Super Soul Special: Lynne Twist: The Soul of Money

If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Because as your life changes and your body changes, sleep number mattresses adapt and shift to give you personalized comfort night after night. And now everything's on sale during our Memorial Day event. Save up to $1,200 on mattresses for a limited time. To experience a whole new world of comfort visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com. Sleep number to a good life sleep. Hello and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio version of my videos available to make listening to my stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this podcast add free, you can join us on Patreon at patreon.com/vicerino. Please enjoy. Hello and welcome to my channel. Vice for I know here. Today we're back at the Christiani Engage channel that y'all remember from the Skeptics Journey series. Today we're not listening to them telefabricated story about Nathias they claim was real. Instead, we're going to hear them explain their view on the problem of evil. So let's take a look. How could a good god allow evil and suffering? Well, as philosopher Philip Goff has suggested, God could be a god of limited power, thus leaving him unable to prevent it. But usually the only time ofologist turn to that explanation is when engaged in definition fights that they attempt to win on technicalities. But I'm not sure the Christian god would appreciate being thrown under the bus in order to technically win a definition fight. To paraphrase the ancient philosopher Epicurus, if God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not all powerful. If he is able but not willing, then he is not good. If he is both able and willing, why does evil exist? And if he is neither able nor willing, why call him God? Yes, and I appreciate that you pointed out that this is a paraphrase not a quote. Epicurus was not an atheist and likely would not have appreciated the why call him God bit that was tacked on at the end. He just believed that whatever gods might exist, they were clearly either unable to do anything about human suffering, or didn't care about human suffering any more than a person cares about the suffering happening in the ant colony under their house. Chances are, the gods aren't even aware of our suffering and if presented with the fact of our suffering, would be indifferent at best. Evil and suffering is a very difficult topic, and not just for Christians, even atheists have a hard time with the concept of evil. Notice how he suddenly transitioned from talking about evil and suffering to just the concept of evil when bringing up this problem for atheists. This is a common slate of hand-tactic that apologists use when talking about the problem of evil. Evil as a concept is very easily tied to religious ideas, but suffering is just suffering. A Christian might call fornication evil, and I might, with some caveats, call that same act good. And the difference there is tied to religion, but stubbing your toe hurts just the same, whether you're a Christian Muslim Hindu atheist or whatever. So I'm wagering that we're about to see him use the view of evil as filtered through a Christian lens to say that atheists have a problem with it, but he'll completely ignore the fact that atheists are perfectly capable of understanding that suffering is bad without Christianity. Because without God there is no logical basis for a definitive moral code. If you take God out of the equation, right and wrong are completely subjective, and absolute values for good and evil don't exist. Yep, there we go. Now, I have explained how atheism orality can work in previous videos, but I do want to say I disagree with that. Personally, I think that even with a God, his opinion should not be automatically accepted as the absolute standard for right and wrong, especially given that his opinion has frequently landed on genocide being an acceptable solution to what he considers to be the problem of religious freedom. Or there's the time when he landed on genocide being an acceptable solution to the problem of some men committing a brutal murder. But then just before the genocide was completed, he changed his mind on that one, but now wives need to be found for all the surviving men of that tribe since all the women and children had already been killed. So the solution God landed on for that problem was to do a mini genocide against the town of Jebech-Giliad and then subject the surviving Virgin girls to sex slavery. In my own subjective view, genocide and slavery, sexual or otherwise, are always wrong. So I don't see why I should have to acquiesce to God's moral opinions here, because honestly if we're defining good in a way that could potentially include genocide and slavery, then I wouldn't want to be good. According to evolutionary biologists and pronounced atheists, Richard Dawkins, "There will come a day when Christian apologists will fail to bring up Richard Dawkins in one of their videos, but it is not this day!" The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect. If there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. Yes, and clearly he is referring to good evil in the religious sense there. His point is that the world we live in is rife with suffering, which is the kind of world we would expect to exist if there were not an all-powerful and benevolent being in charge of things. The atheist worldview doesn't have any foundation to condemn war, oppression or crime as evil. Christians can't condemn war as evil either because there are so many wars in the Bible that God explicitly condoned. Someone may believe the Holocaust was wrong, but their opinion isn't more valid than the Nazi soldiers believed that it was good. The Holocaust caused lots of suffering. The suffering far outweighed any positives that such a person might have seen in it. There go the Holocaust was bad, and those that think that it was bad have the better justification for that position than those who thought that it was good, many of whom were Christians who thought that they were doing God's will, by the way. Which kind of undermines the idea that Christians can on the basis of their absolute moral standard condemn the Holocaust as wrong and have their condemnation be more valid than the Nazi soldiers, some of whom believed on the basis of their absolute moral standard grounded in the Christian God that the Holocaust was not wrong. Now to be clear, the relationship between Nazis and religion is not a straightforward one. There were definitely anti-Christian sentiments among some of the higher-ups, including Hitler himself, but Germany at the time was an intensely Christian nation. In 1939 when Nazi Germany was nearing its peak, the population was 94% Christian of some flavor or other, and the public message from the higher-ups was very much a pro-Christian one, with Hitler explicitly saying that their movement is Christian. So don't pretend like the condemnation of the Holocaust is an automatic conclusion of Christianity based on their absolute moral standard when Christians can't even unanimously agree on what their absolute standard has to say about pretty much anything. And heads up, there is some mild-gore in the next bit, they use a clip of a lion eating another animal, so if that sort of thing bothers you, look away until you hear me talking again, it's only about five seconds. Survival of the fittest doesn't condemn such behavior. No, it doesn't, because survival of the fittest is not a moral or ethical framework. It is just an oversimplified and somewhat incorrect description of how natural selection works. The organism that is the best fit for its environment is most likely to survive long enough to reproduce. It doesn't actually mean the biggest or strongest win. In fact, by the numbers, the ones that are typically thought of as the weaker ones, the prey animals, do better than the predators, like the lion from their clip. If the predators are too successful, then they eat themselves too extinction. Now, has a misunderstanding of the concept of survival of the fittest been used as a moral or ethical framework by social Darwinists? Of course it has. Has it turned out well for anyone? Obviously not. Air go, it isn't a good moral or ethical framework. Sometimes atheists use evil and suffering as proof of God's non-existence without realizing their worldview doesn't account for evil, and by validating the idea of an inherent moral code, they would actually be supporting God's existence, not the other way around. If you work in university maintenance, Granger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip-off and Granger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place from HVAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more and all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRANJURE, visit Granger.com or just up by Granger for the ones who get it done. This is the story of the one. As a maintenance tech at a university, he knows ordering from multiple suppliers takes time away from keeping their arena up and running. That's why he counts on Granger to get everything he needs from lighting and HVAC parts to plumbing supplies all in one place. And with fast, dependable delivery, he's stocked and ready for the next tip-off. Call 1-800-GRANJURE, click Granger.com or just up by Granger for the ones who get it done. Okay, but the answer was in the second word you used at the beginning of that statement. Suffering. I don't need to account for the religious concept of evil, but I don't need a god to tell me that feeling bad feels bad and a benevolent god would surely have designed a world where feeling bad didn't happen. At least not to the degree that it does in the world that we live in. Just as darkness is defined as the absence of light, evil is the opposite or absence of good. Opposite? Sure. Absence? No. There are plenty of things that I would not describe as good, but which don't run. rise to the level of evil. There is no good in a long way to get a traffic light when I really have to pee, but I don't think that anyone would describe that as evil on the basis that there is an absence of good there. Even completely neutral things. Right now, there are countless photons traveling through the vast expanse of space which will never interact with anything. They will just keep going until the end of time. There is no good in that, but it's not evil. It's just the way it is. So no, evil is not the absence of good in the same way that dark is the absence of light. In biblical terms, it's often defined as unrighteousness, injustice, and ungodliness. And because real beings act out real evil, evil is very real, and its effects are devastating. So you move from talking about evil in the religious sense to evil in the practical sense. You define evil as unrighteous. Now, to take it back to my fornication example, I have no doubt that you would consider that to be unrighteous and therefore evil. And, well, unsafe sex certainly does have some potential ramifications that could be described as devastating effects. What about my situation? I live with my partner and we are unmarried. According to most Christians, we are living in sin. But where are the real and devastating effects of our evil transgression? I have yet to find any. Honestly, the worst part about our sex life is how infrequent it is because between the two of us, we got five kids, and kids are a really good contraceptive. But let's get petty about this, shall we? Let's look at something that we both agree is wrong and is in your list of big ten rules that you have to follow. Stealing. In my house is a spoon that I stole from a restaurant that I worked at over a decade ago. I mean, I guess technically I didn't really steal it. It was just in a pocket of my apron and I noticed it at home and just never brought it back. The initial theft was accidental, but I made the decision to keep it. All of my former pastors would agree that this was an unrighteous decision that moved the act from an accidental slight into the breaking of the no-stealing commandment. So, what were the devastating effects of my thievery? The restaurant didn't even notice, and I didn't really gain anything from the act. It wasn't a particularly nice spoon and we weren't in need of spoons at the time. It was motivated more by apathy than anything, but on the flip side, I suffered zero consequences, and the victim of my evil act is, to this day, unaware that such evil took place. Now, I'm not bringing up this small petty evil to say that evil never has bad consequences, but rather to argue the definition of evil. These sorts of actions are evil in the religious sense, in that the Christian moral code says that they are wrong, and they have had zero devastating effects. So, he switched to a more practical definition that is centered around human suffering. The way I would define evil is the intentional inflicting of suffering, or the refusal to take action that would alleviate suffering, with the caveat that the action to alleviate the suffering actually has to be possible for you, and you have to know about the suffering. If there is a kid beating up another kid on the other side of town, and I'm not even aware of it, then it is not evil for me to not stop it. But if it were happening in my front yard, then it would be. So, with this definition, yes, I'd agree that evil is real and has devastating effects. But, also with this definition, the Christian God is inherently evil, because he has the knowledge and ability to stop any evil from happening, but chooses not to. So, if God is good, why does he allow evil and suffering? Because he doesn't exist, but notice that now he's slipped back into the grouping of evil and suffering. Weird how the word suffering just gets casually forgotten about when it becomes inconvenient for their argument. Before we answer this, consider the difference between how a doctor will approach the topic of cancer, compared to a patient who was just told they have less than six months to live. In the same way, we can look at this topic from a philosophical, theological, and intellectual point of view. But at some point in our lives, we will all face this topic like the patient in the midst of deep-rooted personal pain. Yeah, suffering is a thing that everyone goes through at some point, though two varying degrees. But I'm not sure why the fact that suffering is universal is relevant here. Unless you're arguing on my side? Seems to me, it could be a good argument for Christianity if Christians were actually protected from suffering. But I'd argue that in such case, God would still not be good as He will only stop your pain if you devote your life to Him first. But we also know from the book of Job that sometimes the suffering of God's most devoted followers could just be the result of God gambling with the devil, so I guess Christians don't get protection. And in that moment, let's be honest, there is no answer to this question that will be truly satisfying. Because knowledge won't heal the hurt. We believe the Christian worldview provides the most hope. The worldview that your personal suffering could just be God gambling with your well-being provides the most hope. Well, that's a bit of a move point anyway, because how satisfying your hopeful answer is isn't actually relevant to whether or not that answer is true. If I were asked how much money is in my bank account right now, the hopeful and satisfying answer would be at least a million dollars. The real answer of barely enough to last until my next payday, as long as I figure out which bills I can be laid on, is much less satisfying and hopeful, but it is unfortunately the true one. So yeah, the answer after you die you go to a magical happy place where you'll never feel bad again is a lot more hopeful than suffering is just a fact of life, but wishing for a magical happy place doesn't make it real. But no worldview will shield you from the pain. That is the problem of evil in a nutshell. It doesn't matter what your worldview is, reality behaves as though there is no benevolent God watching out for anyone. So why does God allow it? Well, remember, according to Isaiah 457, God doesn't just allow evil. God creates it. The cause of evil in the world, according to the Bible, is the God of the Bible. The Bible teaches God created human beings in his image. This is where we get our inherent value. And while we cringe at heinous crimes. So let me get this straight. We don't cringe at heinous crimes because we have empathy. We cringe at heinous crimes because it's not actually just a crime against a thinking and feeling being. It's also a crime against a being who can't possibly be harmed in any way. That sounds rather heinous in and of itself. Actions like rape, murder, and child abuse are not just socially unproductive behaviors. They are moral abominations, not subject to interpretation. Except that in the Bible, rape is a property crime committed against the man whose woman is raped and there are no provisions protecting men from rape. Also, child abuse is commanded as a thing you must do if you love your children. As for murder, the only reason you can escape from that one is on a technicality. Murder is unlawful killing. If God is the one deciding what is considered lawful and what is not, then anytime he kills people or has people killed, it can't be murder because it doesn't break the law that he set out. Never mind that he commanded the Israelites to commit heinous atrocities in his name. It's not technically murder, so it must be okay. So two out of three of those are subject to interpretation and the third one you are only capable of winning by defining yourself as the winner in advance. Some moral system you've got there. God gives us the freedom to do both good and evil. He created us with the capacity, but not the obligation to do both. If we don't have the obligation not to do evil, then hell wouldn't exist as a punishment for those who failed to do good. Wait a minute. It doesn't actually matter if you do good or evil does it. You get into heaven-based solely on the question of whether you've accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior. So yeah, I guess that tracks. It also explains why the most vocally Christian politicians are also the ones most likely to vote against the criminalization of child marriage in the United States. Actions don't matter after all. You don't get into paradise by being a good person, so why bother? In this sense, I actually find the atheist answer to be the more hopeful and satisfying one. This is the only life we have, so we'd better make the best of it and do what we can make other people's lives better as well. None of this, this life doesn't matter, so why bother making things better? Just empathetic people working to help each other. The world would be a much better place if we could make the performative Christians behave this way, but sadly it seems as though the Christians most likely to actually want to do good, don't end up in prominent or powerful positions, so the unethical power hungry monsters like Pete Hegseth fill those spaces and seem to be hell-bent on making life as miserable as possible for as many people as possible. Is he a true Christian? Don't know, don't care. He's using Christianity to spread violence and misery. The effect is the same, regardless of what's in his heart of hearts. He has given clear instructions on how we should live, and it pains him to see us bring destruction on ourselves and others when we violate his rules. Can we really call his instructions clear when Christians can't even agree on them? For example, there are plenty of progressive churches that are LGBTQ affirming, and I've seen several apologists laugh at the idea that they could ever be considered the same as those people. Each side of that debate will have Christians claiming that gods' instructions on this matter are clear, and they will each be able to bring Bible verses to the table to support their position, and explanations as to why the Bible verses brought by the other side don't work for their argument. As an outsider looking in, it looks to be anything but clear. Many opponents to the Christian faith claim that because life on earth isn't heaven on earth, God must not exist, but the Bible never teaches this life will be perfect. I know of no one who claims that it does. That would actually be a bit of a failing on the human author's part if it did, after all religion developed at least partially as a way of explaining the human condition, and suffering is a part of that. That's why there's a whole last book in the Bible explaining that bad things happen to good people. I just happen to think the explanation of God was gambling with the evil being he created isn't a very good one. Though to be fair, God was less powerful to the author of Job than he is to modern day Christians, and Satan hadn't graduated to the Christian caricature that he is today. He was just a member of God's heavenly court. So now that I think about it, this was actually in line with some of the pagan ideas about God's who interfere with our lives for entertainment. In fact, Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble, but take heart. I have overcome the world." A statement that makes it seem like after Jesus, there will be no more trouble in the world, because, you know, Jesus overcame it. But realistically, that actually sounds like something written by a Christian who is convinced that they were living in the end times. Jesus has overcome the world, so we're all moving on to the post-apocalyptic paradise that he promised us. Of course, for modern Christians, it's just interpreted so that Jesus, just providing a way for humans to access heaven, counts as having overcome the world, even though the world is still chugging along, same as it was before he came into the thing. The truth is, we may not always understand why God allows people to suffer, but the Bible promises, and all things God works for the good of those who love Him. Yeah, well, Bible also has a whole book dedicated to how God might have your children killed in order to test your faith and wait a bet with Satan. Seems like a bit of a mixed message if you ask me. Sometimes God may allow us to suffer to test the genuineness of our faith. Oh, okay. Just come right out and admit it then. Yeah, sometimes the all-knowing guy decides to test whether or not he really is all-knowing by torturing us. Once again, I contend that if the Christian God exists, he isn't a good God. Sometimes, like with the thief on the cross, our suffering is our own fault. Being nailed to a cross and left hanging until you die is a bit of an overreaction to the crime of theft, so I actually blame the Romans for that one. Sometimes God may stand ready to heal you if you would only ask Him in faith. Thus setting up a victim blaming trap. Oh, you prayed and God didn't heal you? You must not have enough faith. Try giving the money for your chemo treatment of the church. That will surely show God that you are faithful. That sort of reasoning has caused a great deal of suffering over the years, often by grifters like Peter Popoff, who know that they are hurting people. So by my definition, it is evil. Other times, he may not heal you suffering directly, but instead provide supernatural comfort and peace, or show you kindness and compassion through someone else. Ah, that's another gross tactic. If someone is being kind or compassionate to you, that's not to their credit for being a kind and compassionate person. The credit goes exclusively to God. God needs to be all about Him at all times, because He's apparently a selfish prick. Sometimes, like Job and the Old Testament, we may never fully understand the specific reasons for our suffering until we get to heaven. And this is the answer that you said was more satisfying? I don't know. Maybe we'll find out after we die. That's not even an answer, much less a satisfying one. So while how satisfying an answer is has no bearing on the truth of that answer, turns out that the Christian answer isn't even satisfying anyway. Other times, like Joseph in the book of Genesis, we may see God's good purposes for our suffering in our lifetime. Joseph told his brothers, who sold him into slavery, you intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So the thing with that is that those lives could very easily have been saved by, you know, God not causing a seven-year famine, unless you think that weather patterns are outside of God's control for some reason. And then there are times when we can't possibly fathom what God is doing. In Psalm 22, King David penned the words, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" He was an agony, and he didn't understand why God didn't save him from his anguish. About a thousand years later, one of his descendants under those same words while he died on a cross, identifying with David's suffering. How could David have possibly known that his pain would foreshadow the most significant event in human history? Are you seriously suggesting that David wrote those words, knowing that Jesus would repeat them hundreds of years later? Isn't it far more likely that Jesus, a guy that was supposed to have been intimately familiar with all of the scriptures, was just making a reference? That's giving the stories more credit than they deserve, but still, when I say, "I have grown accustomed to your face to my partner," how could Alan J. Learner have possibly known in 1956 that I would say that? Or is it perhaps more likely that I, being familiar with the musical My Fair Lady and knowing that as one of my partner's favorites, am just referencing it? Sometimes God may use suffering as an opportunity for you to turn to him. Translation. Beedings will continue until Moral Improves. Perhaps a more important question than how could a good God allow evil and suffering is this? Did God make any provision for the existence of evil? And can we trust him in our suffering? How is that a more important question than why is there suffering? God is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful. He shouldn't need to make provisions for evil. We shouldn't have to trust him in our suffering. It should just not exist. And since it does, he is reasonable to expect an explanation as to why. And to answer this, I'll point you to the cross where Jesus of Nazareth, the son of God, suffered and died. He lived a perfect life, and yet paid the ultimate penalty for all the evils of mankind. Well, not all of them. Just the ones committed by those who believe in him at the point of their death. Although there may be a loophole here. When I was a Christian, I sincerely ask God to forgive all my sins in Jesus' name. And God is outside of time, so presumably all there is not exclusively those in the past, but includes future sins. So even if Christianity winds up being true, I should be set. Now I know this isn't how any Christian thinks it works, but I don't see why an all-powerful God should be limited to our timeline, so there we go. You see, God isn't distant from us in our human sufferings as some would say. At the cross, He became a part of it. Okay, that's nice, but we're not asking Him to be a part of it. We're asking Him to explain why it exists at all. Why did He create evil? Why does He allow suffering? Even joining in briefly does nothing to answer these questions. The Bible teaches, "One day God will completely eliminate evil and suffering from the presence of His children forever. There will be a new heaven, and a new earth, and evil and suffering will pass away." Thus demonstrating that making a world without suffering or evil was within God's power, He just decided to make a suffer for no apparent reason. There will be a final judgment one day, and there will be justice for everyone who suffered at the hands of evil man. Well, unless those evil men happen to have converted to Christianity at some point before their death, then you get to spend an eternity in the same place as the people who inflicted suffering on you. Huzzah for the God of Justice! Now I'm skipping a bunch of preaching. When we come back in, a different presenter will have just given a brief summary of the story of Cory Tenboom, a woman who helped hide Jews from the Nazis and became a survivor of one of the most brutal concentration camps of World War II. After the war, while giving a talk in Munich, a former guard at that concentration camp approached her. He came up to her, and he told her that after the war, he had placed his faith in Jesus and became a Christian. He went on to say that God has forgiven him for all of his cruel actions, and then he held out his hand, and he asked for her forgiveness. At which point she struggled for a bit, and then after a brief prayer to God for the strength of "forgive him," she forgave him. But while this story is meant to highlight the power of forgiveness, it does leave me wondering. What of the people who didn't forgive him? What of the people who don't have the option to forgive him because they are dead as a direct result of his actions? Many, potentially most of them, would not have been Christians, and so according to Christian doctrine, they went from suffering in the concentration camp to suffering in hell. But this man who caused their worldly suffering gets to walk around free and feels the weight of his actions lifted from his shoulders because he apologized to God and one single former prisoner? Now in the ever-loving f*** is that justice? And he became a Christian, so a Nazi campgird who is guilty of some of the worst crimes we can possibly imagine gets to enjoy eternal paradise while many of those who were the victims of his crimes are sentenced to eternal torture. That's the Christian worldview. True, it is not a universal view. There are plenty of Christians out there who don't believe a God would send anyone to hell, but the most vocal Christians are the ones who are happy to preach about hellfire and damnation. How can they possibly say that God is a God of justice when that God allows Nazis into paradise while torturing the victims of the Nazis? That's it for this one. Today's comment of the day comes just from Let Me Doubt, who says, "Well, if there's no heresy in science, then climate science is definitely a cult. They've burned their fair share of scientists at the proverbial stake, and you're not allowed to doubt the 97% consensus. No doom predictions came true, but you still have to believe in an imminent apocalypse while the scare mongers by their seaside mansions." "Um, do we live in the same reality?" I mean, okay, I can see how one could paint a picture of climate change predictions being inaccurate if they were only looking at news outlets and political grandstanding. Yes, there have been predictions that were wrong. But when you look at the actual scientific analysis of the performance of climate models over time, they have been incredibly accurate. Actually, slight correction. There have been some incorrect predictions on the scientific side of things. Turns out, several models predicting an increase of extreme weather events were significantly wrong. In that they underestimated how bad it would actually be. Reality is worse than they predicted. The thing about science is that, well, there is no heresy? Because it is a process of discovery about reality, as time goes on, there will be more and more unity. When something news discovered, at first, there will be disagreements, as different scientists will come up with potential explanations for that new thing. But as more has learned about it, the hypotheses will be eliminated until only one is left standing. It's an oversimplified picture, of course, but when that happens, it- can appear as though consensus is the orthodox, and anything counter-consensus is heretical. But as has been shown numerous times in history, even if you start from a counter-consensus position, if your position is actually correct, reality will bear that out, and you will eventually be vindicated. With regards to climate change, the reason the consensus is at 97%, is not because those who disagree get burned at the stake. It's because the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming does appear to match reality very closely. Thanks for watching, I'll be back next Friday with more, but if you need to get your Rhinofix in before then, I livestream with Serious Every Wednesday, 830 Eastern on my other channel The Watering Hole, and periodically publish shorts on the channel Vice-Rino Shorts. Thanks to Piper for being my editor, and special thanks is always to my patrons, who are the prey animals that outnumber the predator that is my channel. If you'd like to prove the common interpretation of survival of the fittest wrong, you can join us on Patreon for as little as a dollar per week over at patreon.com/vice-rino or by supporting the channel on one of the other methods I can be found at links of vice-round.com, which is also where you'll find links from other projects. And for whatever reason you want to send me stuff, my PO Box address is in the description. See you next time! If you work in university maintenance, Granger considers you an MVP, because your playbook ensures your Rhino is always ready for tip-off, and Granger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from HVAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more, and all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock, so your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRanger-visitgranger.com or just up by Granger. For the ones who get it done. As a procurement manager for a hospital system, she keeps every facility in her network stocked and ready. That's why she counts on Granger to be her single source for thousands of products, from disinfectants to lighting, air filters, and more. And with fast, dependable delivery, Granger helps her keep every facility stocked, safe, and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRanger, click ranger.com or just stop by. for the ones who get it done.