Classic: Can Christianity be true if Christians can't agree on doctrine? Andrew Whyte vs Nabeel Qureshi

Have you ever wondered whether the stories of angels in the Bible are more than ancient history? What if they're still at work today? As our thanks for your gift to Premi Insight this month, we'd love to send you our exclusive ebook, The Case for Angels, Evidence Encounters and Scripture. You'll explore what the Bible really says about angels, discover compelling real life accounts, and gain thoughtful answers to one of Christianity's most fascinating topics. Your generosity helps Premi Insight continue creating podcasts and resources that equip people to think biblically and engage today's biggest questions with confidence. Request your copy today at PremiInsight.org/UmbelievableShow. That's PremiInsight.org/UmbelievableShow. And thank you for your support. Hello and welcome along. I'm Justin Briley, your host for Unbelievable, the show that gets Christians and non-Christians talking. So welcome along if you're listening today. But right now it's time to get into today's debate. We're asking how can Christianity be true when Christians themselves believe so many different things? Today on the programme Andrew White joins me again. Andrew is an agnostic and he's been making a series of short videos in various areas where Christianity have a multiplicity of doctrines and interpretation. They can be found at his Christian diversity, YouTube channel, and they cover all kinds of issues. Creationism versus evolution, charismatic gifts, women in leadership, Catholics versus Protestants, penal atonement. You name it, he's covering it. But in a way the videos reflect to some extent Andrew's own journey of doubt that has led him to a point of agnosticism having been a committed Christian at one time. In response today on Unbelievable, Nabil Koreshi, a speaker and author joins us from Oxford and Nabil is a former Muslim who converted to Christianity after becoming convinced of its truth and the falsity of Islam. In fact, he joined me for a programme discussing just that about a year ago now and he's written as well more recently in Premier Christianity magazine about his conversion as well. So gentlemen, it's great to have you both with me today. That's an honor. Thank you. That was great, Justin. I can't wait to meet myself. It sounds odd being described in the third person doesn't it? I know. But in a case, I'm lovely to have you both back on. Andrew, you joined me over the years now several times, sort of at various points in your journey as it were. I guess yeah, you've been a long time listener of Unbelievable. And in a sense, what we do on Unbelievable kind of is what you've turned this video project into, which is looking at all the various different things that Christians disagree about. We've done a lot of those issues that you've made videos about here on the programme in one form or another. How influential was this multiplicity of interpretations on different issues in your own journey out of faith, if you like? I think it's that particular dynamic of differences. I suppose there's one major cog, but it's not the defining sort of thing as if you say this is just one thing, but one particular thing, nipping away for years on end would be these differences. And I grew up in a fundamentalist church, and I think I mentioned before that I was so glad that I was so right. I was in the charismatic Protestant fundamentalist or sort of church, and other people were just sadly wrong about things. And as I moved on through other missions, a joint group called Y-Wam and came into other different views, I began to be aware that Christians said different things and different things about women in ministry or science and faith, and they all sort of knocked me, and my views changed, and I changed, and I sort of morphed into different versions of the faith. And I suppose in later in life, the whole thing sort of reflected, I'm thinking, you know, what is really true even in the big picture? So it was an influence on me. I have to say that. Yeah, so it went from peripheral issues to really core issues, as far as you were concerned, that you just couldn't understand what the truth was if we were to believe something about them. Exactly, and I think you mentioned it just in our sort of correspondence, and that's the point where I'd really, really different from yourself in the way that you said it, saying that, you know, you can have a core, but not tussling with the details. Well, I think that this series that I put together really shows, well, it shows me that we're not tussling with the details. Some of these issues touch into almost a domino effect, right the way through Christianity, certain strands of it, okay, admittedly more conservative fundamentalists. I think that's where some of the major issues come out in these videos, but even with progressives and liberals, there's sort of issues and problems that way. And so I think that to be honest, I don't think we're touching into just tussling with details, so I'd take an issue with that. Sure. It's almost a bit like a kind of extension of the typical apologetic objection that, well, how can Christianity be true when there are so many religions out there? But this time you're sort of zeroing in on Christianity itself and saying, look at the diversity within Christianity and ask yourself, can this be entirely inspired if if it appears there are so many different iterations and beliefs and fundamental differences? It's an interesting question and one that we've joined by Nabil Kureshi to think about today on the programme, but welcome along to the programme Nabil. Thank you so much, Justin. It's great to have you on again. Very briefly, you were a Muslim, came from a Muslim family and through the conversations with a Christian friend at university, you experienced a conversion. That's the story that you've written about and we've heard before. I've just been interested to know, though, that being several years ago now, whether your own Christian faith has developed in any similar way that Andrew describes in terms of coming across, oh gosh, I didn't know, there was this view and that view and the other view and that kind of thing. How's that been in terms of since you've been a Christian? Well, that continues. I mean, you'll always hear new opinions and ideas. Just see how the day I heard Richard Swinburne speak on his view of atonement and he represents more of an orthodox position. I hadn't really heard that before. I was in Rome a few weeks ago as well and I had a lot of conversations with Catholic priests. I got to hear their version of various things, so constantly learning, but some of these questions that I had to wrestle with on what constitutes Christianity, what is a peripheral issue, what is a core issue. These are questions that I had to tackle while I was still a Muslim because I was responding to my Christian friends and I needed to know what is kind of a straw man issue and what's a core issue of the faith. So these were some things that I had to sort of define for myself well before I was able to give up my Islamic faith. Also, within Islam, there's a lot of authority. You have to believe certain things, certain hadith that come from certain authoritative perspectives. So I was a bit hesitant to accept authority within the Christian tradition when everything I had learned growing up as a child, I had deemed to be incorrect. So I understand the position. I definitely sympathize, but I think there are good resolutions to a lot of these questions. Well, perhaps we'll come to some of that in the course of time. Just briefly, I'd be interested to know what you're doing now because you're obviously from the States originally in a bill, but you've been resident in Oxford where you're having all these interesting encounters with theologians and different thinkers and so on. What's the project that you're working on just at the moment? Specifically, I'm working on my doctorate New Testament studies. I think scripture and our understanding of scripture and more importantly, Jesus' understanding of scripture has a lot to do with what we can accurately define as Christian. So kind of along the same lines, grappling with some of the same issues about New Testament studies. It's great to have you on the program today. I know you well as a kind of responding to Islam, but it'll be interesting to see how a conversation goes today responding to Andrew's agnosticism and some of the sources of it. So that's our discussion topic today. I hope you're interested in getting in touch as well. You can email in [email protected], subscribe to the podcast, or click through to the Facebook and Twitter. I thought what we'd start with is an age-old debate on this program, which you've made at a video of the various views that are out there on creation and evolution. The Bible says that God is not the offer of confusion. Is it possible that everybody can be right? Hi, welcome to this episode of Christian Diversity. One question that people ask is, is Christianity compatible with evolution? Let's take a look at these videos to see what this Christian controversy is all about. How compatible is Christianity with evolution? It assumes Christians have a uniform answer on this, which they don't. Well, is evolution compatible with Scripture with the God of the Bible? No, that's not compatible with the Bible, okay? Second of all, it's not compatible with science. We can view evolution in some ways as a friend to faith, not something that has to be viewed as an implacably hostile enemy. Now, many church leaders and Christians and even professors in Christian universities do not hold to a literal six-day creation. Wait a minute. You know, God is God. God could choose any way he wants to create the world, and it doesn't make it any less marvelous. As a matter of fact, it makes it more marvelous because he would be so intricate in its creation. Modern educators have been steeped in the false understanding of the theory of evolution. Because they have believed this table, they have taught it to millions of unsuspecting minds and conditioned those minds to reject God's revelation of himself at the very beginning of Genesis. Ken Miller, a textbook author, he's a Roman Catholic. He argues for the compatibility of evolution, Christianity, in his book, Finding Darwin's God. Theories in science never become facts. Theories in science explain facts. And the reality is, But although people raise a lot of arguments against evolution, there isn't a single experimental factor observation that has appeared in the last 150 years that contradicts the broad outlines of the theory of evolution. He'd have to come to this conclusion, but it is certainly concordant with the conclusion of a god who intended evolution to be the mode of his creation. There should be known that in the Orthodox churches and in the Catholic churches, evolution is now embraced. There may be people here and there within that denomination who don't accept evolution even today, but by and large, both denominations do, and they integrate evolution into their Christian faith in some way. Protestants have a much harder time. There is a huge split in Protestant Christianity, and what I mean by that is perhaps in conservative evangelical fundamentalist Christianity. In America, there are highly vocal groups that denounce evolution as all those part of the devil's work, or they just don't agree with it, they don't believe it, or they think there's a controversy or something like that. So just a snatch there of the video that you've produced on your Christian diversity YouTube channel, Andrew, laying out with lots of little sound bites, just some of the many voices in that debate as to whether we should take a literal six day creation view, an evolutionary view, something in between and so on. As I say, something we've covered many times on this show as well. Well, we kind of heard Andrew sort of spelling out some of the stuff there in the video Nabil. We won't have time on this all the next video, this clip I play to actually discuss in any depth the issue at stake, but what's your general kind of approach to the fact that different Christians do have very different ideas about evolution and creation? Well, I think it goes back to the issue of genre, a lot of people see scripture differently from one another, some people see it as maybe the only authority they have in their faith, some people see it as you have to read it literally in one sense, other people see you have to read it literally in another sense. And so, presuppositions are method of approaching our faith, the basis of our interpretations are exegesis, these are all questions that we have to grapple with. And a lot of people come to the table with with a different understanding and never discuss it. And so, people speak right past one another using the same language, but with different semantic content. And so, I think that when I think about the diversity within Christianity, and it seems to reflect to me the diversity that exists, I guess in the world, if there is a God who created this world, and you see such diversity in races, in languages, you see diversity in ideas and histories and civilizations, why are we so surprised to see people approach specific topics, come up with a variety of different beliefs, and think therefore that there can't be one God behind it? Hmm. Well, what's your ultimate problem with the fact that there are different views on creation and evolution, Andrew? And why would it be a barrier to believing in the truth of Christianity? Well, I think that this actually is a major one, because when you hear, it's not just the statement, "Oh, evolution, okay, God may have used evolution and the world is 4.5 billion years old in the universe, 13. Or, you know, the other end, it's 6,000 years old, okay, Adam and Eve and Elitial Garden are eaten." The people that argue strongly like, say Ken Ham and the very sort of young earth creation ists, they really believe the entire fabric of Christianity is compromised if you really go for the mainstream science and evolutionary views. And so I think that when you hear the reasons for those, and then others on the evolutionary side say, "Listen, you are simply giving a cast-iron reason to reject Christianity. If you're just going to push the fact of mainstream science, evolution isn't true." In a sense, it's almost impossible to do anything with everyone who agrees with you and every subject, I suppose, in that sense you'd never get a Christian conference going in the first place. I mean, what's your overall take on this, then, Neville? Is it, you know, fundamentally meaning that Christians just can't even start to kind of get on the same page if they can't agree on something as fundamental as the age of the universe even? Well, yeah, I disagree that it's fundamental to the Christian faith. You have what I understand to be Christianity, and this is something that we have to be very careful, and I would love to see what the response is to how we define Christianity to begin with. Of course, leaving aside the idea that every person has their own idiosyncratic opinions about things. Everyone thinks different things about different things, so we can't come to a hundred percent uniformed congruity on anything. So the question we have to ask is, what is central to the Christian faith? And I don't think the age of the world falls into that category. I think when we look at the inception of the Christian faith and see how it distinguished itself from the broader Jewish faith, and of course the Greco-Roman pagan religions, as well, those are the identifying factors that formed the Christian faith, and never was the age of the universe a part of that discussion. The discussion was, is the Jewish God the real God? Is Christ the Messiah? What is his position in relation to God, is he God himself? These are the kinds of questions that formed Christianity. So I think those are the ones that are foundational to the faith, not a question like the age of the universe. Well, I would actually really, really disagree with that, because, okay, if you say the age of the earth in one sense, it could say that that's peripheral, and the young earth's argue on matter is one point, but actually it touches into the integration of Adam and Eve, say genealogies down to Christ. It touches in, not so much to Jewish theology, who don't have a problem so much, but with Christian theology, so the domino effect affects, say, original sin, and if you're talking about, say, death coming through Adam's sin, are you saying, you know, you then have to come to an idea of who exactly were Adam and Eve in the Bible story? Do they represent hominids? Do they represent different from Neanderthals? Where do they come in? And how does the Christian story, which has a history, how literal is that history going to be taken? And so the young earth is, I really do feel that their consistency is far stronger than evolutionary creationism in trying to mesh it, but I'm completely for mainstream science and evolution in terms of my own studies in that area. So I would say that the age of the earth may be a bit of a red herring, but it's just a focus on that, but it does touch into Adam and Eve and the historicity of the Christian faith. Because in the end, yes, the idea of sin and the fall and original sin, it is all fairly fundamental to the salvation story in Christianity, Nebiel, so is that a valid kind of comeback? Well, see, I still have a problem because, of course, it's related. I'm not saying it's not related. I'm not saying it doesn't have an impact. Of course, there's a domino effect as well. But what it impacts is one understanding of how to read Scripture. So you even have people who will affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, the infallibility of Scripture, the canonicity of Scripture, who will affirm that and still conclude in terms of an old earth. How do they do that? Are they being inconsistent? Well, they understand genres of texts to be different, for example, the genre of Genesis to be different from the genre of Romans to be different from the genre of the book of Revelation. And so they're reading the Bible differently, and therefore they're interpreting it differently. But fundamentally, they agree on the issue of the importance of Scripture. And so let's be very clear with how we approach these issues. When I say something is foundational or not foundational, I'm not talking about its importance. I'm talking about whether it has to do with the definition of Christianity or not. Does it kick somebody out of the circle of Christianity if they disagree? So when it comes to the age of the universe, important, absolutely. What does it reflect on our understanding of Scripture and its inerrancy? But there's still latitude within that view. We've been termed putting around the term Christianity at this point, and you did want to ask I think the bill of Andrew what he would define a Christian has. And I guess that's kind of how long is a piece of string if you're looking at all these doctrines as somehow being important to defining what Christianity is. I mean, is there a basic core of beliefs of orthodox beliefs that someone sort of has to hold to to be able to call themselves a Christian? Would you go as far as that, Andrew? Well, I think the way I've done this video series calling it Christian diversity there, what I wanted to do was do to do something that would actually be a resource that could actually be almost a skeptical resource and at the same time it could be a very good Christian resource. And it was actually, for me, if I was taking it the Christian way, which I think you could, you could say, hey, let's have a little more respect for people who have a totally opposing view. Okay, you've got views on there where somebody says, hell is eternal, conscious, suffering for millions of people who aren't saved. No, says somebody else, I'm a Christian believer. And I think God's revelation is saying, hell actually means an ultimate annihilation, maybe suffering in the meantime. And someone else says, no, the overall scheme is a universalistic one. Ultimately, all should be saved. What is God saying? But for each person to then question the faith of those, I think I've seen enough sincerity from and passion. And one of these things on this series is that I keep going back to the point. Can you see the passion of this person? This person is a oneness Pentecostal. He firmly believes the Bible does not teach the Trinity. And I'm thinking, I've seen this passion in my life so many times with people's convictions on what God is saying. Someone's got to know what is God saying. You know, and so to me, a definition of a Christian is not, Nabil might have one and say that, okay, these people, I've heard people, I think it was somebody, it was a huge rost that said that, you know, if you don't believe an eternal torment, that's the real boundary marker to whether you're not so much a Christian but whether you're really in the fold. Now, I know just how you're talking about evangelical Christianism or something like that. Oh, yeah, yeah. And so a subsection actually like of the Christian fold, but I mean, let's allow Liana Beel to come back on this. So that's my spiel on it. Liana Beel, do you have a kind of core beliefs that you have to have to be able to call yourself a Christian in the first place? I do. And I get to that very briefly. And just the first thing that I'd want to say is that I, Andrew, I just, my heart breaks for you because I know you want to get to the truth. You sound like someone who, who really has looked and searched and toiled and tormented over these things. But in every single arena of life, you will have passionate people who disagree, learn it people. Some people even think that they speak for whatever they're speaking for. Just take a look at politics. I don't know much about politics in the UK, but in America, you'll have people speaking for their country, calling themselves true Americans. And some will be, you know, died in the wool liberals and others will be, you know, die hard conservatives that have very different positions, but that doesn't mean America doesn't exist. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's a completely non sequitur conclusion, but just to answer the question on what makes the, what makes a Christian a Christian. I think self identification is a problem just because you call yourself a Christian. That doesn't mean you are one. I just had a conversation the other day with an atheist who calls himself a Christian. And I think that's a problem. So I think in order to have a meaningful use of a term, I mean, you can, you can always have a flippant use. But if you want to have a meaningful use of a term, I think we have to go back to at least one way to do it is the historical construction of that term. And when you talk about Christianity, what is it that divided Christians in the earliest phases of identity formation from the people around them? I think it was these things. Things were divided from Jews based on their belief in the Messiah of Jesus being the Messiah and in fact being God himself. And then how did they divide themselves from the pagans? Well, they believed in the God of the Hebrew Bible. So I think that's how the Christian formation of identity came about. And that's what I think we should still use today. Does a Christian believe in the one God of the Jewish Bible? And does he see Jesus as having risen from the dead as Lord? That's the my basic definition of what makes it. Would you sort of go with something like then the Apostles Creed as being a fairly sort of baseline kind of set of beliefs for you to be able to call yourself a Christian? I would perhaps stretch the tent a bit broader. I basically think what the New Testament says, you know, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you'll be saved. Romans 10 and 9. And the word Lord there is defined just a little bit further down. It refers back to Joel chapter 2. So we're talking about the Lord of the Hebrew Bible. So if you believe in Jewish monotheism and the resurrection of Jesus. It's kind of then that might include one this Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons even. And it would do because the I could do a series. I mean, I'm continuing to do this series. I've probably got another 12 in mind to do. But you could do one on the early church. And I know in a bill, you're into these sort of foundations of Christianity. But if you sort of get the sort of bottom and scholarship and various other early church people and sort of other resources, you do get these differences back then. You do get, you know, you know, what did Jesus develop into God or was he a Trinity straight off and they had no issue in the book of Acts or wasn't even on the cards yet? So there's all these early church differences. But what I did, I wanted to pick up a point actually what you mentioned about the, that there's so much diversity in real life because that is true in a humanistic way. The world is, I'm fascinated by its diversity. But we're talking here about a revelation in a Scripture from God, which is presumably, presumably meant to communicate to humanity. And the whole point of this is that everybody is looking at it like, you know, all our human differences mean we'll have a different understanding of genre and know its literal, this literal or its metaphorical. Is God trying to communicate or not? Because I would say that for my experience and the video and video series that I've done to demonstrate this is that people desperately trying to understand what God is communicating is coming to them in totally, totally different ways on very big subject. Just a very brief response and we'll have to go to a break before we pick it up again in a bill. Well, I think God is communicating along various lines and I think people within every single camp, every single denomination, some might have a relationship with God, even if they're doctrines wrong. So I think God is communicating successfully, but I think we'll come back to these issues after the break. Okay. We'll do that. And we'll play another one of the videos as well that Andrew has come up with a completely different area. Charismatic. Gifts of the Spirit. We'll talk about, so you're listening to Unbelieveable with me, Justin Breilin. My guest today, Andrew White, is an agnostic who's been making a series of short videos in various areas where Christianity has a multiplicity of doctrines and interpretation. It's called the Christian Diversity YouTube channel and we're going to hear another one shortly and we're asking how can Christianity be true when Christians believe so many different things and responding today, Nabil Kureshi, speaker and author, will be back in a moment's time here on the show that gets you thinking. Welcome back to the second part of today's show. We're asking how can Christianity be true when Christians believe so many different things? Unbelieveable brings Christians and non-Christians together on a regular basis. If you want to find more programs, the last back catalog of shows, all kinds of different themes that we've covered over the years, why not subscribe to the podcast. The ways to get in touch are there as well. You can email [email protected], leave a comment underneath the latest shows or indeed find us via Facebook and Twitter, but Nabil Kureshi and Andrew White, join me on the program today. Andrew White, our agnostic in studio, talking about the various different types of doctrines you get in Christianity, so many different variations on them, and we were talking about evolution and creation in the first part. We'll talk about another video that Andrew's made on the different varieties of approach to the charismatic gifts of the spirit. Are they still with us, operational, have they ceased to and so on? Before we get to that, I know Nabil, you were interested in just responding to that question of we asked what would be your baseline for someone calling themselves a Christian and equated, you know, those who say with Emmaus, Jesus, Lord and believe he rose from the dead. And we asked, well, wouldn't, you know, Jehovah's Witness in a. No, one has paid the cost to law, whoever, you know, potentially be able to subscribe to that. What's your take on that? Well, I think we have to, unfortunately, rule out Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons because Mormons are not monotheists, they're a henotheists, they believe in multiple gods and people being able to become gods. Jehovah's Witnesses, of course, don't believe in the deity of Christ, they believe Christ was an angel. So I think we do have to rule them out. When we talk about the earliest church, you know, I had the privilege of studying under a professor, Irman, I made sure to hear his views and actually study under him for a year. And even after hearing his views, I'm convinced that the earliest church, those who can be put in the first generation after Jesus, all believed in his deity and they all believed that he rose from the dead and they believed in the one God of the Jewish Bible. So I think when we start from that perspective, we do have grounds for a line that we can draw to include that which falls within Christianity and that which falls without later. But I mean, that's fair enough, but of course, just in the line of diversity here, there are heavy weights that would totally disagree with what you've said historically. And also what kind of deity we were talking about and are you talking about Trinity? And I would never have ruled out areas back then when he was trying to understand the Bible the best as he could thinking that Jesus wasn't the eternally sort of created sound as orthodoxy said, I would think that you if you were a Christian between then and when when the formulations were really sort of settled, I think that you couldn't possibly have said, this is a dividing boundary and 16 million won this Pentecostals today passionately believe that the scripture says and that God is trying to teach this truth. And in fact, there are some of the most passionate people I've found on the internet or actually one is Pentecostals. They are faithful to the scripture has not teaching what has become the orthodoxy of the Trinity. It boggles my mind. I'm thinking, what is this passion? Is it just demonic? Are you going to say or just deception or is it just wrong? You know, so I just think that you need to have a, you know, if you're drawing a boundary marker there, I wouldn't do that in history. Quick response, Neville, before we hear the next video. Well, I mean, areas would fall outside the line because he believes Jesus is God, but not the same substance as God, the Father. So that makes two gods and you can't have polytheism and be Christian. I think one is Pentecostalism is an interesting question, but unfortunately, I don't think we have too much time to go into it right now. Well, let's play another video anyway and continue to hear another one of the examples that Andrew has on his new YouTube channel. So yes, we've done this subject before as well, but let's hear how Andrew frames it when it comes to the varieties of beliefs on their charismatic gifts of the spirit. Welcome to this episode of Christian Diversity in the narratives of the New Testament in the Bible. It talks about people in the church speaking in what is called tunnels or that people are to have words of prophecy and there are stories of people being healed and prayed for and miracles happen and people who have visions and hear from God. It's argued by some that all of these things actually died out with the first apostles of the church in the first century AD. However, other people believe that these things are to be part of the daily Christian life in churches and around the world today in their Christian communities. Well, what you just heard is, of course, the phenomenon known as "speaking in tongues". And to outsiders, it's gibberish. Speaking in tongues is done by the vast majority of so-called charismatic Pentecostal denominations across the world. Speaking in tongues is a Christian speaking a language that hears she does not understand, a language that is given to him or her via the Holy Spirit from Jesus Christ. Speaking in tongues is not a sign that you have the Holy Ghost annoying you. Rather, it is a sign that the devil is controlling your mind and your spirit. This tongues movement, this charismatic movement or Pentecostal movement or whatever you want to call it, is not biblical. All these gifts that Paul talks about exist in and through the church, and I think even tongues as well. And I'm going to show you what the Bible actually teaches. The charismatic movement is largely the reason the church is in the mess that is in today. Less America sees the part of God and America is going to go down the tubes. Why is it that we have been so reluctant to confront this massive movement that has captivated 500 million plus people? Now, a word of knowledge is one of the gifts of the Spirit, right? He's going to have a second term. He's going to win. Run to run. He will win. What makes you believe in that? Because the Lord told me. The entire show did miss it and I thought I'd heard from God. I thought I had heard clearly from God. Yeah. How do we know the real from the unreal? Well, there are so many people who are self-appointed and things like Prophet, Byzantine, Father. They're professional of them. And what's their track record? I mean, that's the way you're told. So we're going to look at this topic tonight. Gifts of the Spirit, have they ceased? There we go. Another snippet from one of these videos on the Christian diversity channel that Andrew Magnostic guessed has been putting together this time on charismatic gifts of the Spirit and quite another variety of different views on display there. Nambial, is it too personal question to ask whether you believe in the charismatic gifts of the Spirit and speaking in tongues and that kind of thing? Goodness. I'm not entirely sure where I fall on the issue. So you're somewhere undecided on this one? Yeah, on issues that are not fundamental to the Christian faith, I can kind of remain undecided. Yeah. What? You're aware, obviously. I'm sure you've got friends maybe, even who have different perspectives on this, some who absolutely say yes, completely believe it and sold out on that, no problem. Others who may be doubtful, skeptical or outright deny that these things exist today. So again, is this for you fundamentally a problem in any way for the Christian faith? See, and I think maybe this will help me illustrate a bit better where I'm trying to come from. I think, for example, when you talk about did Jesus die on the cross, I mean, the evidence is extremely strong. When you talk about, did he rise from the dead? We have excellent reason to believe he rose from the dead. When we talk about his deity, did he claim to be God? Is that what he was proving by rising from the dead? Once again, fantastic reason to say yes. But when it comes to something like speaking in tongues or prophesying or healing in today's time, people can take all kinds of opinions because the evidence leads in all kinds of directions. People's testimonies are both affirmative and negative. That kind of, I guess, lack of confidence in your own position is perfectly acceptable within the bounds of the Christian faith, because it's not something you have to hold to firmly in order to be a Christian. Sure. The fact that different Christians do hold very firmly in different positions, though, does that in any way cause a problem? Given that again, it's an example of people very passionate on both sides who radically disagree about something that's pretty important, whether someone is just speaking gibberish when they're talking in tongues or whether they are receiving a kind of direct revelation or intimate moment with God. I think it poses a problem in so far as people can be wrong, and we know that people can be wrong. What I'm trying to say is yes, even people who are trying to pursue God who believe they're guided by God, they can be wrong. We know that, and that is a problem, I'm not trying to sweep it under the rug, but does that mean that everyone's wrong or that we can't know certain things with confidence? I think that's very non-sequitur. Okay. Yeah, I have some good points there. I think slightly on this particular episode, as we move on through it, we sort of go into other areas of the charismatic movement, and then we move slightly more into the Toronto blessing. This is sort of more wildly charismatic, and I think my point I'm trying to share is that a lot of these people firmly believe that they are hearing is back to this thing again, you're experiencing God as far as they're concerned, and they believe, and then other people who observe say, "No, no, that's actually Satan there doing that." And then, you know, so you've got these well-known people who are flopping around the floor in some meeting under the spirit, and an angel is doing this, and then someone like, I don't know, John MacArthur in the Strange Fire thing said, "This is just Christ like because as you'll see in the clips, this is just not Christianity as a matter of fact." One of them said on the video, "These people need to be saved," and the people on the floor are probably thinking, "The world needs to experience God just like this." And to me, this says something so profoundly different about what is actually really happening, and that's my point, because one person's God doing stuff is another person's deception, and I have seen this again and again and again. And I've been in the Toronto meetings, I've actually been sort of experienced spiritual things there, and people said to me, "Totally different things, you know, that's a devil doing something, although that's an angel, although that was God doing this about your background or something." And I'm thinking, I don't even know what it is, let alone you at these different voices, and, you know, and so this whole spectrum of charismatic believe touches into whether you really are hearing from God or whether you are delusional, so that's the point, you know, because it's up for grabs, as you would say, you know, it must be. Well, what's okay, and he comes back on all of this in a bit. Well, I think, you know, one of the great things about God is that He is personal, and He relates with us where we are. I have a lot of people ask me, because as part of my conversion from Islam to Christianity was what some might call charismatic, insofar as I had asked God for confirmation through dreams and visions, and I did receive dreams and visions that led me to Christianity. And people ask me in a bill, "What is that? What is that about?" And my response to them is, look, generally speaking within Islam, Muslims don't think they can interact with Allah. I mean, I'm not talking about Sufi Islam, but general traditional Islam, except through revelation in dreams. And so they're waiting to hear from God through dreams. And I think God, being the personal loving God that He is, meets people in their expectations. And so when you're talking about charismatic Christianity, then perhaps God is meeting through meeting charismatic Christians through their expectations, and He's meeting non-charismatic Christians through theirs, that there's something possible there, a reality that doesn't contradict Christians. In a sense, you're saying it's possible that they can both be right almost, though, in a sense, if God is meeting one party in a charismatic way, then the person who denies any kind of charismatic activity is being proven wrong at that point, presumably. Yeah, I think the condemnation of others, people should be much, much more careful before they condemn others. So in so far as their own experience is concerned, I think people have a lot more footing to stand on. And let's not continue condemning one another with your potential experience with God. Well, I mean, one of the people on the video there, some sort of, I think some pentacles to a guy, he was just saying that, you know, well, Jesus walked into the room, you know, he goes, I was there, I don't know how happened, he sort of walked in the middle of the room in and Todd Bentley said the same thing, Jesus appeared to me, not really much different than the way the Apostle Paul talks in the New Testament, which of course, some is sacrosanct and sort of sacred scriptures. So of course, Paul had these visions and they were genuinely God, but then these other people say they have something similar and then you get people doubting it, but they believe it. My point is they believe it. They don't think that they're making this up and some of them might be cautious and say, well, I think the Lord appeared to me. But when you go that far, what's really happening, and again, I am a sort of mind after seeing so many things over the years in the charismatic movement, I become much more sort of, yeah, you know, very much skeptical, very skeptical, just because there's so many people said and did things with such conviction themselves. The Lord has told me, yeah, right, and, but this is, but this is your point, no real, I suppose that there is a lot of room for subjective opinion in this particular area of Christendom. I think so. And I think if you start looking at things that can be a little bit more objectively tested, for example, the occurrence of healings or what Gary Habermass calls objectively verifiable near death experience. It's not all near death experience, but the ones that can be objectively verified. There are indications which can lead us to think that there is a supernatural reality that God can speak into and work in, but then again, we shouldn't be imposing those categories upon others or telling them that they ought to believe our experiences. So it is a fine line we have to draw. Let's remember what, what said in the New Testament though, which is that we see thinly or through a veil, we, we don't know all these spiritual realities and we won't on this side of life. I mean, when you've got some people literally saying people who are experiencing some kind of charismatic outpouring are literally not unsaved because they're not proper Christians, they're not, you know, believing that I think. and so on. Do you find that that is a problem for you? Because at that point, you're saying on the basis of this, if you're like secondary issue, I'm going to determine whether you're in or out of the kingdom, essentially. Yeah, I think that is a problem. I think we have absolutely no right to kick somebody out as long as they are adhering clearly to the core of the faith. And again, I draw that pretty, pretty broadly, you know, resurrection, monotheism, you know, Jesus is God, that has always been the core of the faith from the inception of the church. And so beyond that, I will not call anyone a non-Christian, even if they're barking on the floor. Yeah. Well, I appreciate that very much. That's the one who's done some barking. Not barking. Actually, a friend of mine was barking next to me, and I was flying like an eagle in one of these things, just like 20 years ago. I was right there, actually, at the Toronto thing right when it started. Interesting experience. But I wanted to just forgotten the point. Oh, yeah, the point that I wanted to bring up was that saying this strange fire conference with John MacArthur, the point I'm trying to make is that they're not being like you, Nabil, saying that I'm not going to judge this. They really feel that they are hearing or having the real truth from scripture, not so much from all these visions and speaking in some kind of way into your mind, but they have scripture as their way of hearing from God. And they really believe they are defending, you know, like John MacArthur said, the world, the Christian church is in a mess because of 500 million caromatics who are doing this stuff. But they're not doing it because they nasty or just want to be horrible. They really feel that truth is profoundly from God in a certain way. And that it's at stake. And it's at stake. And so it's so you can say it's peripheral, just can say you're tussling with the details. But John MacArthur thinks it's a real crunch thing, but the world, you know, and sorry, I just have to say this one point. I was at studying theology with a friend actually that you know, the Nigel Desbra and I asked him this question that bugged me and it was like a childhood question and it was still the biggest one today. And I was sitting there in the break between lectures once and I said, you know, one of the biggest problems is that I'm in a catch 22. I said that most of the Christianity that we are involved with believe that Jesus can speak to you, that God can speak to you. And we use that language. I said, so, so why can't I say, you know, okay, Jesus God, is eternal conscious torment true from Scripture? Yes, Jesus, that's what I'm trying to teach you. Thank you brother. You know, and no, because somebody else would say, no, no, no, you have to test hearing from Jesus by going back to the Bible because that's how we measure hearing from God in case you might be delusional. So I'm thinking, okay, well, I can't do that because I'm asking you all these different views that different scholars are telling me. And now going to Jesus to get the answer and somebody want to know. It sounds to me like you're someone, Andrew, who kind of, and I see this a bit in your story, but someone who wants things to be obvious, black and white at some level on what's what is the truth, what isn't the truth when it comes to specific things. Is that a fair? Well, I think that is fair in a sense that there may be those roots of conservative fundamentalists views of the Bible, like if you see it as infallible and in error, and I think Nabil does think that and we have to ask him that question. But if you are taught from a young age that the Bible is a revelation from God that he's communicating, he's not giving a puzzle for 70 years to struggle on whether you can find out whether Jesus is a Trinity or in part of it, or struggling on what hell actually is or how do you really know God and what church is right, that it's a, is he communicating something infallible to man? And if he's capable of creating human beings to write an infallible text, why on earth can't he use the same process? Lots of questions to understand it. Lots of questions. He could do it. Lots of questions there, Nabil. So he's got it fault for not creating something or making it really plain and obvious on various of these areas. Or inspiring people to understand it in the same way that he inspired it. Why not? I really do think that God loves diversity. I think he loves latitude and we see that in the world he's created. We see that in the scripture he's given us. There is a lot of room for latitude. That's why we have people, Greg Boyd from Open Theism all the way down to hyper Calvinists. You have a lot of different conclusions coming from belief in scripture. The point that I want to make is those things which are extremely important to the Christian faith. Once again, death, deity, resurrection of Jesus, Jewish monotheism, the ones that are fundamental, there's excellent reason to believe them. And so beyond that, yeah, I think God's kind of okay with a wide degree of latitude. Now, where we draw the line, that's what's most important. Just to stay with you there for a bit more Nabil. I mean, you've talked about this call then in the sense of what you think is essential for someone to be able to call themselves a Christian. I suppose, for me, it's what do you say then to Andrew, who's sitting there, has abandoned Christianity after years of kind of coming, getting to grips with more and more different versions of doctrines and different things and everything. What went wrong for Andrew? What did he lose along the way? I mean, is it just about sitting down and working out the core things we do believe and then okay, we can take our pick with the rest of the stuff? Or is there something more fundamental going on? I don't know whether there's there's almost a conviction about the person of Christ that is not just something from a textbook, but something that is within us that somehow anchors us as well. I mean, I'm speaking a bit from personal experience here now as well, because I would say that my Christian faith was ignited at a relatively young age of my teens at a point before I'd ever considered any of the multitude of doctrines and things. But I had an inner experience, let's say, that Jesus was God and that I was in relationship with him. And then my theology, to some extent, grew out of that, and I learned lots of stuff along the way. But I don't know, Nabil, if that makes any sense to you or whether you've got a different take on that. No, it does make sense. And the first thing I'd say to Andrew is, "Hop a bus to Oxford sometime. Let's grab a meal and just chitchat." I think these are, I think you and I have the same heart on a lot of these questions. Part of the issue for me growing up was that, you know, I was in a Muslim home. I was told to believe things about Islam in the Quran and I was given a very strong authoritative backing for that. And when I came to understand that all of it was problematic. I didn't then look at Christianity as in the same light. I didn't want to play somebody else's fool basically and just take another line of authoritative tradition and believe it was 100% true. I think, you know, from what I heard of your own testimony, Andrew, on a previous show, is that being raised in a fundamentalist background, you were formed in this world as you were a child. You were formed with the perspective that you had to believe a very specific set of things in order to be right. And realizing the swath of opinions has kind of given you whiplash as you look and see at the people who are passionate. How can they all be right? I do think keeping our eyes on, you know, majoring on the majors, being focused on the things that absolutely are fundamental, figuring out what those are if you need to. And then beyond that, not being swayed by all these different people who are heavyweights. I agree with your terminology. They're heavyweights, but people can be wrong. People can be affected by emotions. They can be affected by agendas in their conclusions. So let's not look at the people, the number of people who believe things. I mean, just coming back to another before you come in, because I think this is an important aspect of this in the field, but that question of, you know, shouldn't there be a more kind of unified church? You know, we've got however many hundreds of thousands of denominations in the world or whatever. If God's intention is to reveal himself in a clear way through Jesus Christ, it does that count as evidence against Christianity. That there is this diversity. I mean, you say, I'm not against diversity. I think God has a good reason for maybe wanting diversity, but at the same time, it's produced a lot of toil tears and bloodshed over the centuries. So what's is it a kind of an evidence against Christianity in the end? Well, Jesus prayed for the church to be unified. Paul said that he wanted the church to be unified. I think it's condemning to the Christians who are so focused on divisiveness. Again, that's one reason why I simply will not condemn people that meet very basic Christian criteria. So I think it shows that Christians have often failed to do what God has told them to do, which is love each other and accept one another and work in unity. But that doesn't then therefore mean that Christianity has failed. So if there's any fault at stake, it's not God's, it's our human nature in that. Absolutely. Well, that, just a couple of points, a really a lot to reply to there. Yeah, I would still struggle with that terminology. I noticed you use it just in quite a lot that the differences are down to our sort of fallibility and the human frailty and understanding the truth. But it, like I said, if he could do it with the Bible writers in some way to get his truth down on paper or in scripture, he could probably make a more unified human. I'm not saying what God should or shouldn't do, but I'm saying if you're arguing that, you know, the Bible is true because human writers wrote it, but it's true because it's inspired because it's inspired. Why have been dropped the inspiration and let every Christian wind of doctrine go? What's the use of having an inspired document if we can't agree? Exactly. And infallible, why not, why not do we more and more like a progressive, like an author like Tom Stark who says that the Bible is a full of different voices against each other and differences and changes and it's progressing and this that. And it does reflect the diversity, the positive side that you used in diversity as opposed to the negative. But I would just, I just wanted to a couple of points to bring back that you talked about. I certainly had very deep Christian experiences in being born again when I was teenager and I went to YWAM and they were very, very devotional Christians very much. So in matter of fact, I was sort of overcooked on the more sort of God is speaking you today overnight prayer meetings and things like that. So I have been there and I know I think some of that's quite damaging in a way when you see people, you just pick up differences of people sort of dynamic relationship with God and they and God is just telling them something so different than the other person in the same subject and it's like, it's almost it to me, it's just like if you just stood back and you just think hang around, is everybody really just got God in their own mind? And they're just saying this is the objective God out there. That's what it sort of rings true to me. I see where you come in. Just quick response and we've got to go to another break before we start to wrap things up. Go ahead Nabil. Yeah, I would just encourage you that I don't want to sound like a broken record. There are going to be a lot of people with a lot of different opinions but I do think that you personally should ask yourself in your heart where you are on these things and I know you're saying, well, we're baffled by all the people around us with all these different opinions. Sure, sure, but you are you being pursuing and are you hearing and listening and trying to receive from Christ because I do believe he's a living person and he will speak to you whichever way you're ready to hear that. I'll just one more point on that just just to say actually you did say something was interesting because my story's like the reverse of yours. I at the time I first came to see Justin to talk on what eschatology wasn't it sort of the way way back totally different views on the end times that are out there and ones that have really affected me. But my point there is I had never doubted the resurrection. Never doubted those cool things that you are talking about but because of all of these other issues and experiences and things I began to sort of think let me just look at I've never looked into it. I'd always believed it never looked into the detail. I looked into the resurrection by sort of more sceptical people or even even Christians of some level and I was completely shocked by how what I felt was weak by the standard apologetic kind of case and I was shocked and so I actually became in a sense doubted the resurrection at the end not it was a first goal. It was an end result. So it was really weird our journeys. Obviously Nabil had a very different response to the same evidence. But he's not a Catholic and he's not saved. That's another video, sorry. We'll go do a quick break anyway. We're talking about diversity in the various branches of Christianity. Is that evidence against the truth of Christianity? We're asking today on the show. My guests are Andrew White and Nabil Kureshi and they'll continue to join me on the other side of a short break. Welcome back to the final part of Unbelievable. Unbelievable brings you a range of discussions between people of different perspectives. I'm Justin Browley. Let's conclude this discussion today between Andrew White and Nabil Kureshi. I'd been indoctrinated from the age of three in terms of Islam and being taught that Jesus was not God that the Trinity was blasphemy because it's polytheism. Jesus did not die on the cross. I can still quote for you the verses from the Quran that say that because we're drilled into my head. But when I started looking into these things a bit more carefully and yes, you have scholars who are going to say everything. You even have someone like Bob Price who says Jesus didn't exist. But when you start looking at the reasons and analyzing the evidence, the argumentation, there's excellent reason to believe that Jesus did exist that he died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. And then again that he was alive a few days later. There's lots of reasons to believe that. I guess if you were going to explore my story a bit further seeking Allah, finding Jesus is the name of my book. That's where I give all the reasons. But for this conversation, all I can say is there's excellent reason to believe Jesus claimed to be God and that he rose from the dead. Now if that's true, if a man claims to be God and then rises from the dead to prove his claim, then who cares what someone says about the age of the universe? Who cares if people are barking or they think they can't talk to God? Who cares about all that? You have to deal with the man who rose from the dead and claimed to be God. And he says he can have a relationship with you. That's what you should focus on. Not everything else in all the opinions, which will always sway with fashion. Yeah. I mean, I'd be interested just as we've got a few minutes at the end here as well, Nabil. It wasn't just, as you say, a kind of being convinced by a set of historical arguments. You also felt there was some kind of supernatural affirmation through dreams that you were having and perhaps particularly relevant to you as a Muslim because that scene is a valid form of God confirming something. I mean, are you willing to kind of sharing the detail of what that was and how that worked for you? Right. Well, definitely how it worked for me anyway, because I do not think we should primarily base our beliefs upon God by subjective experiences and charismatic moments. And so for me, it was an issue of confirmation. God, I have studied these things. I think I can, by my conscience, conclude these things. Can you confirm them for me? Because you're an active and living God. And for me, the expectation was three dreams. And yeah, I saw visions that were symbolic. I saw visions that were much more clear. I'm sorry, dreams that were much more clear. But again, it's a matter of confirmation. And so and that's why I'm kind of suggesting for Andrew that yes, you've seen and you've looked and there's so much broad opinion out here. But perhaps if you focus on the fundamentals and then ask God for guidance, what will you specifically get? Because that's what happened with me. And I believe God will function that way with you if you did it for me. Yeah, I was sort of flung to that in a way. It's interesting how, yeah, coming from your Muslim background and having those visions, I understand that because Muhammad, I think, had visions. It's kind of acceptable for the potential. But when I looked into it for the Christian, from my point of view, I had kind of accepted it. I had studied so much in so many different areas, studied theology, its virgins and everything else. But looking into the core core, I kind of use just an assumption rather than looking at it. And I was surprised because when I piece things together, for example, for example, the mark being the earliest gospel, having the end sort of chopped off and lost in some way, and no resurrection appearances, I have this interesting. And then suddenly Luke and Matthew do and they have quite differing ones where Mark, Luke places everything in Jerusalem and Jesus seems to disappear on the very day. And Matthew sort of has nothing about Jerusalem that they go over to up into Galilee on a mountain. And I'm thinking, these are quite different in geography and quite, and then the appearances, it was really interesting to see that people didn't recognize him. And there's a Mary, Magdalene, didn't recognize him. And I'm thinking, you know, it's not quite so literal then. And then, and then I suppose a bigger one was in Matthew, it talks about some actually saw him doubted. And I'm thinking, goodness, me. So there's some there disciples, the natural reading of the text is that they doubted. And and then Paul said, Jesus appeared to him, but that was much more in line with like Stephen's vision, which is more of a vision. And yet he's talking about an appearance. And I'm thinking, it's just no different than Todd Bentley saying, he just saw Jesus come into his room. And I'm thinking to myself, goodness, me. So, so when we really try, so when you went to the sources, you didn't see it as nearly as as coherent as what I used to see here. Yeah, let's allow Nebel to respond because for you, evidently, again, you had every reason to to to jump to the same conclusions as Andrew, I guess, Nebel, but you didn't feel that that was the conclusion you drew. Yeah, that's where I started. You know, I was just looking at the opinions of all these scholars who disagreed and I just would quote them. But it wasn't, and that's why I'm doing even now, being a student of New Testament here at Oxford, is looking at why people say these different things. Why does Mark not have the ending that Matthew and Luke do? And are these reconcilable or these contradictory? And I would firmly stand on the opinion that there say again, you're glad you had missed it because some fundamentals out there say, no, no, that ending of Mark is real scripture and we'll tell you why, you know? Well, yeah, well, no, it's definitely not. March 16 9 through through 20. We know that that's not original to Mark's text. But did we lose something? I don't think we did. I think it ends exactly where Mark intended it to end and I have reasons for that. But what we do have in Matthew and in Luke and in John are not contradictory. Even though we might have some questions about geography and the like, that's what they are. Their questions are not contradictions. At the end of the day, even if if we're reading the text properly, considering their genres, considering the themes that the different evangelists are trying to discuss, I find it interesting that, you know, you said, but if God can inspire scripture such that people can write down His truth, why doesn't He give us one specific opinion, one set of inspired beliefs? Well, even in scripture, you have different voices. You have different perspectives being shared. Once again, it points back to the fact that God loves diversity, I think. And when it comes to the core, all the gospel say the same thing. Jesus died. He rose. He claimed to be God. And that's what I think ultimately matters. It's very disputed with the synoptics that He claimed to be God. Even I love talking about it. Even conservatives would say that. I'm surprised that you would say that. And I do think they're contradictory in a sense because not necessarily, I think, for fundamentalist literalism, they're contradictory because you're trying to see it as a video because even John has the crucifixion on a different day at different time. And if you try to wed it in a sense of saying, well, okay, it's different calendars and you're trying to see it. What about accepting the fact that the writers may have had a different theology and they're not talking about historical details? You know, there's all that kind of discussion. We're gonna have to start quick response to the Nabeel before we sort of have final thoughts. Yeah, I think that you do have different thematic concerns from these different gospel authors. No question marks gospels all about the deity of Christ, introducing Jesus as Yahweh himself, concluding that Jesus is Yahweh in Mark 1462. We could talk about that another time. But this core of the Christian faith is unshakeable and that's what makes someone a believer. nothing else. We're going to have to draw things to a close right now. It's been really interesting having you to talk about this. So what's the name of the YouTube channel again just as? I've called it Christian diversity. So if you type into YouTube, just Christian diversity, you will see a particularly uniform kind of video presentation. I'm a video editor by trade and you're not the kind of their thematic. As I can see, Andrew sort of objecting necessarily. It's not like you're there being an internet atheist saying, well, you can see how this is all rubbish and wrong. You're kind of, you kind of leave an open question at the end about, well, what do we make of this? Yeah, I deliberately consciously wanted to emulate a professor that I once, let's listen to, who the students after a whole semester did not know whether he was a Christian, agnostic or an atheist or anything else. And he asked the students and he got different hands for different ones. I thought, I want to do that. I want to do a series where people think, is this guy Christian? Is he a liberal? Is he a Catholic? Is he non-Christian? Is he a skeptic? And I thought it's worked because on a different people have responded, they don't know. Right. So, there you go. Proof is in the book. Just one thing I wanted to ask you, Nabil, is, okay, someone, you know, lots of atheists and agnostics, non-believers, listen to unbelievable, and it's been going, I believe it aren't, not nearly 10 years it will be in the end of this year. And in the course of that, they would have heard many different Christians from different perspectives debating different things, as well as hearing Christians and atheist debating. But for the person who is confused and says, well, I don't know what I believe about creation or evolution or how penal substitution versus Christ's victor or any number of different doctrines that we've debated. What's your advice to someone who is confused at the end of the day about Christianity? My advice is that Jesus tells us he is the way the truth in the life. And if Jesus is alive, if he is God again, the core of the Christian faith, then I think he will lead you to the truth. Do not then hide your questions. Do not just fester in your doubts, but air those, talk to people about them, investigate, discuss, and pray. Ask God to lead. Seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall receive is what we're told in Matthew 7. So don't be afraid of God. Don't be afraid of questions and expect God to lead. I think you'll be in good shape. All right. We're going to have to leave it there, folks. Thank you very much for both of your input. So it's been really fascinating. If you want to find out more about Nebula, a good website for people to go to Nebula, just off the top of your head. You can go to nebulacareshi.com and do check out the program from last year when Nebula joined me to debate his book. Seeking Allah, finding Jesus, Nebula. Correct. It was a really interesting discussion as well. So thank you again, gentlemen, for being with me on today's edition of Unbelievable. And thank you for listening. Progressive knows you think the grass is always greener. Like maybe you ride a motorcycle. But today, it's raining. So you wish you had an RV. But if you did, you'd have to listen to some guy park next to a campsite play as acoustic a talk. Now before you start wishing you had a boat, remember your brother-in-law would invite himself every weekend. Permission to come aboard Captain? The one thing that is greener is the money you could save when you bundle your RV boat or motorcycle with your home or auto, with Progressive. Progressive casualty insurance company affiliates and third-party insurance, not available in all states or situations. In all Disney World Resort, your family can surprise you, like your father. The one that is always fallen. But here you can't laugh and scream at me and else. When you have to say "No, that's not it" when you come to Space Mountain. And you, you can make memories in the most magical place in the world with the most magical people you know. And that's pure magic. Believe me, remember us all in this new world.com.