, and more affordably.Support the show

Bill Crews speaks with Peter Williams about VP day. Peter Williams is the Chairman of Virtual War Memorial, See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rates across the country have soared, many into the double-digits. But while most councils point fingers and find excuses, Mayor for Whanganui Andrew Tripe has kept his average rates increase as low 2.2 percent – the lowest in the country this year.Mayor Tripe joins Peter Williams for a discussion on how this was achieved, and the work behind getting his Council focused on the basics, while keeping up with important infrastructure and services, and paying down debt. Support the show

Peter Williams, Principal of Tyndale House, interviews apologist Wes Huff about how he became a Christian, the Bible research he has been working on, and why he still believes Scripture is reliable. Find out more about the host and guest here: Peter Williams: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/peter-j-williams/Wesley Huff: https://www.wesleyhuff.com/ Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

In this enlightening episode of Functional Medicine Bite Sized, host Peter Williams interviews Dr. Partha Nandy, a renowned gastroenterologist and systems thinker. Dr. Nandy shares his remarkable journey from a childhood health challenge to becoming a passionate advocate for holistic health. Diving deep into the gut-brain connection, he explores how our microbiome impacts everything from mental health to chronic diseases. Listeners will gain insights into practical strategies for improving gut health, understanding the intricate relationship between diet, stress, and overall wellness. With personal stories, clinical expertise, and a forward-looking perspective, Dr. Nandy offers a compelling roadmap to becoming your own health hero.Links mentioned in this episode:Dr Nandi Show Thanks for listening to our podcast and please feel free to get in touch: Tweet us at @fmedassociates Follow us on Instagram or Facebook @petewilliams_fma Email us on info@fm.associates For more information about our services please visit our website www.functional-medicine.associates We would love to hear from you!

In this final episode of the series, Tony Watkins and Peter Williams recap some of the key points they have covered over the series, before sharing some top tips for applying the prophetic books to our context today.Find out more about the host and guests here: Tony Watkins: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/tony-watkins/Peter Williams: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/peter-j-williams/Francie Cornes: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/francie-cornes/Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

In this episode, Francie Cornes continues her conversation with Tony Watkins and Peter Williams about the book of Jonah. Jonah is an unusual prophetic book because it is mostly narrative and has a very small amount of text where Jonah is actually proclaiming God's word. In this second episode, Tony and Peter share insights into the theological themes we can see in chapters 2—4. In the first episode they looked at chapter 1 which you can catch up with here: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1161728/episodes/17330544 Find out more about the host and guests here: Tony Watkins: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/...Peter Williams: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/...Francie Cornes: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/...Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

Matt, hey, my friends, welcome to the off the wire podcast. My name is Matt Wireman, and with over 25 years of coaching experience, I bring to you a an integrated approach to coaching where we look at mind, body and soul. So this being my little corner of the universe, welcome we cover everything from spiritual formation or the interior life all the way to goal setting and how to make your life better with life hacks, and I cover everything in between. So whatever it fits my fancy, I'm going to share with you, and I'm so thankful for your time, and I hope this episode helps you. All right. Well, hey, welcome, welcome to another episode of Off The Wire. This is Matt, still I haven't changed, but I do have with me, my friend. Really proud to call him a friend. And from seminary days, Dr Josh chatro, who is the Billy Graham chair for evangelism and cultural engagement at Beeson. That's a mouthful. Josh, well done. And then he is also, they just launched a concentration in apologetics at Beeson, which is really exciting. They got a conference coming up this summer. Is that also an apologetics Josh,its own preaching and apologetics? Okay? Awesome.And, and largely, you're also, you're also part of the Tim Keller Center for Cultural apologetics, and then also a, they call them fellows at the Center for Pastor theologians as well. That's right, yeah. And you in, you have been at Beeson for a couple years, because prior to that, you were at a you were heading up. And what was it largely an apologetics group, or was it, was it more broad than that in Raleigh?Yeah, it was. It was much more expansive than that. Evangelism and apologetics is part of what we were doing, but it was the Center for Public Christianity, okay? It was also very much in the work and faith movement. And I was also resident theologian at Holy Trinity Anglican in Raleigh. We were there for five years,excellent and and you don't know this because you don't keep tabs on who bought your book, but I've got every one of your books brother, so every every book you put out, and I'm like, I love this guy, and I'm gonna support him and buy his book. So it started all the way back, if you remember, with truth matters, yeah. And I use that book for one of the classes that I built here where I teach. And then then I want to go through the Litany here and embarrass you a little bit. And then it goes to apologetics, at the Cross Cultural Engagement, telling a better story, surprised by doubt. And then one that you just released called the Augustine way, retrieving a vision for the church's apologetic witness. So do you write much on apologetics? Is that kind of your thing?Yeah, I've written a few books on that.So why? Like, what is it about apologetics that has really captured your heart, in your mind and like, as opposed to just teaching theology, yeah, it's a certain it's a certain stream. If folks are first of all, folks are curious, like, What in the world is apologetics? Are you apologizing to folks? Like, are you saying I'm sorry?Well, I do have to do that. I'm sorry a lot. That's a good practice. That's not quite what apologetics is. Okay. Okay, so we, one of the things I would say is, and when I meet, when I meet up with old friends like you, sometimes they say, What have you been doing? Because we didn't see this coming. And when we were in seminary together, it wasn't as if I was, you know, reading a lot of apologetic works. And so one of the things is,and you weren't picking fights on campus too much. You were always a really kind person. And most, most time, people think of like apologists as, like, real feisty. And you're not a feisty friend. I'm not. I actually, unless you start talking about, like, soccer and stuff like that, right? Yeah,yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I don't. I don't love, I don't love, actually, arguments I'd much rather have, which is an odd thing, and so I need to tell how did I get into this thing? I'd much rather have conversations and dialog and kind of a back and forth that keeps open communication and and because, I actually think this ties into apologetics, most people don't make decisions or don't come to they don't come to any kind of belief simply because they were backed into an intellectual corner. And but now maybe I'll come back to that in a second. But I got into this because I was doing my PhD work while I was pastoring. And when you do yourpH was that in in Raleigh, because you did your PhD work at Southeastern, right?That's right, that's right. But I was actually, we were in southern, uh. In Virginia for the first half, we were in a small town called Surrey. It was, if you know anything about Tim Keller, it was he served in Hopewell, Virginia for seven or nine years before he went to Westminster and then to New York. And we were about 45 minutes from that small town. So if you've read Colin Hansen's book, he kind of gives you some background on what is this, these little communities, and it does, does kind of match up the little community I was serving for two years before moving to another little community in South Georgia to finish while I was writing. And so I pastored in both locations. So these aren't particularly urban areas, and yet, people in my church, especially the young people, were asking questions about textual criticism, reliability of the Bible.Those are any topics forfolks like, yeah, something happened called the Internet, yes. All of a sudden now, things that you would, you would get to, maybe in your, you know, thm, your your master's level courses, or even doctoral level courses. Now 1819, year old, 20 year olds or 50 year olds had questions about them because they were reading about some of this stuff on the internet. And because I was working on a PhD, I was actually working on a PhD in biblical theology and their New Testament scholar, people would come to me as if I'm supposed to know everything, or you know. And of course, of course, when you're studying a PhD, you're you're in a pretty narrow kind of world and very narrow kind of lane. And of course, I didn't know a lot of things, but I was, I kind of threw myself into, how do I help people with these common questions. So it wasn't as if, it wasn't as if I was saying, oh, I want to study apologetics. I kind of accidentally got there, just because of really practical things going on in my church context. And and then as I was reading and I started writing in response to Bart Ehrman, who is a is a agnostic Bible scholar. Wrote four or five New York Times bestsellers, uh, critical of the New Testament, critical of the Bible, critical of conservative Christianity. I started writing those first two books. I wrote with some senior scholars. I wrote in response. And then people said, so your apologist? And I said, Well, I guess I am. And so that, yeah, so I'm coming at this I'm coming at this area, not because I just love arguments, but really to help the church really with really practical questions. And then as I began to teach it, I realized, oh, I have some different assumptions coming at this as a pastor, also as a theologian, and trained in biblical theology. So I came with a, maybe a different set of lenses. It's not the only set of lens. It's not the it's not the only compare of lenses that that one might take in this discipline, but that's some of my vocational background and some of my kind of journey that brought me into apologetics, and in some ways, has given me a little bit different perspective than some of the dominant approaches or dominant kind of leaders in the area.That's great. Well, let's go. Let's get after it. Then I'm gonna just throw you some doozies and see how we can rapid fire just prove all of the things that that are in doubt. So here we go. Okay, you ready? How do we know that God exists?Yeah, so that word no can have different connotations. So maybe it would be better to ask the question, why do we believe God exists? Oh,don't you do that? You're you can't, you can't just change my question. I was kidding. Well, I think, I think you bring up a great point, is that one of the key tasks in apologetics is defining of terms and understanding like, Okay, you asked that question. But I think there's a question behind the question that actually is an assumption that we have to tease out and make explicit, right? Because, I mean, that's, that's part of you. So I think sometimes people get into this back and forth with folks, and you're like, Well, you have assumptions in your question. So go ahead, you, you, you go ahead and change my question. So how do we knowthe issue is, is there is that when we say something like, you know, we people begin to imagine that the way Christianity works is that we need to prove Christianity in the way we might prove as Augustine said this in confessions, four plus six equals 10. And Augustine, early church father, and he's writing, and he's writing about his own journey. He said I really had to get to the point where I realized this is not how this works. Yeah, we're not talking about, we do not one plus one, our way to God.Yeah. And when is Augustine writing about When? When? So people are, yeah, 397,at. This point. So he's writing right at the, you know, right right before the fifth century, okay? And, and, of course, Augustine famously said, we have to believe to understand, for most believers, God is intuitive, or what? Blaise Pascal, the 17th century Christian philosopher He called this the logic of the heart. Or I can just cite a more contemporary figure, Alvin planeta, calls this basic belief that. He says that belief in God is a basic belief, and and for So, for for many believers, they would say something like this. And I think there's validity in this so is that God just makes sense, even if, even if they haven't really worked out arguments that they they say, Well, yeah, this God makes sense to me. Now I can kind of begin to explore that. I will in just a second, but I just want to say there's, for most of your listeners, it's something like, I heard the gospel and this and the stories of Jesus, and I knew they were true, right? And as kind of insiders here, we would say that's the Spirit's work. The Holy Spirit is working, and God speaks through creation and his word, and people believe. And so that's that's why we believe now, of course, once we say that people have these kinds of intuitions, or as theologians would put it, this sense of God kind of built into them, I would want to say, as an apologist, or even as a pastor, just a minister, you don't have to be apologist to say this is that we can appeal to those intuitions and make arguments in many different types of ways. Well,hold on one second. Isn't that a little too simplistic, though? Because, I mean, you have the Greeks who believed in all the different gods, and the Romans who adopted those gods and changed their names and like, how do we assimilate that? You know, where, you know Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins famously say, Well, I don't, I don't believe in Zeus. So does that make me an atheist? It would have made me an atheist back in, you know, you know Roman and Latin and Greek times. So, so there's an intuition, but, but how do we delineate that? Well, that's not the right object of that intuition.Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have this intuition, you know, we could say Romans, Romans, one is pointing us to, this is what I would argue, this sense of God, and yet we're, we're fallen, according to the Christian story. And so even though we have this sense of God, we suppress that, and we worship false gods, or we worship the created, rather than the Creator. So the Christian story as a as a Christian, helps make sense of both the kind of why? Well, although we have this sense this, there's this common sense of God, it goes in many different directions and and I would argue that even if you deny kind of transcendence altogether, you're still going to have you're going to still make something kind of a god. You're going to you're going to want to worship something. And I think that's that's part of the point of Romans, one, you end up going to worship the created rather than the Creator. So does that get out what you're asking Matt or Yeah,I think so. I think sometimes the arguments that are real popular, even now is like, well, I just don't, I just don't, I just don't believe that God exists, just like I don't believe that Zeus exists, like, what's, what's the big deal? Why? Why are you so adamant that I believe in that God exists? Like to because I don't, I don't know that God exists because I don't see him. So how would you respond to somebody who says, Well, this Intuit intuition that that you say we all have, and that Romans one says we have, I just don't buy it, you know, because, I mean, I'm, I wouldn't believe that Zeus exists, because there's no empirical evidence to show me otherwise. So how would you respond to somebody that's equivocating or saying that, you know, Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of the, you know, the God of the Bible is, this is just a tribal deity, just like Zeus is. So, how should we? Iwould, I would say so. So I think we can make kind of arguments for some kind of for transcendence. So there's ways to make arguments against naturalism. That's that's what's being promoted. And there's various different kinds of, you know. So sometimes these kinds of arguments that are in the Christian tradition are used to say, hey, we're going to prove God's existence using these arguments. I think I'm not. Are typically comfortable with the language of prove and how it's used in our context today, again, we get into the math, kind of two plus two equals four. Kind of thinking, yep. But I think a lot of those arguments are appealing to both intuitions and they they work much more effectively as anti naturalistic arguments. Not so much saying, Okay, we know a particular God through, say, the moral argument, okay, that we're but, but it's arguing against simply a naturalistic, materialistic. You know, even Evans, who's a longtime professor at Baylor, makes this argument that those, those types of arguments are really good against pushing back against naturalism. So plan again, has a famous argument that says, if naturalism and evolutionary theory are both true because of how evolution theory works, it's not about right thinking, but right action that you perform certain things to survive. Then, if both of those are true, you have no reason to trust your kind of cognitive faculties.Can you tease that one out a little bit? I kind of lost on that one. He said,What planet is arguing? Is he saying? Look, if, if all of our kind of cognitive faculties are just a product of evolution, okay? And by the way, not only does it's not just a plan. Ago makes this argument, it's actually kind of interesting figures who were like Nietzsche and others made this argument that basically, if, if evolution and naturalism is true that all we are is energy and manner and this product of evolutionary process, then we would have no reason to actually trust kind of our rationality, and that's what rationality is actually mapping onto reality. All of our our brains and our minds are really just producing certain conclusions to help us survive. So it would undercut the very foundations of that position. Now again, yeah, being able to observe, yeah, yeah. So, so with that, again, I think that's an example of an argument that doesn't so much. You know, say this is the Christian God. This supports the belief in Christian God. But what it does is it from within their own thinking. It challenges that. It undercuts their own way of thinking, which is what you're assuming and what you're kind of pushing back on, is a kind of naturalistic world. And I think we can step within that try to understand it and then challenge it on its own terms. And I think that's the real strength of planning this argument. What he's doing now, go ahead.Well, that's it, yeah, in his, in his, like, the the Opus is, uh, warranted. Christian belief is that what you're referencing the the big burgundy book.I can't remember where he makes this argument? Yeah, I can'tremember exactly. But like, if all your cognitive faculties are working, somebody who believes that God exists does not mean that they does not negate all of the other cognitive faculties that they're like if they're in their rational mind, that they have warrants for their belief. But, but that's what I what I think, where I'm tracking with you, and I love this is that even like, it still holds true, right? Like there's not one silver bullet argument to say now we know, like, that's what you were challenging even in the question is, how do you know that you know that you know that God exists? Well, you have to layer these arguments. And so this is one layer of that argument that even the Greeks and the Romans had a sense of transcendence that they were after, and they identified them as gods. But there's this other worldliness that they're trying to attribute to the natural world that they observe, that they can't have answers for, and that we can't observe every occurrence of reality, that there has to be something outside of our box, so to speak, out of our naturalistic tendencies. And so even that can be helpful to say, well, that kind of proves my point that even the Greeks and the Romans and other tribal deities, they're after something outside of our own experience that we can experience in this box. Yeah, that'sright. And there's a, I mean again, this, this argument, isn't intellectually coercive, and I don't think any of these are intellectually coercive. What I mean by that is you can find ways out. And so the approach I would take is actually called an abductive approach, which says, Okay, let's put everything on the table, and what best makes sense, what best makes sense, or what you know, what story best explains all of this? And so that way, there's a lot of different angles you can take depending on who you're talking to, yep, and and so what one of the, one of the ways to look at this and contemporary anthropology? Psycho psychologists have done work on this, to say, the kind of standard, what we might call natural position in all of human history, is that there's there's transcendence. That's, it's just the assumption that there's transcendence. Even today, studies have been shown even people who grow kids, who grew up in a secular society will kind of have these intuitions, like, there is some kind of God, there is some kind of creator, designer. And the argument is that you actually have to have a certain kinds of culture, a particular culture that kind of habituate certain thinking, what, what CS Lewis would call, a certain kind of worldly spell to to so that those intuitions are saying, Oh no, there's not a god. You know, there's not transcendence. And so the kind of common position in all of human history across various different cultures is there is some kind of transcendence. It takes a very particular, what I would say, parochial, kind of culture to say, oh, there's probably no there. There's not. There's, of course, there's not. In fact, Charles Taylor, this is the story he wants to tell of how did we get here, at least in some secular quarters of the West, where it was just assumed, of course, there's, of course, there's a God to 500 years of to now, and at least some quarters of the West, certain, certain elite orsecular? Yeah? Yeah, people. And even then, that's a minority, right? This is not a wholesale thing, yeah.It seems to be. There's something, well, even Jonathan height, uh, he's an atheist, says, has acknowledged that there seems to be something in humans. That's something like what Pascal called a God shaped hole in our heart, and so there's this kind of, there's this deep intuition. And what I'm wanting to do is, I'm wanting in my arguments to kind of say, okay, given this as a Christian, that I believe we have this sense of God and this intuition of God, these intuitions, I want to appeal to those intuitions. And so there's a moral order to the universe that people just sense that there is a right and wrong. There's certain things that are right and certain things are wrong, even if a culture says it is, it is, it is fine to kill this group of people, that there's something above culture, that even there's something above someone's personal preference, that is their moral order to the universe. Now, given that deep seated intuition, what you might call a first principle, what makes best sense of that, or a deep desire, that that, that nothing in the universe seems to satisfy that we have. This is CS Lewis's famous argument. We have these desires, these natural desires for we get thirsty and there's there's water, we get hungry and there's food, and yet there's this basically universal or worldwide phenomenon where people desire something more, that they try to look for satisfaction in this world and they can't find it. Now, what best explains that? And notice what I'm doing there, I'm asking that the question, what best explains it? Doesn't mean there's, there's not multiple explanations for this, but we're saying, What's the best explanation, or profound sense that something doesn't come from nothing, that intelligence doesn't come from non intelligence, that being doesn't come from non being. Yeah, a deep sense that there's meaning and significance in life, that our experience with beauty is not just a leftover from an earlier primitive stage of of evolution. And so we have these deep experiences and intuitions and ideas about the world, and what I'm saying is particularly the Christian story. So I'm not, I'm not at the end, arguing for just transcendence or or kind of a generic theism, but I'm saying particularly the Christian story, best, best answers. Now, I'm not saying that other stories can't incorporate and say something and offer explanations, but it's a, it's a really a matter of, you know, you might say out narrating or or telling the Gospel story that maps on to the ways we're already intuiting about the world, or experiencing or observing the world.Yeah, so, so going along with that, so we don't have, like, a clear cut case, so to speak. We have layers of argument, and we appeal to what people kind of, in their heart of hearts, know, they don't have to like, they have to be taught otherwise. Almost like, if you talk to a child, they can't, they kind of intuit that, oh, there's something outside, like, Who created us? Like, who's our mom? You know, like, going back into the infinite regress. It's like, okay, some something came from nothing. How does that even how is that even possible? So there has to be something outside of our. Experience that caused that to happen. So, so say you, you go there, and then you help people. Say, help people understand. Like, I can't prove God's existence, but I can argue that there are ways of explaining the world that are better than other ways. So then, how do you avoid the charge that, well, you basically are a really proud person that you think your religion is better than other religions. How, how could you dare say that when you can't even prove that you're you know? So how? How would you respond to somebody who would say, like, how do you believe? Why do you believe that Christianity is a one true religion? Yeah, um,well, I would say a couple of things. One is that, in some sense, everyone is staking out some kind of claim. So even if you say you can't say that one religion is true or one one religion is the one true religion, that is a truth claim that you're staking out. And I think it's fine that this for someone to say that they just need to realize. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I think they're they're making a truth claim. I'm making a truth claim. Christians are making truth so we're, we all think we're right, and that's fine. That's fine, but, but then we but then once you realize that, then you're not saying, Well, you think you're right, but I just, I'm not sure, or it's arrogant to say you're right. I think, of course, with some some things, we have more levels of confidence than other things. And I think that's the other thing we can say with Christian with as Christians, it's saying, Hey, I believe, I believe in the resurrection. I believe in the core doctrines of Christianity. It doesn't mean that everything I might believe about everything is right. It doesn't even mean all my arguments are are even 100% always the best arguments, or I could be wrong about a particular argument and and I'm also not saying that you're wrong about everything you're saying. Okay, so, but what we are saying is that, hey, I I believe Jesus is who he said he was, and you're saying he's not okay. Let's have a conversation. But it's not, rather, it's not a matter of somebody being air. You know, you can hold those positions in an arrogant way. But simply saying, I believe this isn't in itself arrogance, at least, I think how arrogance is classically defined, yeah. And what is this saying? I believe this, and I believe, I believe what Jesus said about himself. And I can't go around and start kind of toying with with, if I believe he's Lord, then it's really not up to me to say, okay, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, kind of take some of what he said, but not all of what he said. If you actually believe he rose from the dead and he is Lord and He is God, then then you take him at his word.What is it, as you think about cultural engagement, cultural apologetics that you've written on like, what is it in our cultural moment right now where people you say that thing, like Jesus said, You know, he, he, he said, I'm God, you know, not those explicit words, right? That's some of the argument. Like, no, but you look at the narrative he did, and that's why he was going to be stoned for blasphemy. That's why all these things. But that's, that's another conversation for another day. But, and then you talk to someone, you're like, Well, I don't believe he was God. I don't believe His claims were. Like, why then do you do we oftentimes find ourselves at a standstill, and people just throw up their hands like, well, that's your truth, and my truth is, I just don't, like, just don't push it on me. Like, why do we find ourselves in this? And it's not new. I mean, this is something that goes back to, you know, hundreds of years ago, where people are making arguments and they're like, Well, I just don't know. So I'm gonna be a transcendentalist, or I'm gonna be a deist, or I'm gonna whatever. So how do we kind of push back on that a little bit to say, No, it's not what we're talking about. Is not just a matter of preference, and it's not just a matter of, hey, my truth for me and your truth for you. But we're actually making it a claim that is true for all people. Like, how do we kind of encourage people to push into that tendency that people have to just throw up their hands and say, whatever? Pass the piece, you know? Well,okay, so I think let me answer that in two ways. One's philosophically, and then two are practically. One philosophically. I do think it's, you know, CS Lewis was on to this, as he often was way ahead of the curve on certain things, but on an abolition of man. When he talked, he's talking about the fact value distinction and how we've separated. You know, you have your facts, and then everything you know, where, classically, you would kind of recognize that courage, you know, is a virtue, and that's, it's a, it's a, it's also a fact that we should pursue courage and rather than just my preference of kind of and so there's actually. Be this, but now we have, well, that's a value, kind of courage, and say you should do something, but it's, it's, that's your value and and so we have this distinction between facts, which is, follow the science, and then values over here. And as that has opened up. You have both a kind of, on one hand, a very, very much, a people saying in a very kind of hard, rationalistic way, you know, science has said, which, that would be another podcast to kind of dive into that more science is good and, yeah, and, but science doesn't say anything. So I'm a fan of science, but it doesn't say anything. We interpret certain things, but, but so you can kind of have a hard rationalism, but you also combine with a kind of relativism, or at least a soft relativism that says, Well, this is my truth, because values become subjective. So that's the philosophical take. But the kind of practical thing, I would say, is they need people. One of the reasons people do that is because, it's because they've seen kind of these to reference what you're talking about earlier this hey, this person's coming in wanting to talk about my worldview, and it just becomes this fierce, awkward encounter, and I don't want anything to do with that type of thing, like I don't, I don't want to go down the dark corners of of the Internet to have these, to have these intellectual just like Charles Taylor says, a lot of the kind of arguments are, I have three reasons why your position is untenable. He says something like untenable, wrong and totally immoral. Now, let's have a conversation. It just and so it's kind of like, no thanks. I don't think I want to have that conversation. You do you. And so there's, there is a part that, culturally, something is going on which needs to be confronted. And Lewis was doing that work, and a lot of philosophers have followed him in that but there's also a side of of maybe where our own worst enemies here, and the way that we try to engage people, and where we start with people, and we think, Okay, let's start in this kind of, you know, apologetic wrestling match with people. And a lot of times, people are just looking to cope. People are just looking to survive. They have mental health issues going on, and they don't want another one to pop up because of the apologist. And so they're just looking to try to skirt that conversation and get to feeding their kids or dealing with their angry neighbor. And so we've got to kind of take stock on kind of where people are at, and then how to engage them with where they're at. Now I'm going to apologize. I think all of those arguments are helpful in a certain context, but a lot of times, we've been our own worst enemy, and how we try to try to engage so what I what I encourage students and ministers to do is is start talking about people's stories, and you know how life is going and where what's hard, and asking really good questions, and kind of having a holy curiosity and and often, I was in an encounter with a guy who came up to me after a kind of a university missions thing, and he was an atheist, and he wanted to talk about the moral argument. And I was happy to do that for a few minutes, but then I just asked him. I said, what you know, what do you love to do? Tell me about yourself, and where do you really find joy in life? And he looked at me, and he started to tear up, and he said, You know, I'm really lonely right now, you know, go figure this moment in our world, the kind of fragmented world we live in. And he said, what's really meaningful to me is my is my pet, because he provides solace. And there's this moment where, of course, I mean, here's an atheist wanting to show up at a Christian event, right? And because Christians were nice to him, and he's deeply lonely, and we got to have a pretty meaningful conversation about, you know, the benefits of following Christ in the community, communion with not only God, but with others, yeah, but if I would have just left it at, let's go to the more we would have never got there. But it took me kind of asking the question, which is, in essence, what I was trying to ask is what, I didn't put it like this, but what are you seeking? What are you really after here? And where are you really getting joy in life, and what's going on? And I if we can learn to go there, I think we'll have much more productive conversations. And then just kind of, I heard chatro talk about the, you know, ontological argument. Now let me throw that out there at somebody. I think that's why apologists and apologetics have sometimes been given a bad name. But if you. Actually look at the tradition, the the larger tradition. There's so many resources, and there's so many people, apologists, doing lots of different things, that I think gives us kind of way to actually engage people where they're at.Yeah, yeah. No, that's great. Well, I It reminds me, I believe it was Schaefer who talked about the the greatest apologetic, at least his time, and I think it stands true even now, is welcoming people and being hospitable towards people, welcoming the questions, not looking at folks as adversaries, but fellow pilgrims. And then you welcome them into that space, into that community. And then they're they see that, quite frankly, the faith works. The Christian ethic actually works, albeit imperfect, by imperfect people in imperfect ways. But you know, as we go through pain and suffering, as we go through, you know, elation and disappointment, like there's still a lot that that we can demonstrate to the world through our testimony that it works. You know, so to speak. So I'd love to hear you kind of help walk us through how the Christian story tells a better story about pain and suffering, because that's that's a fact of every person listening is that there's some modicum of pain and suffering in their life at any moment. And then you look at the grand scale of the world and all these things, but just even we can go down to the individual level of the why is there pain and suffering in my life and in the world and, you know, in general. But I like, like for you to just kind of riff on that for a little bit for us, to helpus, yeah. And in some ways, this question, and the apologetic question is a kind of real, a snapshot into the into what we're talking about with, how do we respond to that? Not just as Okay, an intellectual question, yeah, yeah, but it's also a profoundly experiential question. And there's youmean, you mean, and how, in the moment when you're saying, in the moment when somebody asks you the question, not getting defensive, but being being willing to listen to the question, Is that what you mean by that? And yeah,well, what I mean is, that's certainly true. Matt, what I was really thinking, though, is how this is not just something kind of an abstract, intellectual question. Oh, okay, but it's a profound experiential and there's different angles that we might take into it. But I mean, as a kind of snapshot or a test case in our apologetic is, I think there's ways to answer that question that are sterile, that are overly academic, and I and that also, I would say, rushes in to give an answer. And I would want to argue that Christianity doesn't give an answer to evil and suffering, but it gives a response. And let me make, let me explain that, yeah, is, is an answer. Tries in the way I'm using it, at least tries to say, I'm going to solve this kind of intellectual problem, and the problem of evil and suffering in the world, of why a good God who's all powerful would allow the kind of evil and suffering we see in the world is, is one that we might say, Okay, now there's the problem. Now let me give the solution. And this is often done, and we've you maybe have been in this if you're listening into a certain context where a kind of famous apologist says, Here is the answer, or famous Christian celebrity says, Here is the answer to evil, and this solves all the problems, until you start thinking about it a little bit more, or you go home, or three or four years, and you grow out of that answer and and so I think we need to be real careful here when we say we have the answer, because if you keep pushing that question back in time, or you start asking questions like, well, that that bullet that hit Hitler in World War One and didn't kill him? What if the God of the Bible, who seems to control the wind and everything, would have just blown it over and killed Hitler. It seems like maybe it could have been a better possible world if Hitler, you know, didn't lead the Holocaust. Okay, so, so again, I think, I think pretty quickly you begin to say, Okay, well, maybe some of these theodicies Don't actually solve everything, although I would say that some of the theodicies that are given things like free will, theodicy or or the kind of theodicies that say God uses suffering to to grow us and develop us. And I think there's truth in all of that, and there's but what it does. What none of them do is completely solve the problem. And so I think that there's value in those theodicies in some extent.Hey, did you know that you were created to enjoy abundance? I'm not talking about getting the latest pair of Air Jordans or a jet plane or whatever that this world says that you have to have in order to be happy. Instead, I'm talking about an abundant life where you are rich in relationships, you're rich in your finances, but you are rich in life in general, that you are operating in the calling that God has for you, that He created you for amazing things. Did you know that? And so many times we get caught up in paying our mortgage and running hither and yon, that we forget that in this world of distractions that God has created you for glorious and amazing things and abundant life. If you would like to get a free workbook, I put one together for you, and it's called the my new rich life workbook. If you go to my new rich life.com my new rich life.com. I would be glad to send you that workbook with no strings attached, just my gift to you to help you. But here'sthe thing, here's what I want to go back to with a question. Is that the Odyssey as we know it, or this? And what I'm using theodicy for is this, this responsibility that that we feel like we have to justify the ways of God, is a particularly modern phenomenon. I think this is where history comes and helps us. Charles Taylor talks about this in that the kind of way we see theodicy and understand theodicy was really developed in the middle of the 1700s with figures like Leibniz, and then you have particularly the Lisbon earthquakes in the middle of the 18th century. And that was this kind of 911 for that context. And in this 911 moment, you have philosophers being saying, Okay, how do we justify the ways of God? And are trying to do it in a very kind of this philosophical way to solve the problem. But from for most of human history and history of the West, of course, evil and suffering was a problem, but it wasn't a problem so much to be solved, but it was a problem to to cope with and and and live in light of, in other words, what you don't have in the Bible is Job saying, Okay, well, maybe God doesn't exist. Or the psalmist saying, maybe God doesn't exist because I'm experiencing this. No, they're ticked off about it. They're not happy about it. They're struggling to cope with it. It is, it is a problem, but it's not, then therefore a problem. That says, well, then God doesn't exist. Yeah. And it didn't become a widespread kind of objection against God's very existence, until certain things have happened in the kind of modern psyche, the kind of modern way of imagining the world. And here is what's happened. This is what Charles Taylor says. Is that Taylor says what happened is kind of slowly through through different stages in history, but but in some sorry to be gloved here, but it's, it's a very kind of, you know, long argument. But to get to the point is, he says our view of God became small, and our view of humans became really big. And so God just came became kind of a bigger view of version of ourselves. And then we said, oh, if there is a reason for suffering and evil, we should be able to know it, because God's just a bigger kind of version of us, and he has given us rational capacities. And therefore if we can't solve this, then there must not be a god. That's kind of where the logic goes. And of course, if you step into the biblical world, or what I would say a more profoundly Christian way of looking at it is God. God isn't silent, and God has spoken, has given us ways to cope and live with suffering and ways to understand it. But what he what he doesn't give us, is that we're going to he actually promises that, that we're not going to fully understand His ways that, that we're going to have to trust Him, even though we can't fully understand why he does what he does in history all the time. And so this leads into what, what's actually called. There's, this is a, this is a weird name if you're not in this field, but it's called skeptical theism. I'm a skeptical theist. And what skeptical theists Are you is that we're not skeptical about God, but we're skeptical about being able to neatly answer or solve the problem of evil. But we actually don't think that's as big of a deal, because, simply because. I don't understand why God, God's simply because I don't understand God's reasons. Doesn't mean he doesn't have reasons. Yeah, yeah. Andso just beyond your the your finite, uh, temporo spatial understanding of things, right? Like you don't understand how this horrible situation plays out in a grander narrative,right? So it's Stephen wickstra. He had this famous argument. I'll riff off of it a little bit. I mean, just metaphor. He says, if you have a if you have a tent, and we go camping together, Matt and and I open the tent and say, there's a giant dog in there. And you look in there, there's no dog, you would say, Yeah, you're either crazy or a liar. But if I open the tent and say there's tiny bugs in there, and they're called no see ums, you wouldn't, you wouldn't know. You wouldn't be in a position to know. You wouldn't be in an epistemological position to know whether there's a bug in there or not. So you would simply have to decide whether you're going to trust me or not. And then, you know, the claim of the non Christian might be, well, yeah, why would I trust the God given the kind of crap that I see in the world? And I would say, well, a couple reasons. One is most profoundly because God has entered into this world. He has not sat on the sidelines. So even though we don't fully understand it, he has in the person of Jesus Christ, he has suffered with us and for us. So this is a God who says, I haven't given you all the answers, but I have given you myself. And that's I think both has some rational merit to it, and profoundly some intellectual merit to that. I'd also say that the Christian story actually gets at some deep intuitions, kind of underneath this challenge or this problem. It was CS Lewis, who was an atheist in World War One, and and he was very angry at God because of the evil and violence and his his mom dying at an early age, and was an atheist. But then he realized that in his anger against God, that he was assuming a certain standard, a certain kind of moral standard, about how the world should be, that there is evil in the world and that it shouldn't be so, and this deep intuition that it shouldn't be so that certain things aren't right. Actually, you don't have if you do away with God's existence, you just you have your preferences. But in a world of just energy and matter, why would the world not be absurd? Why would you expect things not to be like this. Why would you demand them not to be like this?So a deeply embedded sense of morality that can't be explained by naturalism is what you're getting, yeah?That that we have a certain problem here, or certain challenge with not fully being able to answer the question, yeah, but they have, I would say, a deeper challenge, that they don't have even the kind of categories to make sense of the question. So that's those are some of the directions I would go, and it's first stepping inside and kind of challenging against some of the assumptions. But then I'm as you, as you can tell, then I'm going to say how the Christian story does make sense of these deep intuitions, our moral intuitions, that are underneath the problem, or the challenge of evil and suffering. And then also going to Jesus in the Gospel. And the Gospel story,one of the questions I had on our on the list of questions was, how do we know the Bible is true? But I want to delve into more of this understanding of doubt and how that plays, because you've written a lot on this. But I'd like, could you just direct us to some resources, or some folks, if folks are interested in, how do we know the Bible is true? I'm thinking real popular apologist right now is Wesley. Huff is a great place to go. But are there other like, hey, how do I know that the Bible is true? Because you keep appealing to Christianity, which is in for is the foundation of that is the Bible. So could you give us a few resources so people could chase those down.Peter Williams has written a couple little good books on the Gospels. AndPeter Williams Williams, he's in Cambridge, right, orTyndale house, over there and over the pond. And he's written a book on the Gospels. And I can't think of the name, but if you put it on the internet, it'll show up. And the genius of Jesus as well. Okay, little books, and I think both of those are helpful as far as the Gospels go. Richard, Richard balcom is really good on this, Jesus and the eyewitnesses. As well as a little book that most people haven't heard of. It's a, it's an introduction to the Gospels in that off in an Oxford series, which is, you know, kind of a brief introduction to the Gospels. And he, especially at the very beginning, he gives us John Dixon, who's at Wheaton now, has written a lot of good books on on on this. And it's got this series called skeptics guide to and it does both Old Testament and New Testament kind of stuff. So that little series is, is really helpful. So those are some places I would start. And in my books, I typically have, you know, chapters on this, but I haven't, haven't written, you know, just one book, just on this. The early books, truth matters and truth in a culture of doubt, were, were engaging Bart airman. But really, Bart airman not to pick on on Airmen, but just because he was such a representative of a lot of the the views that that we were hearing, he ended up being a good kind of interlocutor. In those I would just say, I know you didn't. You just asked for books. And let me just say one thing about this is I, I think if you are trying to engage, I think if you take the approach of, let me prove the Bible, let me take everything and just, yeah, I don't think that's the best way. I think you often have to give people some you know, whether it's, you know, the beginning of Luke's Gospel, where he's saying, This is how I went about this. And I actually did my homework to kind of say, this is at least the claim of the gospel writers say, and then, but the real way that you you come to see and know, is you have to step into it and read it. And I think one of the apologetic practices I would want to encourage, or just evangelistic practices, is is offering to read the gospels with people and and working through it. And then certain things come up as you read them, apologetically that you'll, you'll want to chase down and use some of those resources for but I think often it's, it's saying, hey, the claims are, at least that, you know, these guys have done their homework and and some of the work Richard welcome is doing is saying, you know, the Gospel traditions were, were were pinned within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and this. And so that's some of the work that that balcom has helpfully done that kind of help us get off the ground in some of these conversations.Would that be your go to gospel Luke or, like, if you're walking with players, or a go to like,some people say more because of the shortness or John, I I'm happy with them. Allfour should be in the canon. Yeah, no, that's great. And I think a couple other books I'm thinking of Paul Wagner's from text from text to translation, particularly deals with Old Testament translation issues, but then text critical pieces, but then also FF. Bruce's canon of Scripture is a real, solid place to go, if people are interested in those big pieces, but those, I mean, yeah, Richard Bauckham work was really helpful for me when I was like, How do I even know, you know the starting place is a good starting place. So, yeah, thank you for that. Sowhat the challenge is, people have got to make up their mind on Jesus. Yeah. I mean, I think that's where I want to kind of triage conversations and say, Hey, I know the Bible is a big book and there's a lot going on. First things you gotta make a call on. So that's where I'm going to focus on, the Gospels. That'sgreat. No, that's great. Well, you know, a lot of times you, and you've mentioned this earlier, that sometimes in our attempts to give reasons for our faith, we can come to simplistic answers like, Okay, this is, here you go. Here's the manuscript evidence, for example. Or, hey, here's the evidence for the resurrection. Oh, here. You know, this is pain and suffering, Romans, 828, you know, having these quick answers. And I think it stems from a desire to want to have a foundation for what we stand on. But a lot of times, and I think what we're seeing in our culture, and this is not anything new, this topic of deconstruction is not really a new topic is, you know, it's what's been called in the past, apostasy, or just not believing anymore. But now it's gotten a more, you know, kind of sharper edges to it. And and I would love for you to you know how you would respond to someone who is deconstructing from their faith because it didn't allow for doubt or because they were raised in perhaps a really strict Christian home. So how would you respond to somebody who says, I don't I don't like the. Had answers anymore, and I don't, you know, it's just too simplistic, and it doesn't, it's not satisfying. So how would you, because I encounter a lot of folks that are in that vein, the ones who are deconstructing, it's, it's not, you know, there's definitely intellectual arguments, but there's something else in back of that too, I think. So I'd love to hear you just kind of, how would you respond to someone who is deconstructing or has deconstructed in their faith?Yeah, yeah. And of course not. In that situation, my first response it's going to be, tell me more. Let's, let's talk more. I want to hear, I want to hear your story. I want to hear your deconversion story, or where you're at and and to have some real curiosity. Rather than here, let me tell you what your problem is. And let me tellyou, yeah, you just don't want to believe because you got some secret sin or something. Yeah? Oh, goodnessno. I mean, it's right faith, unbelief and doubt is complex, and there's lots of forms of doubt. And we use that word I mean, it has quite the semantic range, and we use in lots of different ways. And of course, the Bible, by no means, is celebrating doubt. The Bible, it's, you know, that we is saying we should have faith. It calls us to faith, not to doubt, but doubt seems to be a couple things to say. We talk about, we talk about ourselves as Christians, as new creations in Christ, but we also recognize that we still sin, we still we still have sinful habits. We're still sinful, and in the same way we we we believe, but we can struggle with doubt, and that's a reality. And it seems to me that that doesn't mean, though, that then we celebrate doubt, as if doubts this great thing, no, but at the same time, we need to be realistic and honest that we do. And there's certain things culturally that have happened, because we now live in a pluralistic world where people seem very sane and rational and and lovely, and they believe radically different things than we do. And just that proximity, Peter Berger, the late sociologist, did a lot of work on this area. This is just it. It creates these kinds of this kind of contestability, because, well, we could imagine even possibly not believing, or kids not believing, in a way that, again, 500 years ago, you know you Luther was wrestling with whether the Roman Catholic Church had everything right, but he wasn't wrestling and doubting the whole the whole thing, yeah, God. So that creates certain pressures that I think we need to be honest about, and but, but with, and part of that honesty, I think, in that kind of conversation to say, Hey, you're not alone and you're not just simply crazy because you're you're raising some of these things because, I mean, that's in many ways, understandable. Yeah, okay, yeah. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's understandable. And I hear what you're saying, and I'm, let's talk about it now. The the kind of metaphor that that I use is to think about Christianity as a house. Of course, that's not my metaphor. I'm I'm borrowing from CS Lewis, who talked about Christianity as a house and in Mere Christianity, Lewis said he wanted to get people through non Christians into the hallway, and so he wanted to get them into the door so that they would and then they could pick up a particular tradition, they could enter a room. But his approach in Mere Christianity was to represent kind of the whole house. And what I think is happening in many cases is that people, now, I'm riffing off of his metaphor, people in the church. People have raised in the church, so they've grew up their whole life in the house, but it's actually in the what I would call the attic. And the attic as as I talk about it is, is in the house. It's, it's a Christian community, but it was, it was many times they're built out of a kind of reactionary posture against culture, without a deep connection to the rest of the house. It's kind of like, Hey, we're scared, and understandably so, the kind of decadent morality, certain shifts happening in the west with Can you giveus a couple examples of what you're thinking like? What would a person living in the attic like? What would their tradition kind of. Look like,yeah. So a couple of things. One in response to, in some cases, in response to the kind of intellectual movements, the kind of sex, secular and, you know, thinking they would say, you know, intellectualism is bad, that would be one response from the attic, like, don't worry about, you know, thinking. Just believe your problem is you're just thinking too much. So that would be one response, a kind of anti intellectualism. The other response is what I would call a kind of, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I would call it a kind of quasi intellectual that, and that sounds harsh that I say what kind of mood I'm in, but a kind of quasi intellectual response, which is like, Oh, you want arguments. You want evidence. We'll give you two plus two equals equals God, and we'll kind of match, you know, fire with fire, and we can prove God's existence. And oftentimes, those kinds of apologetic reactions, I would call them, sometimes they're kind of quasi intellectual, because I don't think that's how the kind of bit we come to the big decisions. I don't think it's rational enough about a rationality about kind of what type of humans we are, and how we come to the big decisions and the big truths and and so I think that's one response, and that's why you have a kind of industry of apologetics sometimes. And the way they do it, I'm not saying in some ways it can be helpful, but in other ways, it can cause problems down down the road, and we've seen that at least, like, for instance, with the evil and suffering kind of conversation we were having before. If people say, actually, those arguments actually don't make, don't fully do what they were. We you claim too much for your arguments. Let's just say, like that. Okay, so that's one kind of, so there's a there's a kinds of, well, Christianity, in that side can kind of become this kind of intellectual, sterile work where you're just kind of trying to prove God, rather than this, than this way of life, where does worship come in? Where does devotion come in? What is And so very quickly it becomes, you know, this intellectual game, rather than communion with the living God. And so the emphasis understandably goes a certain way, but I would say understandably wrong goes a certain way, and that argument should be part of this deeper life of faith that we live and so we again, I'm wanting to say the motives aren't necessarily, aren't wrong, but where we get off because we're too reactionary, can go off. Let me give you one other ones. And I would say, like the purity culture would be another kind of side of this where we see a morally decadent culture of sexuality, and we want to respond to that we we don't want our kids to grow up believing those lies. Yeah, as as a friend of mine says, you know that the sexual revolution was actually and is actually bad for women, and we need to say that. We need to say that to people in the church, absolutely. But in response to that, then we create what, what has been called a purity culture, which, which has, has kind of poured a lot of guilt and have made have over promised again, if you just do this, you'll have a wonderful life and a wonderful marriage if you just do this, and then if you mess up, oh, you've, you've committed this unpardonable sin, almost. And so there's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly young women and then, and then over promising and so all of this,can people see that the House of Cards is coming down because they're like, Yeah, my marriage is horrible.It creates this pressure, right where you have to. You have to think a certain way. You have to behave this very kind of way. It's reaction to want to protect them. So again, I'm saying, Yes, I understand the reactions, yeah, and, but, but, and this is, I think, a key part of this, because it's not connected well to the rest of the house. It often reacts, rather than reflected deeply on the tradition and helps fit your way, the centrality of the Gospel, the centrality of what's always been, Christian teaching and coming back to the main things, rather than kind of reacting to culture because we're nervous, and doing it in such a way that, you know, well, people will begin to say, That's what Christianity is about. Christianity is really about, you know, your politics, because that's all my pastor is talking about, interesting, you know, and this is all they're talking about. So that becomes the center,even though the ethic is is, is, becomes the. Center, as opposed to the the philosophy and theology guiding the ethic, is that, would that be another way to put it, like how you live, become, becomes preeminent to, you know, wrestling with doubt and and trying to bring God into the space of your doubt and that kind of stuff is, that, is that?Yeah, I mean, so that, I think one of the things that the the early creeds help us to do is it helps us to keep the main thing. The main thing, it helps us to keep, rather than saying, well, because culture is talking about this, we're going to, you know, kind of in our churches, this becomes the main thing, is reacting or responding, maybe, whether it's with the culture and certain movements or against the culture, yeah. But if you're anchored to the kind of the ancient wisdom of the past you're you do have, you are at times, of course, going to respond to what's going on culturally, yeah, but it's always grounded to the center, and what's always been the center, yeah? And I think so when you're in a community like this, like this, the pressure of, I've gotta think rightly. I've gotta check every box here, yes, and oh, and I've, I've been told that there is proofs, and I just need to think harder. I just, you know, even believe more, even Yeah, if I just, if I just think harder, then I'll eliminate my doubt, but my doubts not being eliminated. So either I'm stupid or maybe there's a problem with the evidence, because it's not eliminating all my doubt, but this creates this kind of melting pot of anxiety for a lot of people as their own Reddit threads and their Oh, and then this, trying to figure all this out, and they're Googling all these answers, and then the slow drip, oh, well, to be honest, sometimes the massive outpouring of church scandal is poured into this, yeah. And it just creates a lot of anxiety amongst young people, and eventually they say, I'm just going to jump out of the attic, you know, because it looks pretty freeing and it looks like a pretty good way of life out there. And what, what I say to people is two things. Number one, rather than simply jumping out, first look what you're about to jump into, because you have to live somewhere, and outside the attic, you're not just jumping into kind of neutrality, you're jumping into cultural spaces and assumptions and belief. And so let's, let's just be just as critical as, yeah, the attic or house as you are will be mean, be just as critical with those spaces as you have been with the attic. So you need to explore those. But also, I'm wanting to give them a framework to understand that actually a lot of the ways that you've kind of grown up is actually been in this attic. Why don't you come downstairs, and if you're going to leave the house, explore the main floor first.And what would be the main floor? What would you say? The main floor?Yeah. I would say themain orthodox historic Christianity, like, yeah. Orthodox historic Christianity, Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, just kind of go into the Yeah. And whatI would say is, for instance, the apostle creed gives us kind of what I would call load bearing walls in the house. So it gives us the places where you don't mess like load bearing walls. You don't you don't knock those down if you're going to do a remodel, and, and, and. So you would recognize the difference between load bearing walls, walls that are central versus actual different rooms in the house, and how? Well, these aren't load bearing walls, but they're, they're, they're, they're how certain people in Christian communities, churches at particular times, have articulated it and and some of these, you could deny certain things, but you could, but those are more denominational battle lines, rather than the kind of load bearing things that you if you pull out the resurrection of Jesus, if you pull out the the deity of Christ and the full humanity of Christ, If you pull out the Trinity. So let's go back to the core. And if you're going to reject, if you're going to leave, leave on the basis of those core things, not okay. I've had these bad experiences in the church now, yeah, what I think this to kind of wrap this up on this is what often happens, or what can happen if someone says, Well, yeah, I've done that, and I still don't, I don't believe Okay, yep, that's going to happen. Yep. But one of the things I suggest, in at least some cases, is that the addict has screwed people up more than they realize, and that the way that they approach. Approach the foundation and the the main floor, it's still in attic categories, as in, to go back to our first question, well, I can't prove this, yeah. And I was always told that I should be able to prove it. Well, that's not how this works, yeah. And so they they reject Christianity on certain enlightenment terms, but they don't reject Christianity as Christianity really is. So people are going to interact with Christianity, I would say sometimes your people are investigating, say the resurrection, and reflecting more on on these central claims, but they're still doing it as if, if it doesn't reach kind of 100% certainty that I can't believe. And that's just not how this works.Yeah, that's, that's food for thought, because there, there's so many people that I interact with that I try to encourage. Like, yeah, your experience was really bad, like I'm affirming that, and that was messed up. That's not That's not Christianity, that is a branch on this massive tree trunk that stinks and that needs to be lamented and grieved and also called out as wrong. So I'm using another metaphor of a tree instead. But I love the because the house metaphor is something that you use in the telling a better story. Isn't that surprised bydoubt? Surprised by doubt? Yes, that's that's what we use, and we march through things, and we use that as, really our guiding metaphor through all the chapters. And that's what I would encourage if you're if you have somebody who's struggling with this, or you're struggling with this yourself, that's That's why a friend of mine, Jack Carson, that's why we wrote the book together, because obviously this is a we had a lot of friends and acquaintances and people who were coming to us and we weren't fully satisfied with all of the kind of works, yeah, that were responding and so this, this was our attempt to try to helppeople. Well, the book right after that was, is telling a better story. And one of the things I've really appreciated in your emphasis over the last few years has been, I would call a more humane apology, apologetic in that, you know, not giving into, okay, we're gonna give you want evidence. We're gonna give you evidence, as opposed to like, okay, let's just talk about being a huma

In this episode, Francie Cornes asks Tony Watkins and Peter Williams about the book of Jonah. Jonah is an unusual prophetic book because it is mostly narrative and has a very small amount of text where Jonah is actually proclaiming God's word. In this episode, Tony and Peter share some insights into chapter 1, and in the following episode they will look at chapters 2–4. Find out more about the host and guests here: Tony Watkins: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/tony-watkins/Peter Williams: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/peter-j-williams/Francie Cornes: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/francie-cornes/Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

It's seven years since Sir Bill English left politics but the former Prime Minister and long serving Finance Minister is still a keen follower of the political landscape and how the economic outlook for the country can be improved.In conversation with Peter Williams for the latest Taxpayer Talk podcast, Sir Bill maintains that the political battle over National Superannuation has been won and governments will have to pay a universal pension  to every senior citizen for the foreseeable future. But as he did when in government, Sir Bill believes that the age of eligibility must be raised from 65. He also has some harsh words on the performance of public servants and notes that many government organisations should be much better managed.A politician for nearly 30 years, Sir Bill now has the luxury of watching government from the sidelines and much of what he sees really frustrates him.Support the show

Podcast: https://www.buzzsprout.com/354059/episodes/17306392-08-06-25-ruth-part-4-peter-williams.mp3Peter continued our series on Ruth. Peter's notes (in PDF format): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R-wxKjMGqopjfPNI6QgX7nXtVKQzzlM8/view?usp=drive_link Peter's slides (in PDF format): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nue4Oad9rgWyJGy4qzCCzWUZ1URcxG8p/view?usp=drive_link3 questions for you Is Jesus asking for you to come to Him for redemption? Come and lie at His feet.You don't do anything to be redeemed, the price is paid for you.You just need to ask…..Is Jesus threshing you?Had Jesus got you on the threshing floor. Breaking off the unnecessary bits, that impede the best flavour for your life?Do you feel like you are tossed in the wind?Jesus is getting you to be pure, like He wants you to be. Transformation can be hard and sore.Do you need to trust in His provision for you?You might feel lost, with nothing left. If so, are you now listening to Him?Will you now trust Him to rescue you, and provide for you?Let Him be your full kinsman redeemer 

As we return to our series on ‘How do we read the Prophets?', Francie Cornes asks Tony Watkins and Peter Williams about the book of Amos. Tony and Peter share insights into the historical context and structure of the book, as well as talking about what it meant for its original hearers and for us reading it today.Find out more about the host and guests here: Tony Watkins: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/tony-watkins/Peter Williams: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/peter-j-williams/Francie Cornes: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/francie-cornes/Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

This week we have the privilege of having Peter Williams preaching for us. He will be preaching from Romans 14. Join us on Sunday at 10am.

This is part two of Peter Williams's interview with Dr Tom C. Schmidt about his new book, 'Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One they Call Christ'. In this second episode they discuss whether Josephus could have known people who were present at Jesus's trial. In the first episode, they tackled the question of whether Josephus's writing about Jesus was edited by Christians to sound more like the biblical account, or whether it could in fact have been written by Josephus (you can catch up on the previous episode wherever you get your podcasts from or watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn1P0krloq0).  Tom's book has been published online for free: https://academic.oup.com/book/60034 It will also be available in print from 3rd June 2025. You can find out more on Tom's website at josephusandjesus.com/Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

Peter Williams interviews Dr Tom C. Schmidt about his new book, 'Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One they Call Christ'. In this episode they tackle the question of whether Josephus's writing about Jesus was edited by Christians to sound more like the biblical account, or whether it could in fact have been written by Josephus. In next week's episode they will discuss whether Josephus could have known people who were present at Jesus's trial. Tom's book has been published online for free: https://academic.oup.com/book/60034It will also be available in print from 3rd June 2025.You can find out more on Tom's website at josephusandjesus.com/Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

“The rainy day has come. We believe it is crucial that the Government cut debt now.” Those words from Taxpayer's Union researcher Levi Gibbs talking about his new paper “A Path to Surplus” released just a few days before Budget 2025.Levi Gibbs joined host Peter Williams on a special edition of the Taxpayer Talk podcast to discuss the in-depth paper which analyses both the debt and the annual budget deficit, and offers solutions to reduce both.Support the show

In the second half of this two-part episode, Tony Watkins and Peter Williams dig into the text of Micah chapter 6 to see what it is actually saying and what it means for us today.Find out more about the host and guests here: Tony Watkins: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/tony-watkins/Peter Williams: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/peter-j-williams/Francie Cornes: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/francie-cornes/Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

This week Peter Williams is joined by social media sensation, David Baker, from Rapid QS. David is a quantity surveyor by trade, specialising in pricing residential buildings—and has spent the last year blowing the whistle on why so many public housing and infrastructure projects cost so much.But price is just the start—David also raising growing concern with agencies being unable to explain why the costs are so high, and has stated a wide-ranging social media campaign to expose these costs and inefficiencies within the industry.Support the show

In the first half of this two-part episode, Tony Watkins and Peter Williams begin walking us through the book of Micah, showing how to apply their top tips for reading prophetic books in the Bible.Find out more about the host and guests here: Tony Watkins: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/tony-watkins/Peter Williams: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/peter-j-williams/Francie Cornes: https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/francie-cornes/Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

In this deeply personal and uplifting episode of The Afterlight Podcast with Lauren Grace, Lauren reconnects with psychic medium and spiritual mentor Michelle Price for a heart-to-heart conversation on trusting the universe, navigating change, and honouring intuition. Together, they reflect on the pivotal moment five years ago when they were both made redundant from their radio jobs—a turning point that led them to embrace their spiritual callings. Michelle shares how that leap of faith sparked her journey as a lightworker and intuitive guide, while Lauren followed the path of creating a spiritually driven podcast. The conversation flows through themes of forgiveness, quantum healing, psychic readings, decision-making tools, and signs from the spirit world. Michelle opens up about her experiences with Reiki Ashati, working with clients on fertility timing, and her development as a platform medium with mentor Peter Williams. They also touch on the subtle power of energy, prayer, and intention in everyday life—from calming difficult situations to enhancing communication with loved ones (living and passed). This episode is a gentle reminder that even in uncertain times, the universe always has a plan—and learning to trust it can lead to incredible growth. ----more----   Welcome to The Afterlight Podcast with Lauren Grace, a spiritual podcast full of stories and conversations that prove we're never alone. Lauren Grace, host of The Afterlight Podcast, is a high-impact coach and medium dedicated to helping professionals deepen their connection to their soul so they can experience more freedom, fulfillment, and purpose.   Connect with Lauren Grace, Lauren Grace Inspirations: Lauren on Social @LaurenGraceInspirations Website: https://laurengraceinspirations.com Want to work with Lauren? Book a Free Discovery Call with Lauren: https://laurengraceinspirations.com Free Offers: https://laurengraceinspirations.com/freeoffers   The Afterlight Podcast:  The Afterlight Podcast on Social @theafterlightpodcast To be a guest, apply here: www.theafterlightpodcast.com Sign up for our newsletter: https://laurengraceinspirations.com/contact   Meet Michelle Michelle R Price, the Lightworker has been connected to the spirit world for as long as she can remember. Deeply passionate about all things spiritual, she specializes in Angel Card and Intuitive Readings, and also offers Mediumship, Past Life Connections and Mentorship. Michelle has a natural ability to get to the heart of her clients' concerns and is known for delivering powerful confirmations from spirit when a connection is made. As a Pranic Energy Healer, Michelle is often guided to pick up on health concerns—or positive changes—that spirit wants her clients to be aware of. Her readings are not only insightful, but also empowering, helping people understand the shifts they need to make in order to live their best lives. What Michelle loves most about her work is witnessing the emotion and recognition on her clients' faces when something deeply personal is touched on—those moments of truth, healing, and clarity. Connect with Michelle on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/michellerprice76/

In this episode, Dr Peter J. Williams, Principal of Tyndale House, walks us through the history of Tyndale House. Starting with the initial conversations about creating an institution for evangelical biblical scholarship that took place in the late 1930s, through to the new library building project starting in 2025. Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

Sunday Morning, March 2, 2025Given by Dr. Peter Williams | CEO of Tyndale HouseSuffering to Spread the Word: Remembering William TyndaleSermon Text: 1 Timothy 2:1-19Watch on YouTubeDownload our mobile app

Sunday Evening, March 2, 2025Given by Dr. Peter Williams | CEO of Tyndale HouseHow Word-Centered Bible Translation Can Aid MissionSermon Text: Matthew 4:4Watch on YouTubeDownload our mobile app

KFI White House correspondent Jon Decker joins Bill to talk about Trump's trip to California. Gov. Newsom signs $2.5BIL bipartisan relief package to help Los Angeles recover and rebuild faster. Award-winning documentary film maker Peter Williams joins the show to discuss his latest documentary on World War II poets.  

Join me as I sit down with Peter Williams from Peter Williams Reptiles to dive into the world of hybrid snakes, ball pythons, and more! Peter shares his insights, experiences, and the innovative projects he's working on with these incredible species. From the challenges of hybridization to the future of reptile breeding, this conversation is packed with expert knowledge and unique perspectives. If you're passionate about reptiles or curious about the cutting-edge of snake breeding, this is an episode you can't afford to miss. Make sure to like, subscribe, and let us know your thoughts in the comments! #ReptileBusiness #HerpCollectorsNetwork #BallPythonBreeding #ReptileCommunity #Herpetology #ReptileKeeper #BreederSpotlight #ClutchConversations #ReptileLife #FutureOfReptiles #MatsuMorphs A special thanks to our amazing sponsors for supporting the Clutch Conversations podcast! Show your appreciation by following them on social media and exploring their offerings – doing so helps keep our show thriving. Check the links below to connect with our sponsors! Follow Herp Collectors everywhere!! https://linktr.ee/herpcollectors Double Clutch Patreon patreon.com/DoubleClutchPodCast Ancestral Royal Pythons https://linktr.ee/ancestralroyalpythons https://youtu.be/YJ7Ex8K3po8 Armless Angels https://linktr.ee/armlessangels https://youtu.be/x1XNFH2a3gw Ebony & Ivory Reptiles https://ebony-ivory-reptiles.square.site/ https://youtu.be/k5mCThcR3Xk Grey Rider Reptiles https://www.shedtesting.com https://linktr.ee/greyrider https://youtu.be/v62TWdVdbzw KINOVA https://linktr.ee/kinovareptiles https://www.instagram.com/jkobylka/ Redline Shipping https://www.instagram.com/redlineshipping/ Wetter Morphs Constrictors https://www.instagram.com/wettermorph_constrictors/ https://youtu.be/G_cOBX627iY Follow our guest everywhere!! https://www.instagram.com/peterwilliamsreptiles/ Please support USARK & USARK FL!!! https://usark.org/memberships/ https://usarkfl.wildapricot.org/ Ancestral Royal Pythons Ad Music: "Erykah Badu/Kendrick Lamar type Beat (Change Your Mind)" Produced by Tony Sway Want to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: https://streamyard.com/pal/d/6019263222775808

Join us today to hear an introduction to the historical and theological reliability of the Gospels for skeptics, scholars—and everybody in between. Peter Williams will address how the accounts were handed down throughout history and will discuss objections like they're historical fiction, were imposed on the early church by a council, or were simply created to fit existing messianic prophecies. Come and learn how to ‘contend’ for the faith.Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partnersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hi there, fashion enthusiasts! This is David M. Watts, and welcome back to another exciting episode of "Just A Fashion Minute." Today, we have a truly exceptional show lined up for you. I'm thrilled to introduce our incredibly insightful guest, Peter Williams, the visionary founder of Jack Wills and the newly launched Aubin and Wills. Peter's career journey is nothing short of fascinating, and I can't wait for you to hear all about it.On this episode, you'll hear Peter candidly discuss the evolution of menswear, touching on the rarity of colourful options in the UK and how his brand has creatively integrated those vibrant pops. He shares a thought-provoking perspective on why men often stick to the safety of blue and how that's influenced his design choices.But it doesn't stop there. We'll delve into the challenges independent fashion brands face in this mega-corporation-dominated industry. Peter offers invaluable advice on building a successful business, the importance of a clear brand narrative, and the vital role of a skilled and reliable team.One of my favourite parts is when Peter recounts his journey as an entrepreneur, marked by both failures and triumphs. From an economics and strategy consultant to a fashion mogul, his story is a testament to the power of perseverance and self-belief.What's new? As always, we have our "Just A Fashion Minute News Round Up" to keep you updated on the latest in the fashion world. You won't want to miss the exciting collaborations and notable changes happening among top designers and brands.So, sit back, relax, and enjoy this insightful conversation. And hey, don't forget to subscribe to "Just A Fashion Minute" on your podcasting app of choice. That way, you'll never miss an episode brimming with insider fashion knowledge and inspiration. Happy listening!Timestamps & Topics00:00 - Introduction and Just A Fashion Minute News Round Up05:46 - Peter's unconventional route into the fashion industry: Peter discusses his background in economics and strategy consulting before starting Jack Wills.07:11 - The genesis of Jack Wills: Peter explains how his "23-year-old midlife crisis" led to the creation of Jack Wills, inspired by the spirit of youth and British heritage.14:08 - The importance of experiences in shaping career paths: Peter shares how his time at an American boarding school influenced the creation of Jack Wills.17:16 - The creation of Aubin and Wills: Peter explains the business model behind Aubin and Wills as a brand for Jack Wills customers who had grown up.20:19 - Innovative marketing strategies: Peter discusses creative ways of marketing Jack Wills, including reaching out to head boys and girls of private schools.25:43 - The future of independent fashion brands: Peter shares his thoughts on competing with mega-corporations in the fashion landscape.32:55 - Advice for young fashion brands: Peter encourages aspiring entrepreneurs to take risks and start their businesses while young.35:47 - Quickfire questions: Peter discusses embarrassing fashion moments, favourite retailers, and his look of the day.Guest BioPeter Williams is a pioneering British fashion entrepreneur known for founding two successful retail brands. As the creator of Jack Wills in 1999, he transformed a small startup into a significant fashion business with international reach, including stores across Asia, the Middle East, and the United States. Williams launched the brand at age 23 after leaving a career in strategy consulting, driven by what he calls his "23-year-old midlife crisis." His entrepreneurial vision was shaped by his experiences at Salisbury School in Connecticut during his gap year, where he was immersed in American prep culture that would later influence his brand aesthetic. Under his leadership, Jack Wills grew to become a notable British fashion...

Why didn't Jesus write anything down himself? How many languages did Jesus speak? Jesus was a master storyteller, what can we learn from how Jesus taught and connected with different audiences? In this fascinating interview, Jonathan Morrow interviews Cambridge scholar Dr. Peter Williams on the profound creativity and wisdom of Jesus including how the story of the prodigal son illuminates Jesus's genius.In The Surprising Genius of Jesus, Peter J. Williams examines the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15 to show the genius, creativity, and wisdom of Jesus's teachings. He used simple but powerful stories to confront the Pharisees and scribes of the day, drawing on his knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures to teach his audience through complex layers and themes. Williams challenges those who question whether Jesus really was the source of the parables recorded in the Gospels, pointing readers to the truth of who Jesus is and why that matters for them today. About Peter WilliamsPeter J. Williams (PhD, University of Cambridge) is the principal of Tyndale House, Cambridge, the chair of the International Greek New Testament Project, and a member of the ESV Translation Oversight Committee. He is the author of Can We Trust the Gospels? and Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels.Get a copy of the book

Is the Nativity a true story? Why are there differences between Matthew and Luke's accounts of Jesus's birth? Was Luke historically correct when he wrote about the census? What was the star and is it even possible for the wise men to have followed it? What year was Jesus actually born? Peter Williams answers all these questions and more in this special Christmas podcast episode. Visit our Christmas resources page on our website for further reading on this topic: tyndalehouse.com/christmasSupport the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

On this episode, Shane talks with Peter J. Williams about his book, The Surprising Genius of Jesus, which primarily focuses on the parables of Luke 15. Shane discussed some of these parables on episode 43 earlier this year, but the insights provided by Williams merit a brand new investigation. In short, the more we notice Jesus' subtle allusions to the Old Testament, the more we'll understand his teaching and begin to appreciate the depth of his genius. Toward the end of the conversation, the two also discuss questions related to the date of John's Gospel in light of recent trends among New Testament scholars who are currently reassessing the late date hypothesis.SHOW NOTESBooksThe Surprising Genius of Jesus, Peter J. WilliamsCan We Trust The Gospels? Peter J. WilliamsRedating the New Testament, John A.T. RobinsonThe Priority of John, John A.T. RobinsonRethinking the Dates of the New Testament, Jonathan BernierRedating Matthew, Mark & Luke, John WenhamJesus & The Eyewitnesses, Richard BauckhamThe Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, Richard BauckhamArticlesWas Jesus a Genius? Peter J. WilliamsFinding Christ in All of Scripture, Shane RosenthalParadigm Shift on The Date of John's Gospel? Shane RosenthalWas John The First Gospel? Ian PaulJohn 5:2 & The Date of The Fourth Gospel, Daniel WallaceWhy Are The Birth Stories of Jesus Different? Peter J. WilliamsAuthenticating The Fourth Gospel, Shane RosenthalWater Into Wine? Shane RosenthalThe Identity of the Beloved Disciple, Shane RosenthalJohn 5:2 “There is in Jerusalem…”, Shane Rosenthal & othersVideo & AudioThe Surprising Genius of Jesus, Peter Williams (video)Do The Gospels Tell the Same Story?, Peter Williams (video)Can the Old Testament Be Trusted Historically? Peter Williams (video)How to Read & Apply the Old Testament, WHI #1568 with Ian DuguidThe Gospel in Genesis, a WHI series hosted by Shane RosenthalRethinking Jesus' Parables, Humble Skeptic #43 with Scott ChurnockIs John Late & Unreliable? Humble Skeptic #51 with Daniel WallaceFor More Info About Peter Williams & Tyndale HousePeter Williams is the principal of Tyndale House, which is a Cambridge-based research institute housing one of the world's most advanced libraries for biblical scholarship. You can find them online at tyndalehouse.com.We Need Your Help!Donations to The Humble Skeptic podcast are tax-deductible. To make a one-time donation or set up recurring monthly gifts, click here. Another way to support us is by upgrading to a paid subscription via Substack. Subscriptions begin at $5.95 per month or $59 per year (this option is not tax-deductible). Another way to help is to spread the word about The Humble Skeptic podcast! Thanks for your help, and Happy Thanksgiving! Get full access to The Humble Skeptic at www.humbleskeptic.com/subscribe

Gravity Credit Management proudly sponsors the Working Group. For more information on Gravity click the link.  Kia Ora Aotearoa! Welcome to The Working Group, New Zealand's top political podcast not funded by NZ on Air. I'm your host, Martyn Bradbury, editor of The Daily Blog. Joining me tonight: Damien Grant - libertarian liquidator and Cthulhu of Capitalism. David Parker - Former Minister of just about everything and Labour MP Peter Williams - Taxpayers Union Sergeant-at-arms and sometimes Reality Check Radio Host Tonight's Issues: Hīkoi Politics, the Treaty Principles Bill and the latest foreshore and seabed confiscation legislation Should Gerry Brownlee be sacked as Speaker for barring Investigative journalist Aaron Smale?  US Election result -Trump uses the UNDERmensch to empower the UBERmensch. Welcome to The Working Group, jump on in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TEXT: Working to 3598  Check out the Social Media - https://bento.me/theworkinggroup

In this episode, Peter Williams, Principal of Tyndale House, explains how names can help us to assess the historical reliability of the Gospels. By looking at name records we can see what the most popular names were outside of the Gospels at the same time and place. Peter then compares these with the names we see in the Gospels to see whether they line up. He and Tony also discuss Jesus calling himself ‘The Son of Man' and what we should make of that.Edited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Support the show

When one Portland dad couldn't find a high-quality truck camper for family adventures, he decided to build his own. Peter Williams, co-founder and president of Super Pacific, shares what his company's "built like an airplane" mantra means for their production process and discusses the challenges of building the business during the pandemic and how domestic manufacturing creates innovative, high-quality goods that stand up to global competition. Photo courtesy Super Pacific

Jesus was so many things, but a genius? This is a neglected attribute. Jesus was the most brilliant teacher to ever walk the earth. In his new book, The Surprising Genius of Jesus, Peter Williams makes the case that Jesus was not just wise, he was also a genius. Cole sits down with Peter to discuss the new book and the teachings of Jesus. 

Silvana and Tegan watch Season 5, Episode 2 "Threshold". Silvana questions if Bae'tac has a life insurance policy out on Teal'c after this episode. Tegan does not recommend candles around oxygen tanks. Just a PSA for our lovely listeners.  How does no one at the SG-C know Lord of the Rings well enough to recognize the name Va'lar? As usual, the ladies ask the hard hitting questions.  Join the discussion or check out our season rankings on our Linktree. We will be returning October 14 with our next episode!

Silvana and Tegan watch Season 5, Episode 1 "Enemies". This is the second part of a three parter, that the ladies are not fans of.  Silvana and Tegan brainstorm some better storylines where the main drive of the plot isn't Teal'c being brainwashed. This episode gets the highest marks yet for technical quality.  Thanks to Prop Nquity for the email! Check out "Pod Meets World" if you're a "Boy Meets World" fan.  Join our discussion on the socials.     

Kara is back this week with the second part of her incredible conversation with spiritual and conscious living leader, speaker and mentor Peter Williams. This week, they sprinkle in some "soul sugar," talk about living your Dharma, and discuss how anyone can tap into energy in their own unique way. You can learn more about Peter at ⁠⁠www.peterwilliamsinnapowa.com⁠⁠. For free tools and resources about releasing what no longer serves you, raising your vibe and receiving intuitive guidance, check out this link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠karmicleader.com/resources⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Or you can book a 1:1 reading with Kara at this link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Karmicleader.com/medium⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

The SKATCAST Network presents:The Dipsh*t Files #112 with the Script KeepersToday's Show:This week Mrs. Script Keeper takes us through a tale of time travel and multidimensional hoohah while Mr. Script Keeper teaches us about some of the popular songs of 1974. It gets sing-songy but it's an interesting one.Have an excellent day in whatever dimension you happen to be dwelling within currently.Visit us for more episodes of SKATCAST and other shows like SKATCAST presents The Dave & Angus Show plus BONUS material at https://www.skatcast.com Watch select shows and shorts on YouTube: bit.ly/34kxCneJoin the conversation on Discord! https://discord.gg/mVFf2brAaFFor all show related questions: info@skatcast.comPlease rate and subscribe on iTunes and elsewhere and follow SKATCAST on social media!! Instagram: @theescriptkeeper Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/scriptkeepersATWanna become a Patron? Click here: https://www.patreon.com/SkatcastSign up through Patreon and you'll get Exclusive Content, Behind The Scenes video, special downloads and more! Prefer to make a donation instead? You can do that through our PayPal: https://paypal.me/skatcastpodcast Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Globally renown spiritual and conscious living leader, speaker and mentor Peter Williams joins Kara this week on the podcast! Peter is also the host of his own podcast, The Inna Powa Podcast, and author of the book "Searching Spirit." This was a super fun one – so fun that we had to break it into two parts! So join us for Part 1 of this wide-ranging conversation on all things energy and intuition, and stay tuned for Part 2 next week. You can learn more about Peter at ⁠www.peterwilliamsinnapowa.com⁠. For free tools and resources about releasing what no longer serves you, raising your vibe and receiving intuitive guidance, check out this link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠karmicleader.com/resources⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Or you can book a 1:1 reading with me at this link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Karmicleader.com/medium⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

BRIXMIS and its operations behind enemy lines continue to fascinate the listeners of Cold War Conversations. In August 2024 I was honoured to be invited to the National Army Museum in London to interview Andrew Long, the author of BRIXMIS and the Secret Cold War - Intelligence Collecting Operations Behind Enemy Lines in East Germany. The National Army Museum is a leading authority on the British Army and its impact on society past and present. It's well worth a visit, particularly their Foe to Friend exhibition about the British Army in Germany since 1945 which is on until the end of September 2024. In front of a sellout audience including approximately 50 BRIXMIS veterans and their families, we discuss the role, purpose and achievements of BRIXMIS. The accompanying presentation can be viewed here. The interview starts with an introduction from former BRIXMIS officer Major General Peter Williams and Chairman of the BRIXMIS Association. I'm delighted to welcome Peter Williams, Andrew Long and a sellout audience at the National Army Museum to our Cold War Conversation. Buy the book and support the podcast https://uk.bookshop.org/a/1549/9781399067843 Linked episodes BRIXMIS, the defence of Cold War Berlin & Rudolf Hess https://pod.fo/e/f833 Pete – a BRIXMIS driver behind enemy lines in East Germany https://pod.fo/e/eeb4c Arrested 11 times, plus 3 shooting incidents – a BRIXMIS officer's diary Pt 1 https://pod.fo/e/13af96 Imprisoned in a Soviet Military gaol - a BRIXMIS officer's diary Pt 2 https://pod.fo/e/13ca90 In conversation with 7 BRIXMIS veterans – Part 1 https://pod.fo/e/1599d9 In conversation with 7 BRIXMIS veterans – Part 2 https://pod.fo/e/15b0ac Royal Military Police versus the Soviets (SOXMIS) in Cold War West Germany https://pod.fo/e/12c9d6 Behind enemy lines in East Germany with a US Military Liaison Mission driver Part 1 https://pod.fo/e/d4229 Behind enemy lines in East Germany with a US Military Liaison Mission driver Part 2 https://pod.fo/e/d757b Soviet and U.S. Military Liaison Missions & US Counterintelligence https://pod.fo/e/e4f55 Cold War US Army Intelligence Analyst https://pod.fo/e/1f383 US Army Intelligence gathering in the unified Germany https://pod.fo/e/b2cb3 Episode extras https://coldwarconversations.com/episode362/ The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, We also welcome one-off donations via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to https://coldwarconversations.com/store/ Support the project! https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/ Youtube https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations Love history? Join Intohistory https://intohistory.com/coldwarpod 00:00 Introduction 12:06 Post war Germany was split into four occupation zones 16:35 BRIXMIS offices in Berlin and East Germany 21:06 Contacts between Soviets and British 23:27 The tour role in  East Germany 30:16 Exploiting intelligence from Soviet rubbish tips 32:15 Restricted areas in East Germany 35:55 Missions and intelligence scoops 40:04 Descriptions of special equipment 42:05 BRIXMIS Cars 44:01 James Bond switches 47:59 Photography   50:36 Overnighting in East Germany 53:25 There East German and Soviet opposition 56:58 Close scrapes and fatalities 01:02 Where to buy the book Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, we explore how Christians can respond to claims that Christianity is “anti-intellectual.” The trustworthiness of the Gospels and the “surprising genius” found in the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels show that any such claims are unwarranted. This episode is intended to equip you to have confidence in the scriptures and in how to respond to skepticisms and challenges that come your way. Listen in as Josh Preston, George Robertson, and special guest Dr. Peter Williams, Bible Researcher and CEO of Tyndale House Cambridge (the world’s foremost evangelical bible research institute) discuss ideas from two of Dr. Williams' most recent books: The Surprising Genius of Jesus and Can We Trust the Gospels?

Biblical Studies and Today's Pastor with Peter WilliamsFor more articles, books, and podcasts, please visit 9marks.org

Peter Williams is a managing director of macroeconomic research at 22V Research and was formerly at the IMF and the World Bank. Peter joins David on Macro Musings to provide a market perspective on interest rates, Treasury markets, and monetary policy. Specifically, David and Peter discuss the dos and don'ts of estimating term premiums, the importance and future of R-star, the usefulness of inflation expectations, and a lot more.   Transcript for this week's episode.   Peter's LinkedIn profile Peter's 22V bio   David Beckworth's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Follow us on Twitter: @Macro_Musings   Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch!   Related Links:   *A Macroeconomic Approach to the Term Premium* by Emanuel Kopp and Peter Williams   *Reading the Stars* by Peter Williams, Yasser Abdih, and Emanuel Kopp   *Inflation Expectations in the U.S.: Linking Markets, Households, and Businesses* by Peter Williams