Podcasts about PS

If you've listened to Keeping It Young for long, you've probably heard Dave refer to the "family altar" but what exactly does he mean when he says that? The next few episodes will explain exactly what he means! In this episode, you heard Dave and Bethlie reference a past episode on Deuteronomy 6. Here is the link to part 1 of that 7 episode series. Here are the notes from today's episode. The Family Altar What is a family altar? The family altar refers to the way a Christian family regularly prays together. It is different than grace at a table. It is a daily time that frequently includes Scripture combined with prayers The family altar is: A family altar is a designated space or time in a home dedicated to religious or spiritual practices, often involving prayer, worship, and study of sacred texts. It serves as a focal point for family devotions, fostering a sense of unity, spiritual growth, and connection to faith. The specific elements and practices associated with a family altar can vary greatly depending on the family's religious or spiritual tradition.  An “on purpose way” for a family to regularly learn spiritual truth and traditions The family altar — a designated time and place at home where the family comes together to pray, worship and experience the living God — is like a firewall against Satan's schemes. Show me a family altar, and I will show you an atmosphere of faith and a house where God's presence resides.-Samuel Rodriquez, Influence Magazine The term “family altar” speaks to a time when the leader of the home gathers the family together to focus on God. For some families, that may mean once a week. It could be Sunday evening as the family prepares for another week. It could be Saturday evening as they family prepares their heart for worship with their church the next morning. Other families might practice it everyday at the breakfast table or at nighttime prayers. Why is the family altar important? God says so – that's why! Here are just a few of the examples of God's stance on the family altar: Abraham was told to teach his children so that following generations would know the Lord (Gen. 18:19). Moses taught that parents were to teach their children to love the Lord all throughout the day (Deut. 6:7). The psalmist taught the necessity of God's people declaring God's greatness to the next generations (Ps. 78:3-7). Solomon taught that if you trained a child in the Lord, they would not depart from that way (Prov. 22:6). Fathers were instructed to teach children in the instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Why should we have one? It builds unity in a family It teaches Bible truths systematically to our children It makes a statement that our faith is real and valid It focuses our attention on our God It helps to foster peace in the home It is a way to influence our children on a daily basis It provides a way for us to obey the Scriptures regarding our family Links: Want to hear Pastor Dave Young preach? Westwood Baptist Church Westwood Baptist Church Podcast

2 Chron 4:1-6:11, Rom 7:1-13, Ps 17:1-15, Pr 19:22-23

July 22, 2025 Jer. 18:1-23; Ps. 81:1-7; Prov. 19:24-25; I Thess. 4:13-5:3

July 21, 2025 Jer. 16:16-17:27; Ps. 80:14-19; Prov. 19:22-23; I Thess. 4:1-12

Welcome to the The Achievers Podcast. I'm your host, Amber Deibert, Performance Coach. I help enterprise sellers unlock their full potential by aligning their work with how they workout and cleaning up mindset trash, so they can sell more, stress less, and take back control of their time and success. I recently polled my audience, and the response blew me away. Almost everyone said the same thing: “I feel disorganized and scattered.” In this episode, I break down why that's happening and exactly what to do about it. You'll learn how to map out your 5 and 10-year vision without needing a crystal ball, how to break those visions into tactical 12-week plans, and how to actually stick to them, even if you've struggled with structure in the past. If you're tired of spinning your wheels, chasing goals without clarity, and ending each day exhausted but unsatisfied, this episode will feel like an exhale. Plus, I share the real reason most planning fails… and what to do instead.  

Come Bible Study WITH ME through Ruth 3 and ask all the questions!

July 21, 2025 Jer. 16:16-17:27; Ps. 80:14-19; Prov. 19:22-23; I Thess. 4:1-12

Jesus's death and burial means that I must die to myself. I won't experience His power until I surrender my former way of life. To be raised to new life, the old self must die and be buried. That means coming to Jesus is about surrender. For “those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24). When we met Nicodemus in John 3, he was a scared and lost man. He was drawn to Jesus, but he came to Him by night because he was not ready to let go of his former way of life. Nicodemus now takes part in burying Jesus's body, signaling that his old self was dead and new life had arrived! “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). Take-Home Message: Jesus's finished work has finished me. Jesus's death petitions me to die (28-30). “It is finished” means… Separation is finished.Sin is finished.Satan is finished.Death is finished.I am finished. Jesus's piercing permits me to be passed over (31-37). Bible references: 1 Jn. 5:6-8; Jn 7:38-39; Nu 9:12; Ex 12:46; Ps 34:20; Zech 12:10; 13:1 Jesus's burial prepares me for a new life (38-42). Message: It is Finished Scripture: John 19:28-42 Simple. Authentic. Jesus. Prairiebible.org

Sowing And Reaping - 1 | വിതയും കൊയ്ത്തും - 1 | Malayalam Christian Messages | Br. Damien Antony | Morning Glory Podcast - 1663 | 21 July 2025

2 Chron 1:1-3:17, Rom 6:1-23, Ps 16:1-11, Pr 19:20-21

July 20, 2025 Jer. 15:10-16:15; Ps. 80:1-13; Prov. 19:20-21; 1 Thess. 2:17-3:13

Pastor Chris preaches on Ps. 19

1 Chron 28:1-29:30, Rom 5:6-21, Ps 15:1-5, Pr 19:18-19

1 Chron 28:1-29:30, Rom 5:6-21, Ps 15:1-5, Pr 19:18-19

July 20, 2025 Jer. 15:10-16:15; Ps. 80:1-13; Prov. 19:20-21; I Thess. 2;17-3:13

Come Bible Study WITH ME through Ruth 2 and ask all the questions!

July 19, 2025 Jer. 14:11-15:9; Ps. 79:9-13; Prov. 19:18-19; 1 Thess. 2:9-16

Root & Fruit | വേരും ഫലവും | Malayalam Christian Messages | Br. Damien Antony | Morning Glory Podcast - 1662 | 19 July 2025

1 Chron 26:12-27:34, Rom 4:13-5:5, Ps 14:1-7, Pr 19:17

Almost every Christian denomination accepts that God is sovereign--which is interpreted to mean that He always does precisely what He pleases, and everything that happens on earth has either His explicit or implicit stamp of approval. So when we find ourselves in a crisis--we or someone we love gets a terminal diagnosis, or we don't have enough money to make the mortgage and may lose the house, or we're in the direct path of a natural disaster, etc--we pray for a miracle, because we all know that God can do anything He wants. And who knows? Maybe He'll say yes. But if He says no, the common theology goes, it's because He sees the bigger picture. He knows more than we do, and we have to just trust that He knows best. That sounds so spiritual, doesn't it? Some believers manage to weather these trials of faith, pointing to Job as their example, when he said, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21) and "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him" (Job 13:15). (One side note. When you hear of a great saint who loses everything and yet clings to their trust in God anyway, certain that He has a greater purpose for their loss, does that inspire you to praise God--or to praise that great saint? Who actually receives the glory for that?) This theology has its roots in Calvinism, which espouses an extreme form of predestination (meaning that God chooses whether each of us will ultimately be saved, or damned, before we're ever born. He has to do this, they argue, because it is God who gives us the faith even to be saved, Eph 2:8-9, and if He withholds that faith, salvation for that individual is impossible.) So God, in this theological persuasion, decides a priori who will be saved and who will not, and then punishes those to whom He has not given the faith to be saved for their sins. They do have scriptures to back up their argument--if you take them out of context. One of the big ones is Romans 9:18-21, which says: "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?'" In this passage, Paul was comparing Israel's hardness of heart in rejecting the Messiah to Pharaoh from the time of the Exodus (Romans 9:15-17). The reason it took ten plagues and the decimation of Egypt for Pharaoh to finally release the Israelites was because Pharaoh's heart was hardened, far beyond reason. Paul's point in this passage was that God did this so that He could display His power to the Israelites, delivering them with great signs and wonders (Romans 9:17). If Pharaoh hadn't resisted, it would not have taken great miracles to do it. (In the same way, Paul argues, the fact that Israel had rejected Jesus gave the Lord the opportunity to bring the Gentiles in to the New Covenant, too.) But if God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, is Pharaoh still responsible for his own actions? If we go back to the original source text, we can see that this isn't quite the whole story. God did tell Moses in advance that He would harden Pharaoh's heart before the plagues ever began (Ex 4:21, 7:3). But for the first five plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex 7:22, 8:15, 8:19, 8:32, 9:7). It was only by the sixth plague that the scripture says God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Ex 9:12). Pharaoh still made his own choice first; God just enforced it and used it for His own purposes. I love the analogy Charles Capps uses to explain this. If one sets clay and wax out in the hot sun, the sun will harden the clay, but melt the wax. The sun adds the same heat to both, but the substance (wax or clay) determines its effect. A potter chooses whether to make “noble or ignoble” vessels from clay not arbitrarily, but on the basis of the quality of the clay. If the clay is supple and pliable, it can be made into something beautiful; if it is brittle, it might not be fit to shape into something worthy of display. God works with what we give him. In the same way, in Jesus’ Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1-23), the sower sows the Word indiscriminately, but it is the condition of the soil that determines the harvest. Luke later writes that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), and Peter writes that He is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9, more on this later). Likewise, any reasonable person would have been terrified into obedience by the plagues, long before they progressed to the death of the firstborn. And some of the Egyptians did believe and take refuge in Goshen, and the final exodus included “a mixed multitude” (Exodus 12:38), meaning some of the Egyptians were convinced, converted, and left with them. God gave the Egyptians the opportunity to escape the plagues that might otherwise have caused death, telling them to pull their livestock and their servants inside before the hail (Exodus 9:19), and to paint their doorposts with the blood of the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:22-23), which was symbolic of and foreshadowing the blood of Christ. Again, the Lord is “not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). He didn't want to harm the Egyptians, but neither did he want them to keep His people in bondage. So, did God harden Pharaoh’s heart? Yes, but perhaps only in the sense that God performed the miracles, and Pharaoh’s heart was such that those miracles caused him to dig in his heels. We’ve all met stubborn people like this, with whom any direct attempt at persuasion will cause them to double down on their original position. God does not override our free will, so in this case, He worked with it, using it to His advantage. Our choices do matter. But He's so amazing that He takes those choices and still manages to work “all things together for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). As a result of Pharaoh’s stubbornness, God’s people had a legacy of spectacular stories to remind their children and their children’s children of His might on their behalf. My point in saying all that is just that the argument that God sovereignly controls everything that happens is inconsistent with the overall teachings of scripture; even the individual verses that seem to suggest that don't stand up to scrutiny. But a larger problem is that, taken to its logical conclusion, the theological position that God's will is absolute, and will come to pass no matter what we do, leads to a sense of futility. Why pray--why even evangelize--if God is going to do what He's going to do, regardless? To their credit (though against logic), most Calvinist denominations recognize that the scriptures are very clear that we should still both evangelize and pray, and they therefore preach that we should do both, just because God said we should. (Sort of the equivalent of a parent saying, "Because I said so, that's why!") But historically, many Protestant denominations stemmed from or were heavily influenced by Calvinist doctrine. As a result, until about the late 18th and early 19th century, almost all missionary activity around the world came from the Catholic church, which I suspect was precisely because it held no doctrine of predestination, so they thought their efforts could make an eternal difference. Motivation matters. (Protestant missions largely date back to William Carey's work in India in 1793. The London Missionary Society was founded two years later, in 1795, and in 1810, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was founded.) Even if we're not ultimately each predestined for heaven or hell, God is still sovereign, though, right? He knows way more than we do. So doesn't that mean sometimes He'll say no to our prayer requests, and when we all get to heaven, we'll understand why? Yes, God is sovereign in the sense that He is all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, but He is not all-controlling (and I covered this extensively in this podcast https://www.drlaurendeville.com/podcasts/why-bad-things-happen-from-a-biblical-perspective on why bad things happen, from a biblical perspective). God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; they did anyway. Was that God's will? Certainly not! He did everything He could to keep them from doing it, short of making them automatons, when He told them, don't do it. Likewise, any sovereign can set laws that his citizens may not necessarily obey. The US is a sovereign nation and in 1974 the administration set the "National Maximum Speed Law" of 55mph. But many drivers exceeded that speed limit daily. The New English Translation has the word “sovereign” appear more than any other biblical translation (368 times). Not one of the original Hebrew or Greek words connotes the idea that He controls everything that happens. Most of the time, "sovereign" is just the way they render God’s names. The word sovereign is often translated from Shaddai (meaning Almighty) when it’s part of God’s name (48 times in the OT). Other times it’s translated from ‘elohiym: supreme God, as a superlative, or ‘elyown, meaning High or Most High. Sometimes it's thrown in as part of the transition of ‘Adonay: an emphatic form of the Lord. Sometimes it's translated from tsaba’, also translated the Lord of Hosts, meaning one who commands an army. In some cases the word sovereign is used to describe God's characteristics, but in context, it doesn't mean what we typically mean by the word (that His will always happens). The NET version of 1 Chronicles 29:11 says, "O LORD, you are great, mighty, majestic, magnificent, glorious, and sovereign over all the sky and earth! You have dominion and exalt yourself as the ruler of all." Only this translation uses the word sovereign; the others , translate it Head. This word connotes the idea of a supreme ruler, but not of one who always gets His way. Psalm 84:11 says, “For the Lord God is a sun and shield (magen: shield, buckler, protector).” The same verse is translated in NET: "For the LORD God is our sovereign protector." Clearly the word magen does not indicate that He always gets His way, either. Sovereign power is also translated as holiness from qadash: "to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate." This word is used in Ezekiel 28:25: "'This is what the sovereign LORD says: When I regather the house of Israel from the peoples where they are dispersed, I will reveal my sovereign power (or holiness) over them in the sight of the nations, and they will live in their land that I gave to my servant Jacob." It doesn't mean supreme dictator there either. Micah 5:4 says, "He will assume his post and shepherd the people by the LORD's strength, by the sovereign authority of the LORD his God. They will live securely, for at that time he will be honored even in the distant regions of the earth.” Sovereign authority here is the words ga'own (exaltation, majesty, pride) shem (name, reputation, fame, glory): thus, it's better translated “in the majesty of the name” of the Lord. Not a supreme dictator there either. Habakkuk 2:14 says, "For recognition of the LORD's sovereign majesty will fill the earth just as the waters fill up the sea." Sovereign majesty here is yada (to know, to perceive, to make known) kabowd (glory, honour, glorious, abundance), also translated “for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord.” Still not indicating ultimate control over everything that happens. Of course God's will does not always come to pass. As I mentioned earlier, the classic example of this is 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance,” and 1 Timothy 2:4: “[He] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Matthew 18:14 also says, “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world, not just those who are saved. 1 John 2:2 says, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world”, and 1 Tim 4:10 says, "That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” This doesn't sound like a God who created anyone for the expressed purpose of eternal damnation to me. On the contrary, He did everything He could possibly do to save us all, short of making us automatons. But not everybody will be saved, because He doesn't force us to choose Him--nor does He make any of our other decisions for us, either. Jesus said in Matthew 7:13: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." God wills it; He paid an enormous price for it; but He won't get all of us, because we get a choice. There are other verses that imply the concept of sovereignty as we typically define it (in the sense that when God decides to do something, He does it, and no one can stop Him). Here are a few of those verses: Job 42:2: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.” Isaiah 46:10: “I declare the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” Romans 8:28: “All things work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose.” (i.e. He can use bad and work it for good.) But these verses refers to God’s right and His power -- they say nothing about voluntary restrictions that God has placed upon His own power. Those limitations are defined by the covenants God had in place with mankind at various points in history. Once He gives His word that He will do this and not that, He cannot violate it--He exalts His word even above His name (Psalm 138:2). It's the integrity of His word that literally holds the universe together (Hebrews 1:3). Again, more on this in this podcast: https://www.drlaurendeville.com/podcasts/why-bad-things-happen-from-a-biblical-perspective and extensively more in "Blood Covenant Origins" and "Blood Covenant Fulfilled" from this book series: https://www.drlaurendeville.com/books/biblical-retellings). A quick overview, though: since God gave the earth to man in the garden, and man decided to obey Satan, God had to find a legal entry to get back in. That was the purpose of the covenants—first the Adamic, then the Noahic, then the Abrahamic, then the Mosaic, and now finally, the New Covenant. In the middle three there were stipulations of what we had to do, and therefore what God would do for us, if we kept up our end. But there were provisions for blessings even in those. For instance, a common Old Testament example I've heard preached to back up the idea that we never know what God's going to do, but we should have faith in Him anyway, is Daniel 3:18. Here's how that verse is preached: "If you throw us into the fiery furnace, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But even if He does not save us, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up." Except that's not what that verse actually says. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendego, the Hebrew kids in Babylonian exile in that story, were under the Mosaic covenant, and they were on the right side of it--so they had a right to the blessings (Deut 28:7), and they knew it. They knew God’s promises. That’s why they were able to stand up to the king—just like David could call Goliath that “uncircumcised Philistine,” absolutely convinced of the outcome, because he had a covenant, and Goliath didn’t. In the story in Daniel, what the verse actually says is, “If you do not worship, you shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.” The Jewish captives respond saying, “If that is the case” (implying, if you will throw us in to the furnace, the subject of the previous verse). Then they say, “But if not”—and the Hebrew never qualifies if not what. People tend to assume they are saying “but if God doesn’t deliver us” (the end of the previous thought). But it could just as easily have meant, “If it is not the case that you will throw us into the fiery furnace,” just like it did in previous verse. This would change the entire meaning of the verse, and would be far more consistent with the rest of scripture. I can think of no instances anywhere in scripture where someone put faith in God’s covenant promises, and God did not come through. He can’t not come through—because again, He exalts His word above His very name (Ps 138:2)! In the New Covenant, Jesus paid to make sure we are always on the blessing side, having fulfilled the law perfectly on our behalf, and become the curse for us (Gal 3:13). Because of that, every single promise is now Yes and Amen in Him (2 Cor 1:20). When Christ saved us, the word in Greek is sozo—that word appears 110 times in the New Testament. It includes spiritual salvation, but it also means physical healing, to rescue from physical danger, and to deliver from the penalties of judgment. All of these things are accessed by faith. Scripture doesn’t say that sometimes God says no to physical healing; on the contrary, every time someone came to Jesus for healing, they got it—and He was the exact image of the Father (Col 1:15), doing nothing but what He saw the Father doing (John 5:19). He turned no one away, saying, “Nope, this one is God’s will for you, to bring glory to Himself.” What brings God glory is healing, not sickness (John 9:1-4), and the “fruit” of answered prayers (John 15:7-8). It’s the blessings of God on our lives that are supposed to get the attention of the world around us. So back to the issue of praying for miracles. The theological position of most Christian denominations is that God can do anything, but there’s no guarantees that He will. Because of course, we can look around and see so many good Christians (some of the best!) who pray, and don’t seem to receive. What are we to do with that? Shouldn’t we adjust our theology to account for all of these practical examples… no matter what the Bible actually says? My dad died of cancer when he was 48 years old. We had lots of people praying. I had several well-meaning believers after the fact try to console me with the idea that God “allowed” this to happen for some inscrutable reason of His own… maybe someone might come to the Lord as a result of our loss, someone suggested. (What actually happened was that I became a religious Pharisee for about 10 years, going through the motions, but I didn’t trust God at all. I figured, based on that theology, that God was like an army general who made sacrifices for the greater good, and sometimes—sorry!—it’s you. The effect on the rest of my family's faith and outlook on the world was similar to mine, or worse.) All of that is predictable in hindsight, because cancer and death are the fingerprints of the Enemy, not of God. The Enemy comes to “steal, kill, and destroy”—Jesus came that we might “have life, and have it more abundantly.” It’s very clear who does what. But the vast majority of the body of Christ today preaches this confused theology, attributing horrific things to God under the strange explanation that because God’s ways are higher than our ways, somehow from His perspective, bad is good, and wrong is right, and once we all get to heaven, we’ll understand. (No wonder I didn’t trust God anymore when I believed this. How could I trust a God like that?) I get why the Church at large preaches this—they’re trying to make the Bible fit our experience. God's supreme sovereignty is a nice, spiritual-sounding explanation which borrows from the long Calvinistic tradition, even if we don't take it quite to that extreme (though some denominations still do even that). But what finally set me free was when I realized that God’s definition of good and mine are actually the same. That my dad’s death at such a young age was never His will. That how God dealt with mankind at various times in history was dependent upon the covenants in place at the time--and today, we're under the best covenant of all, the one where all the curses for disobedience are paid for in full, and all that's left is the blessing, which we can receive by faith. Here's what that doesn't mean: it doesn't mean that faith is a new form of works, that God now watches to see if we reach the critical threshold of faith before He doles out our miracle... and if we don't quite get there, ah, too bad, try harder next time. No! He's not responding in real time to our faith at all, deciding which requests to grant and which to refuse. God already provided every blessing in spiritual form in Christ’s atonement, 2000 years ago (Gal 1:3, Isaiah 53:4-5, 1 Peter 2:24). We receive all of those blessings now the same way we receive salvation: by faith. It's "in your account" already, as it were, just waiting for you to make a withdrawal--just like salvation is freely available, waiting for you to accept it. But God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). He doesn’t sovereignly say yes to one person and no to another for things that we know are in His will—if we know that we’re asking for something already in His explicit will, He hears us, and if we know that He hears us, we know we already have the requests made of Him (1 John 5:14-15). (That is the key, though--we can only have faith that we'll receive things that were already paid for in the atonement of Jesus. We can ask God for other things outside of that, but in those cases, God might say yes, or He might say no, for our own good--James 4:3. So it's quite useful to know scripture, so you can know for sure what you can stand on!) Back to my dad, and so many others besides. At that time, my family didn’t know any of this. We thought, we should pray, we should ask, and maybe God will say yes and maybe He will say no. But that’s not faith—that’s hope. And God didn’t say no—He said yes, 2000 years ago! Jesus paid an incredibly high price for God to say yes. Jesus also gave us the formula of how to receive in Mark 11:23-24: believe, and don’t doubt. If you do that, it’s as good as done. Unopposed faith (without doubt, James 1:6-8) is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). It’s cruel to tell people that they didn’t receive their miracle because they didn’t believe hard enough, or pray long enough, though. But the solution to that isn’t to blame God’s “sovereignty” instead! (That’s how people lose their faith—who wants to serve a God whom they believe “allowed” the Holocaust, or 9-11, or child trafficking, or etc to happen?) Rather, the solution is to understand that we’re in a war, and that Satan is seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). While he’s a defeated foe ever since the cross (Col 2:15), and we now have authority over him through Jesus (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:17-19), most of us don’t know it. We don’t know that, with the authority we now have, Satan’s only weapon against believers now is deception and fear (2 Cor 10:3-5)—and of course anything he can indirectly control against us that is part of the fallen world. But Jesus has already overcome the world on our behalf (John 16:33). And understanding God’s perfect love for us casts out fear (James 4:18). Because if He loves us enough to send Jesus, how will He not also freely give us all things (Romans 8:32)? But most of us are so focused on what we see, on the things this world says, that a cancer diagnosis, for example (or any other terminal doctor’s report, or insurmountable financial problem, etc), strikes fear into our hearts. Whatever we focus on, we magnify—and if we’re in a church that tells us maybe God will come through and maybe He won’t (for things that He’s explicitly promised in His word), then we’re standing on shifting sand. It’s hard enough to deal with our own doubt and unbelief, without being surrounded by the doubt and unbelief of others. But absolute trust God’s word—even if it means isolating ourselves from well-meaning believers who might cause us to doubt—is the only way. Jesus on numerous occasions got away from the crowds or put everyone out of the house except for his few top disciples before he performed a miracle. Abraham received because he did not consider anything except God’s promises (Romans 4:19). He didn’t have a contingency plan (or at least he didn’t anymore after the whole Ishmael thing was out of the way). Because he didn’t consider any of the natural circumstances, he didn’t waver in his faith. In the same way, today, our lack of fear of Satan’s schemes is proof to him that we’re going to win (Phil 1:28)—and if we stand firm (Eph 6:13-14) and resist the devil, sooner or later, he has to flee (James 4:7). We’ll win, if we don’t quit. Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

July 19, 2025 Jer. 14:11-15:9; Ps. 79:9-13; Prov. 19:18-19; I Thess. 2:9-16

Come Bible Study WITH ME through Ruth 1 and ask all the questions!

1 Chron 26:12-27:34, Rom 4:13-5:5, Ps 14:1-7, Pr 19:17

1 Chron 26:12-27:34, Rom 4:13-5:5, Ps 14:1-7, Pr 19:17

Legalidade ou humanidade? As barracas de Loures mostram que o cimento no PS é frágil. Quem quer estar no altar ao lado do governo? Ventura diz que tem a chave de casa e o PS quer ver a cópia do contrato.

The Fruit Of The Spirit - 8: Self-control | ആത്മാവിൻ്റെ ഫലം - 8: ഇന്ദ്രിയജയം | Christian Daily Devotional | Br. Damien Antony | Morning Glory Podcast - 1661 | 18 July 2025

1 Chron 26:12-27:34, Rom 4:13-5:5, Ps 14:1-7, Pr 19:17

1 Chron 24:1-26:11, Rom 4:1-12, Ps 13:1-6, Pr 19:15-16

Welcome to Day 2676 of Wisdom-Trek, and thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom – Theology Thursday – “Rules of Engagement.” – Supernatural Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2676 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps! I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day 2676 of our Trek. The Purpose of Wisdom-Trek is to create a legacy of wisdom, to seek out discernment and insights, and to boldly grow where few have chosen to grow before. Today, we continue with the 7th of 16 segments of our Theology Thursday lessons. I will read through the book "Supernatural," written by Hebrew Bible scholar, professor, and mentor Dr. Michael S. Heiser, who has since passed away. Supernatural is a condensed version of his comprehensive book, ‘The Unseen Realm.' If these readings pique your interest, I would recommend that you read ‘The Unseen Realm.' Today, we will read through chapter seven: “Rules of Engagement.” Our story so far: God cast aside the nations and their peoples at Babel. The lesser gods assigned to them took dominion (Deut. 32:8–9). When God started over with Abraham, it was clear that he planned to one day reclaim the nations through the influence of Israel (Gen. 12:3). But the gods of the nations would have to be forced to surrender their power and worship (Ps. 82:6–8). That meant conflict—in both the seen and unseen realms. As soon as there was an Israel, she was in the crosshairs of the gods.  Who Is Yahweh? It doesn't take long in the biblical story for Israel to wind up in a precarious position. The story of Joseph (Gen. 37–50) explains why Israel went to Egypt. God's providence turned the harm intended Joseph by his brothers to the salvation of Israel from famine (Gen. 46:3–4; 50:20). That God didn't tell Israel to leave Egypt right away was also intentional. God knew the pharaoh who honored Joseph would die and be replaced by an enemy (Ex. 1). He had foreseen that Egypt would put the Israelites into forced labor (Gen. 15:13–16). He also knew he would rescue Israel when the time was right (Gen. 46:4). But why wait? God always has a good reason for suffering. We just can't always see it. In this case, though, Scripture makes it clear. After Moses had fled Egypt and taken up residence in the wilderness, God called him at the burning bush (Ex. 3:1–14) to send him back to Egypt. His orders were simple: Tell Pharaoh “Let my people go” (Ex. 5:1). Pharaoh had other ideas. He was god in the flesh in Egypt, the emblem of all its glory and power. He wasn't going to let some invisible God of Hebrew shepherds tell him what to do. He didn't even know whether the God of Moses was real. He mockingly replied, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go?” (Ex. 5:2). He was about to get an answer—one that would hurt. God had set him up. God had told Moses, “I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go” (Ex. 4:21). God had a fight to pick. After they had oppressed the Israelites for centuries, it was time for Egypt and its gods to be punished. Pharaoh's hardening was part of that plot. The Bible tells us the plagues were aimed at Egypt's gods—especially the last one, the death of the firstborn (Ex. 12:12; Num. 33:4), which turned out to be a direct assault on Pharaoh's house: “At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of...

On this powerful panel, Ps. Tessa interviews three Pathfinders leaders about the power of being a true pathfinder. We weren't made to be mediocre, we were made to be excellent in every sphere of our lives.

On this episode of The Karen Kenney Show, I dive into the concept of "bumper rails.”You know, those metaphorical “guardrails” that keep us from going off track in life, kinda' like the ones that help little kids bowl without constantly throwing gutter balls.

1 Chron 24:1-26:11, Rom 4:1-12, Ps 13:1-6, Pr 19:15-16

Send us a textMost people aren't stuck because they made the wrong decision.They're stuck because they never made any decision at all.In this episode, I'm breaking down how to build momentum in your life by using what I call the 3 S's of Decision-Making: Speed. Simplicity. Sustainability.If you've been second-guessing yourself… stuck in neutral… or waiting for the “perfect” answer, you need to hear this.Here's what you'll walk away with:A mindset shift that helps you stop overthinking and start movingA proven filter to make quicker decisions with less stressThe difference between outcome-oriented vs. direction-oriented thinkingWhy waiting for clarity is killing your momentumAnd how to make a decision right, even if it wasn't the “right” oneThis episode is your permission to stop waiting and start acting.PS. "Let me think about it" is not a decision. :(

July 18, 2025 Jer. 13:8-14:10; Ps. 79:1-8; Prov. 19:17; I Thess. 2:1-8

You're listening to Burnt Toast! Today, my guest is Tracy Clark-Flory. Tracy is the feminist writer behind the newsletter TCF Emails and the author of Want Me: A Sex Writer's Journey into the Heart of Desire. She's also the cohost of the new podcast Dire Straights where she and Amanda Montei unpack the many toxic aspects of heterosexual relationships and culture. I brought Tracy on the podcast today to talk about my feet, but we get into so much more. We talk about porn, sexual identity, and the male gaze—and, of course, how all of this makes us feel in our bodies.This episode is free but if you value this conversation, please consider supporting our work with a paid subscription. Burnt Toast is 100% reader- and listener-supported. We literally can't do this without you.PS. You can always listen to this pod right here in your email, where you'll also receive full transcripts (edited and condensed for clarity). But please also follow us in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and/or Pocket Casts! And if you enjoy today's conversation, please tap the heart on this post — likes are one of the biggest drivers of traffic from Substack's Notes, so that's a super easy, free way to support the show!Episode 202 TranscriptVirginiaI am so excited. We've been Internet friends for a long time, and it's so nice to finally have a conversation. I'm very jazzed! TracyRight? I feel like we've talked before, but we have not, which is such an odd sensation. We've emailed.VirginiaWe've emailed, we've DM-ed, we've commented on each other's things. But we have not, with our faces and mouths, had a conversation. The Internet is so weird.Well, the Internet being weird is a lot of what we're gonna talk about today. Because where I want to start today is feet.TracyWhy not?VirginiaSo I initially emailed you when I was working on my essay about my Wikifeet experience, because you have written so extensively about porn and the Internet's treatment of women. And when I discovered my Wikifeet, one of my first thoughts was, “I need to talk to Tracy about this.” TracyThat makes me so happy. I want to be the first person that everyone thinks of when they find themselves on Wikifeet.VirginiaI was like, “I don't know how she'll feel…” so I'm glad you take that as a compliment.I don't even know where to start. Even though I wrote a whole essay about this, my brain is still, like, “record scratch moment” on the whole thing. Sojust talk to us a little bit where in your vast reporting on porn did you kind of become aware of fetish sites and what's your read on them? What's going on there?TracyI think I first became aware of Wikifeet in 2008-ish when they launched, and that's when I was a proper, full-time sex writer, on the sex beat, covering every weird niche Internet community. And then in the years since, I've unfortunately had many women colleagues—often feminist writers—who have ended up on the site. So unfortunately, you're not the first person I know who's ended up on there.VirginiaIt's a weird thing that a certain type of woman writer is gonna end up on Wikifeet. Why?TracyThere are no shortage of women who are consensually volunteering photos of their feet online for people to consume in a sexualized way, right? So the fact is that this site is providing a venue for people to do it in a very nonconsensual way, where images are taken from other venues that are not sexualized. They're stolen images, you know? Things that are screenshotted from Instagram stories, that kind of thing—and then put into this sexualized context. Not only that, but put into a sexualized context where there is a community around sexualizing and objectifying and even rating and evaluating body parts.My take is that this violation is part of the point. Because there is having a foot fetish—great, have at it, enjoy. And then there's consuming images that are nonconsensual. So I think that the violation is part of the point. And to the point of feminist writers, women writers online, ending up on it—I don't think it's an accident. Because I think that there is—perhaps for some, maybe not all—some pleasure taken in that aspect of trespass.VirginiaYes. My best friend is a food blogger, and I immediately searched for her because she's way more famous than I am, and she's not on there. And I'm glad, I don't want her non-consensually on there! But I was like, oh, it's interesting that I'm on there, lyz is on there. It is a certain type of woman that men are finding objectionable on the Internet. And putting us on WikiFeet is a retaliation or just a way of—I don't know. It's not a direct attack, because I didn't even know about it for however long my feet have been up there. But it is a way for men to feel like they're in control of us in some way, right?TracyOh, totally. And it's because there is something interesting about taking a body part that is not broadly and generally sexualized, and sexualizing it. There is this feeling of a “gotcha!” in it.There is something, too, about feet—I mean, I think this is part of what plays into foot fetish, often. There is this sense of dirtiness, potentially, but also the sense of often being hidden away. It's secret, it's private, it's delicate, it's tender. Feet are ticklish, there's so much layered in there that I think can make it feel like this place of vulnerability.I've written about upskirting. This was maybe like 15 years ago. But it's these communities where men take upskirt videos and photos of women on the subway or wherever, and then they share them in online forums. And that's very clearly a physical trespass. You're seeing something that was not meant to be seen. So it's quite different. But it's feels like it exists on a spectrum of trespass and violation and taking sexualized enjoyment out of that.VirginiaFrom someone who had no intention of you taking that enjoyment, who's just trying to ride the train to work.TracyTotally. And the foot thing, it just makes me think of all these different ways that women experience their bodies in the world. You can't just be at ease in your body, because someone might think your feet are hot.VirginiaIt's really interesting. I've talked about this on the podcast before: A little bit after I got divorced and I started having, weekends totally to myself in my house, it was the first time I'd been alone in my house in a long time. Obviously, usually my kids were there. My husband used to be there. And I had this strange sensation of being observed, even when I was completely alone in the house.It's just me and the dog. She's asleep. I'm making dinner or watching TV or doing whatever I'm doing. And I couldn't shake the sensation that I was watching myself, still thinking about what I was going to wear. It was so weird, and I realized it actually isn't particularly a comment on my marriage. It's more a comment on women are so trained to always feel observed. It's really hard for us to actually access a space where we're not going to be observed. It was wild.TracyWe adopt that perspective of the watcher, and we are the watched. We experience ourselves in that way, as opposed to being the watcher, the person who sees and consumes the world and experiences the world. It's like we experience ourselves being experienced by someone else—an imagined man often.VirginiaYes, you're always self-objectifying. It doesn't matter whether you're trying to please that gaze, whether you're trying to protect yourself against that gaze. Whatever it is, we're always aware of how we'll be perceived in a way that I don't think cis men ever have to consider. I don't think that's a part of their experience of the world in the same way.TracyAnd how messed up is that tension between trying to please and trying to protect oneself? What an impossible tightrope walk to be constantly doing.VirginiaRight, and to not even know which one you want sometimes. Like, which one you need, which one you want.TracyYeah, going back and forth between those extremes. You're always kind of monitoring and on edge.VirginiaAnd, it did shift. Now when I'm alone in my house, I don't feel like I'm watching myself. Like, it did lessen. But it was this very stark moment of noticing that. And I think the way our work is so online, we are so online, it doesn't help. Because we also have all learned through the performance art of social media to constantly be documenting. And even if you're by yourself, you might post something about it. There's that need to narrate and document and then also objectify your experience.TracyThe sense of, like, if I don't take a photo of it, it doesn't exist. It didn't happen. It's not real. It must be consumed by other people. I mean, when you were talking earlier about that sense of being surveyed, I think that is a very just common experience for women, period. But then I think, for me, growing up with reality TV, the explosion of reality TV, like that added this like sense of a camera on one's life.And then I think, like, if you want to bring porn into it, too—Like, in the bedroom, that sense of the watcher, so you have this sense of being watched by men, but then you have the sense of kind of performing for an audience, because that's so much of what I came up with culturally.VirginiaI mean, the way we often conceive of our sexuality is through performance and how are you being perceived not how are you experiencing it yourself? I mean, you write about that so well, that tension.TracyThat was my whole thing. My sexual coming of age memoir is so much about what it meant to try to move out of that focus on how I'm being perceived by my partner and into a place of what am I experiencing? What do I even want beyond being wanted?VirginiaMan, it's amazing we've all survived and gotten where we are. Another layer to this, that I thought about a lot as I was processing my Wikifeet, was how instantly I felt like I had to laugh it off. I really felt like I couldn't access my true reaction to it. I just immediately sort of went into this Cool Girl, resigned, jaded, like “What do you expect from the Internet?” This is why I wanted to talk to you. Because I was like, oh, this feels very similar to stuff Tracy struggled with and wrote about in her memoir.TracyOh, totally. It makes total sense to me that you would go to that default place. It makes me think of how I, especially early in my career writing online as a feminist blogger, I would print out the very worst, most misogynistic hateful comments and post them on my fridge because I was willing myself to find them funny, to be able to laugh at them and just kind of distance myself from them and to feel untouched by them.I think that Cool Girl stance is a way of putting on protective armor. So I think that makes sense as a woman writing online, but I also think it makes sense in the context of sex. So much of what I did—this performative sexuality, this kind of sense of being down for whatever in my 20s—was, subconsciously, a kind of defensive posture. Because I think I had this feeling that if I'm down for anything, then nothing can be done against my will, you know? And that was the mental gambit that I had to engage in, in order to feel safe enough to explore my sexuality freely. Granted, it wasn't very freely, turns out. But it makes total sense that you would want to default to the laughing at what is really a violation. Because I do think that there's something protective about that. It's like, “No, you're not going to do this to me. You're not going to make me feel a certain way about this.” But that only takes you so far.VirginiaWell, because at the same time, it also is a way of communicating, “Don't worry, I can take a joke. I'm not one of those feminists.” It also plays right into that. So it's protective and you can't rattle me. And, I'll also minimize this just like you want me to minimize it. So I'm actually doing what you want. Then my brain breaks.TracyRight? And then we're back to that thing we were just talking about, the wanting to please, but then wanting to protect oneself, and the impossible balancing act of that. VirginiaLike you were saying you've experienced these horrific misogynistic troll comments. I experienced them in the more fatphobic sense, but like a mix, misogyny and fatphobia, very good friends.So I think when you've experienced more extreme things, you then do feel like you have to downplay some of the minor stuff. It feels scarier for men to say that my children should be taken away from me than it does for them to take pictures of my feet. I can hold that. And yet I'm still allowed to be upset about the foot thing. Just because some things are more awful, it doesn't mean that we stop having a conversation about the more mundane forms of violation, because the more mundane forms of it are also what we're all experiencing all the time.TracyRight? Like the daily experience of it. I mean, unfortunately, there just is a full, rich spectrum of violation.VirginiaSo many choices, so many ways, so many body parts.TracyI do think that the extreme examples do kind of serve to normalize the less extreme, you know? And what we sort of end up putting up with, you know? VirginiaWhat would you say was a helpful turning point for you? What helped you start to step back from being in that cool girl mode? From being in that “I'm performing sex for other people” mode? What helped you access it for yourself?TracyI mean, honestly? A piece of it was porn. It's funny because I turned to porn as a teenager online in the 90s as a source of—I felt at the time—intel about what men wanted. Like, here's how to be what men wanted. And I tried to perform that, you know? And there were downsides to that, of course. There are some downsides. But I would also say that like in the midst of plumbing the depths of 2000s-era, early 2000s-era tube sites to understand what men “wanted,” I also started to kind of explore what I wanted.I wasn't drawn to it from that place of self discovery, but I kind of accidentally stumbled into it because I was watching these videos. And then I was like, oh, wait, what about this thing? Like, that's kind of interesting to me. And then, you start to kind of tumble down the rabbit hole accidentally. Women are socialized to not pursue that rabbit hole for themselves, right? So it was only in pursuing men's desires that I felt like I was able to unlock this whole other world of fantasy and desire for myself that I wanted to explore and that I was able to get into some non-mainstream, queer indie porn that actually felt very radical and eye opening.It was this circuitous route to myself. That was just a piece, I think, of opening up my mind to the world of fantasy, which felt very freeing. Then, getting into a relationship where with a partner who I could actually be vulnerable with, was a huge piece of it. To actually feel safe enough to explore and not be performing, and to have those moments of awkwardness and that you're not just this expert performer all the time. Like, that doesn't lead to good sex.VirginiaNo, definitely not.There's a part in the memoir with your then boyfriend, now husband, and you say that you wanted—you call it “a cozy life.” And I think you guys put that in your wedding vows. I think about that all the time. I think it's so beautiful. Just like, oh right, that's what we're looking for. It's not this other giant thing, the performing and the—I don't know, there's something about that really stuck with meTracyThat's so interesting. I haven't thought about that for a while. It's really interesting, and it's funny, because it was part of our wedding vows. VirginiaCozy means safety with another person, that felt safety with another person, right? And the way we are trained to think of sex and relationships really doesn't prioritize women's safety, kind of ever.TracyI mean, yeah, it's true. There is something very particular about that word cozy—it's different from when people say, like, “I want a comfortable life.” VirginiaYeah, that's bougie.TracyCozy is like, I want to be wrapped in a cozy blanket on the couch with you. And feel safe and intimate and vulnerable. So thank you for reminding me of that thing that I wrote.VirginiaWell, It was really beautiful, and I think about it often, and it was kind of clarifying for me personally. And it's not saying sex won't be hot, you know? It's just that you have that connection and foundation to build whatever you're going to build.TracyRight? And I think coziness kind of is a perfect starting point for being able to experience sexiness and hotness. I think we have this cultural idea that one must have this mystery and sense of otherness in order to be able to build that kind of spice and fire. And at least in my experience, that was not ever the case. I know that other people have that experience, but for me, I never had the experience of that sense of otherness and kind of fear even, and trepidation about this other person leading to a really exciting experience. It was more like being able to get to a place of trust and vulnerability that could get you there.VirginiaAnd obviously, there are all different ways people enjoy and engage in sex. And I don't think every sexual relationship has to be founded in any one thing, but I think when we're talking about this transition that a lot of women go through, from participating in sex for his pleasure, for performance, for validation, to it being something you can do on your own terms, I think the coziness concept is really helpful. There's something there.All right, well, so now you are working on a new podcast with Amanda, as we mentioned, called Dire Straights. Tracy, I'm so excited, because Heterosexuals are not okay. We are not okay, as a population.TracyJust like, literally, look at anywhere. Open up the front page of The New York Times. We're not okay on so many levels.VirginiaSo tell us about the pod.TracySo it's a feminist podcast about heterosexual love, sex, politics and culture, and every episode, we basically pick apart a new element of straight culture. So examples would be couples therapy, dating apps, sex strikes, monogamy, the manosphere, pronatalism, the list goes on and on. Literally this podcast could just never end. There's too much fodder. Unfortunately, I'd love for it to end for a lack of content, but that's not going to happen.So we look at both sex and dating alongside marriage and divorce, and the unequal realm of hetero parenting. We examine celebrities and politicians and consider them as case studies of dire heterosexuality. Tech bros, tradwives, terfs, all the whole cast of terrible hetero characters are up for examination, and our aim is to examine the worst of straight culture, but it's also to step back and kind of try to imagine better possibilities.It's not fatalist, it's not nihilistic. I think we both have this sense of wanting to engage in some kind of utopian dreaming one might say, while we're also picking apart what is so awful and terrible about the current state of heterosexual culture.So our first episode is about dark femininity influencers. I don't know if you've ever encountered them online.VirginiaYes, but I hadn't connected the dots. So I was like, oh, this is a thing.TracyThat's that thing, yeah. That's how I experienced it. It was, like, they just started showing up on my TikTok feed, these women who are usually white and wearing a bold red lip and smokey eyes, and they're essentially promising to teach women how to use their sex appeal in order to manipulate straight men into better behavior. They're selling this idea of seduction as liberation, and specifically liberation from the disappointments of the straight dating world. This idea is that by harnessing your seductive powers, you can be in control in this terrible, awful straight dating sphere.VirginiaIt's like, if Drusilla from Buffy the Vampire Slayer wrote a dating book. I don't know if that reference speaks to you or not.TracyI'm a little rusty on my Buffy, I have to say.VirginiaShe's like, pale skin, red lips, black hair, and tortures men. But yeah, it's this idea that you harness all your like, seductive powers to torture men to get what you want, which is men. Which is a husband or a boyfriend or gifts or whatever. They're shooting for a heterosexual relationship by exerting this power over men, and so the idea is it is somehow it's giving them more power in a patriarchal dynamic. But it doesn't really because they end up in the same place.TracyIt's the same place, it's the same exact place. It feels to me, in some ways, like a corrective against the cool girl stuff that we're talking about that kind of emerged in the 2000s, where, you know, it's this sort of like being down for whatever, that kind of thing. These women are kind of saying, you're not going to sleep with him on the first date. You're going to make him work for it, you know? And so there's a sense of like, I'm in control, because I'm not giving it away for free. It plays into all these awful ideas about women and sex and power. But it is ultimately ending up in the same place, and it is just ultimately about getting a man, keeping a man. And so, you know, how different is it really? I don't think it is.VirginiaI mean, it's not. It's the same rules and conversations that Charlotte's having in the first season of Sex in the City, which is ancient at this point. How are we still here? Are we still here?TracyWe're just inventing new aesthetics to kind of repackage these very old, retro, sexist ideas, you know?VirginiaI also think it's really interesting and helpful that you are interrogating straight culture as someone inside a heterosexual marriage. I've written about my own divorce, my critiques of marriage, and it triggers great conversations, but it always triggers a very uncomfortable response from a lot of married women who don't really want to go there, don't really want to pick up the rocks and look underneath it because it's too scary. It makes sense. And I'm wondering how you think about that piece, and how that's working for you.TracyI think it's very destabilizing for a lot of women in straight marriages and just straight relationships, period, to consider these things. I think it was over a year ago now that I wrote this piece about trying to coin this term hetero-exceptionalism in response to the backlash that I was seeing to the divorce memoir boom, where women reviewers, but also just people on Twitter or wherever, were kind of pointing at these authors and being like, well, I don't know what's wrong with you because my marriage is great.VirginiaThe Emily Gould piece in New York.TracyThere's this sense of like, oh, well, either I chose a good man or I know how to conduct a healthy relationship.VirginiaI'm willing to put in the work.TracyGotta put in the work. You will love our next episode about couples therapy, because we talk about this concept of putting in the work, and the idea that marriage is work, and that if you're not doing the work you're lazy. You're failing, the whole project of it.VirginiaThank you for unpacking that incredibly toxic myth! It really keeps women trapped in “I just have to keep working harder.”TracyWhich I think totally relates to this, the response to the divorce memoirs we're getting from people and the discomfort of when women raise these issues in hetero relationships that are not individual. Like, yes, we all feel that our relationship issues are special and unique. But they all relate to these broader systemic factors.I think that is really, really, really uncomfortable to acknowledge. Because I think even if you're reasonably happy in your hetero relationship, I think if you start to look at the way that your even more minor dissatisfactions connect to these bigger dissatisfactions that women are writing about that's all part of this experience of love in patriarchy that it doesn't feel good. That feels terrible. So I totally understand that.In the same way that we're sold this idea of trying to find the one and that whole romantic fantasy, I think we're also sold this idea of trying to achieve romantically within these patriarchal constraints. So it's like, well, I found the good one. I found the unicorn man who checks all the boxes and I did my work and so I'm in a happy marriage.Virginia“I'm allowed to be heterosexual because I'm doing it right.” That's feeling uncomfortably familiar, to be honest. You think you're going to pull the thread, and you realize you'll rip it all out.TracyThe thing is that a lot of people should be pulling the thread, and a lot of lives should be unraveling, you know? I think that's the uncomfortable truth, right? I totally get the resistance to it. But on the other side of it, I think there are obviously, clearly, a lot of women who are wanting to look at it, and who do want to have these conversations.VirginiaIt sounds like this is what you're trying to chart. There has to be a middle path where it's not this defensive stance of, oh, I found the one good one. And we're equal partners. It's okay, but a relationship where we can both look at this, we can both acknowledge the larger systemic issues and how they're showing up here, and we can work through it and it's not perfect, because it is love in patriarchy, but it can still be valuable. There has to be this third option, right? Please tell me you're living the third option, Tracy.TracyI mean, I do believe that I am but I also hesitate to put any man or any relationship on a pedestal. What I'll say is that to me, it feels so utterly essential in my relationship to acknowledge the ways that our relationship is touched by patriarchy, because all relationships are touched by patriarchy, right? And to not fantasize about us somehow standing outside of it, but also to be having constant ongoing conversations within my relationship where we are mutually critiquing patriarchy and the way that it touches us and the way that it touches the relationships of people we know, you know? I think that's part of why I think I'm able to do this podcast critiquing heterosexuality from within heterosexuality is because my partner showed up to the relationship with his own prior political convictions and feminist awareness. I wasn't having to be like, here's what feminism is and, here's what invisible labor is, and the mental load and all that stuff. He got it, and so we're able to have a mutual shared critique, and that feels very important.VirginiaThat's awesome to know exists, and that you're able to figure that out without it being such hard work. But where does that leave women who are like, oh yeah, my partner doesn't have that shared knowledge? Like, I would be starting the education process from zero and encountering many resistances to it. And therein is the discomfort, I think.TracyI mean, and that is the discomfort of heterosexuality. It's in this culture, because that is the reality is there are not a ton of men who have voluntarily taken women's studies courses in college and have the basic background for this kind of stuff. It's a really high bar and there is this feeling of what are you going to do? Are you going to hold out for the guy who did do that? Or are you going to try to work with him to get there? And I think that's fine, but I think what's essential is are you both working to get there, or are you pulling him along?VirginiaYeah, that's the core of it.I think just in general, reorienting our lives to where our romantic relationships are really important, but so are our friendships. So is our community. I think that's something that a lot of us, especially us in the post-divorce club are looking at. I think one of the great failings of heterosexual marriage is how it silos women into these little pods of the nuclear family and keeps us from the larger community.TracyTotally. I really do believe that the way that our lives are structured, this hetero monogamous, nuclear familydom, it works against these hetero unions so much. Which is so funny, because so much of this is constructed to try to protect them. But I actually think that it undermines them so deeply and drastically. And that we could have much richer and more vibrant, supportive, communal lives that made these romantic unions like less fragile and fraught.VirginiaBecause you aren't needing one person to meet every single one of your needs, you aren't needing this one thing to be your whole life.TracyWe put all of the pressure on the nuclear household for the cooking, the cleaning, the childcare, all of that. That is an impossible setup. It is a setup for failure. There's I wish I could quote the writer, but I love this quote about marriage and the nuclear family being capitalism's pressure cooker. If you think about it in those terms, it's like, this is absurd. Of course, so many people are struggling.VirginiaIt was never going to work. It was never going to work for women anyway, for sure.Well, I'm so excited for folks to discover the new podcast. It's amazing, and I'm just thrilled you guys are diving into all of this. It's such an important space to be having these conversations. So thank you.TracyThank you! I'm very excited about it, and it does, unfortunately, feel very timely.ButterTracyI definitely do have Butter. And this is so on topic to what we've been discussing. This book of essays titled Love in Exile by Shon Faye. It is a brilliant collection of essays about love, where she really looks at the problem of love and the search for love as a collective instead of individual problem. It is so good. It's one of my favorite books that I've read in the last five years.She basically argues that the heteronormative couple privatizes the love and care and intimacy that we all deserve. But that we're deprived of in this late capitalist hellscape, and so she sees the love that so many of us are deprived of as not a personal failure, but a failure of capitalism and community and the growing cruelty of our world. It's just such a tremendous shift of perspective, I think, when it comes to thinking about love and the search for love and that longing and lack of it that so many people experience.VirginiaOh my gosh, that sounds amazing. I can't wait to read it. Adding to cart right now, that is a great Butter. Thank you.Well, my Butter is, I don't know if you can see what I'm wearing, Tracy, but it is the friendship bracelet you sent me when you sent me your copy of Want Me.TracyDo you know that I literally just last night was like, oh, I'm going on the podcast tomorrow, I wonder if she still has that friendship bracelet.VirginiaI'm wearing the one you sent me, which says Utopia IRL, which I love. And then I'm wearing one that says “Fuck the Patriarchy,” which was made by one of my 11 year old's best friends for me. So the 10 year old girls are going to be all right, because they're doing that.TracyThat's amazing.VirginiaI wear them frequently. They go with many outfits, so they're just a real go-to accessory of mine. My seven year old the other day was reading them and was so delighted. And now, when she's at her dad's and we text, she'll randomly text me, “fuck the patriarchy,” just as a little I love you text. And I'm like, alright, I'm doing okay here.TracyYou're like, that's my love language. Thank you.VirginiaSo anyway, really, my Butter is just for friendship bracelets and also mailing them to people, because that was so sweet that you did that.TracyCan I mention though? Can I admit that I literally told you that I was going to send you that friendship bracelet, and I made it, I put in an envelope, and it literally sat by my front door for a full year.VirginiaI think that makes me love it even more, because it was a year. If you had been able to get it out the door in a timely fashion, it would have made you less relatable to me.That it took a full year that feels right. And I was just as delighted to receive it a year later.TracyIt was a surprise. I was like, you probably forgot that.VirginiaI had.TracyI emailed about it and that we had an inside joke about it, because it had been a year.VirginiaI did, but then I was like, oh yeah!TracyYou know what? I think it's a testament to you and how you come off that I like felt comfortable sending it a year later and just being like, fuck it, she'll be fine with it.VirginiaYes, it was great. Anyway, my recommendation is send someone a friendship bracelet by which I mean put it in an envelope by your front door for the next year. Why not? It's a great thing to do.So yes, Tracy, this was so much fun. Thank you for being here. Tell folks where we can follow you support your work, all the things.TracyYou can find the Dire Straights podcast at direstraightspod.com. And you can find my weekly newsletter about sex, feminism, pop culture at Tracyclarkflory.substack.com and you can find me on Instagram at Tracy Clark-Flory.VirginiaAmazing. We'll link to all of that. Thank you for being here.TracyThanks so much for having me.The Burnt Toast Podcast is produced and hosted by Virginia Sole-Smith (follow me on Instagram) and Corinne Fay, who runs @SellTradePlus, and Big Undies.The Burnt Toast logo is by Deanna Lowe.Our theme music is by Farideh.Tommy Harron is our audio engineer.Thanks for listening and for supporting anti-diet, body liberation journalism! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit virginiasolesmith.substack.com/subscribe

Come Bible Study WITH ME through Judges 21 and ask all the questions!

1 Chron 24:1-26:11, Rom 4:1-12, Ps 13:1-6, Pr 19:15-16

July 17, 2025 Jer. 12:1-13:7; Ps. 78:70-72; Prov. 19:15-16; 1 Thess. 1:1-10

July 18, 2025 Jer. 13:8-14:10; Ps. 79:1-8; Prov. 19:17; I Thess. 2:1-8

On this powerful panel, Ps. Tessa interviews three Pathfinders leaders about the power of being a true pathfinder. We weren't made to be mediocre, we were made to be excellent in every sphere of our lives.

1 Chron 24:1-26:11, Rom 4:1-12, Ps 13:1-6, Pr 19:15-16

1 Chron 22:1-23:32, Rom 3:9-31, Ps 12:1-8, Pr 19:13-14

1. Finalmente llegó la barcaza de New Fortress. ¿Se resolvió la crisis o simplemente se pospuso? 2. La junta de control fiscal ante el Congreso mañana 3. Physician Correctional levanta la bandera de discrimen político para rechazar la cancelación de su contrato 4. Departamento de Justicia de Trump va a impulsar el “Engligh Only” en todo el gobierno 5. Aumenta la oposición a que la gobernadora firme el PS 350 que discrimina contra jóvenes trans 6. Sigue controversia sobre si se legisló un impuesto a los celulares 7. Otro caso de abuso y arresto ilegal de inmigrante intervenido en Puerto Rico y llevado a “Alligator Alcatraz” 8. Operativo federal en el aeropuerto contra el narcotráfico 9. Aumenta la inflación en Estados Unidos como resultado de las políticas de TrumpSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Ps+ we join Pastor Seth Keenum to discuss how God's divine provision aids and helps us glorify Him as we walk in the Spirit. 

1 Chron 22:1-23:32, Rom 3:9-31, Ps 12:1-8, Pr 19:13-14

1 Chron 19:1-21:30, Rom 2:25-3:8, Ps 11:1-7, Pr 19:10-12

1 Chron 16:37-18:17, Rom 2:1-24, Ps 10:16-18, Pr 19:8-9

1 Chron 16:37-18:17, Rom 2:1-24, Ps 10:16-18, Pr 19:8-9

1 Chron 15:1-16:36, Rom 1:18-32, Ps 10:1-15, Pr 19:6-7

1 Chron 15:1-16:36, Rom 1:18-32, Ps 10:1-15, Pr 19:6-7