Speaker 1: Welcome, all you chad Nerds, all you space boys on
the Planet's sois what's up? A lot of SaaS talking
today on the internet, a lot of Sassin and as
you know, when we got SaaS talkers, I always open
it up to give the SaaS an opportunity to come
and make their case, to explain to us why we
should believe in whatever the position is, whether it's Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Calvinism.
Today is not about atheism. So we're not talking tag
and atheism. If you're calling about tag and atheism, I'm
immediately going to skip you. We're not talking about random
obscure topics. None of that is the topic today. The
topics are actually communiately listed for you, Catholicism, Protestantism, libertarianism,
black hebil Israelites, arianism, Job's witnesses, Muslims, Unitarians, Mormons may
all call in gnostics. Those are all acceptable topics. Basically,
we're not talking tag and we're not talking atheism. We
want to see if we can focus on getting the Protestants,
the cults, the sex the groups, the Unitarians, and even
of course the Roman Catholics. Because I'm more and more
convinced that the best description for Roman Catholicism is actually
a cult. It is an irrational cult that enslaves its
people to a religion of dead works, lacking the power thereof,
as Paul says, focusing their people on ridiculous superstitions, apparitions,
visions fatima when they evitably encounter the theological contradictions that
exist in the religion that are quite fundamental. For example,
the top Roman Catholic apologists and people were surprised that
I said the top. I said tap because as far
as I'm aware, he has the large audience following namesake
Catholic apologist. I mean, we could say Matt Frad has
a larger channel. But Matt Frad doesn't engage in a
lot of apologetics. He basically sits back, interviews people, and
talks in his ridiculous Australian accent. Oh yee only freed
unlocked kways, I'm an all Australian. I'm just being silly.
I do impressions of everybody. I know that Romancolics get
their feelings hurt when I do that impression. But we
had another doubling down. If you recall some months back,
I mentioned the word triad in passing, and Trent Horne
assumed as the original tweet shows that he thought this
meant something to do with arianism. I said that you know,
in our debate you were incorrect by misunderstanding the fact
that Abraham worshiped of the Trinity. Trent thought this was
mind blowing. How no natural theology teaches me that they
worshiped a Unitarian God in the Old Testament. And then
he says, I asked if they knew that God was
a trinity, Jewish multiplicity in the Godhead could be akin
to proto arianism. No. In fact, the very point of
why would argue that the Old Testament teaches the triad
is to prove that they were trinitarian Trent. So, as
you can see, his initial reply is quite literally a
fundamental misunderstanding of the basics that every orthodox Christian knows
by looking at the ruble of Icon that the Old
Testament saints worshiped the Triad. And Trent says, you even
had to use the word triad to describe it, but
you would say that modern people that worship triad as
in Jehovah's witnesses are not worshiping the once true God.
So notice that very clearly Trent didn't even understand the
very common terminology amongst the Greek fathers, the Byzantine theologians,
the very theologians who dogmatized and solidified and explicated the Trinity, Cappadocians,
Saint Maximus, et cetera. For Trent, he thinks this is
somehow bound up with Arianism, even though Trent attended, according
to his own description, for many years, or presumably for
many years, the Eastern Rite. The Eastern Right hails Palomas
as a saint, which actually makes no sense given the
fact that he was considered a damnable heretic for many centuries.
And to notice that the most famous work that he
has is called the Triads. A simple search would tell
you that amongst the Orthodox world, Triad refers to Trinity.
Now what does Trent simply say, Oh, I misunderstood, you're correct. No,
he doubles down, because it shows that he's not even
familiar with basic terminology in the very fathers that dogmatize
the Trinity. Doubles down and says, no, uh, this is
an Egyptian term. What the word can be synonymous with trinity.
But it's more common as a grouping of deities. Look
at the nineteen ninety six egypt Ptology book from John Griffith. Now,
the more common use is not something that from an
obscure Egyptologist Trent. The more common use is what you
should know from the Uniate world in the Orthodox world
of triad meaning trinity. This is just silly. Now Trent
doubles down again and says that Old Testament Jews did
not worship the Trinity. He says it right here, did
the faithful Jews who live before christ incarnation worship God?
If they did, then they must have worshiped the same
God or the Trinity of the Christians. Even though they
didn't worship. Trent does not believe that the Old Testament
saints worship the triad, even though Jesus and John five
through nine says that they worshiped the Father, his Angel,
and his Spirit. So Trent doesn't even know that the
Old Testament teaches the triad. Now. I pointed this out
in at the time of the debate, and after we
had our debate, and Trent and other people tried to
save face and tried to do damage control. He didn't
mean that. He didn't mean that he says right here,
literally a few seconds ago, that they didn't believe in
the Trinity. So do you understand that Roman Catholics do
not understand the Trinity? And I don't mean in terms
of an intellectual comprehension. I mean they fundamentally have ridiculous,
stupid theology. And in order to save face and defend
his natural theology, all of vaticant use no stratat Trent
is literally saying that they believed in a Unitarian God,
the very thing that I said was the problem in
the debate. Trent still thinks that the Old Testament people
believed in a Unitarian God and not the Triad. So
this refutes all of the Roman Catholic liars that sat
here saying that that's not what true means. Why do
Roman Clics feel the need to lie? And how could
you be this silly in your theology to be so
ignorant of the Old Testament? Again proving my point in
the debate that how would you argue against a Muslim?
Do you not understand that to debate any Muslim requires
going to the Old Testament to prove the Trinity. I
even showed a video that was my opening statement in
the day on Hookikachu debate to Trent, which apparently he
hasn't watch because it refutes his stupid heresy in Acts seventeen,
in no way says that they worshiped a Unitarian god.
It's just like this guy is on another planet and
doesn't even understand what the debate is. And now the
libertarian says he can't hop on. Dude, I sent you
the link. There's no reason why you can't hop on
this debate. It's an open chat. You wanted to debate.
Now you're saying he can't get on here. Give me
a break. Here you are you hopped on here? Now,
where's the actual video? I want you? I hope you
guys understand that this means that Roman Catholics don't have
the basics of the Trinity. I'm pretty sure that Trinity
is a pretty important doctrine. And you just saw Trent
say that in the tw that he just put up
the very thing that all of his defenders were saying
he didn't mean. He says it again. Now, let's remind
ourselves of a few moments of the debate with Daniel Haikikachu,
because it turns out Trent and Daniel have the same God,
the Unitarian generic God of natural theism. Now, I know
that Trent would confess to believe in the Trinity and
the deed of Christ, but he doesn't understand that he's
got two conflicting, contradictory positions in his worldview. And he
doubled and tripled down in the last hour on Twitter
on this. So I repeat again, did the Old Testament
saints worship a generic Unitarian deity, the very thing that
Trent and Romcathosis Nostra Tate and Trent just now within
the last five minutes reaffirmed, or do they worship the
triad as every Orthodox person knows. You're saying that this
is fundamental to us, and they're still wandering around, groping
in the dark like the Pagans of Act seventeen, not
understanding that it's a triad in the very beginning, because
their theology is all jacked up and dumb. That's why.
Because they're in a giant machine that they have to
make all of these pieces work and make this giant
algorithm that's a giant bunch of contradictions fit together, and
they don't. They don't even know what recapitulation is they
don't even know what monarchical trinitarianism is when it's fundamental orthodoxy.
So let's go back to how we would argue with
a Muslim to refute to Trent where the Old Testament
Jews generic unitarians. Let's look at Jewish scholarship explaining to
us what they believe. Surprise is that the Old Testament trinitarian,
They were not unitarian. Judaism specifically in the Second Temple
period was not a monolithic unitarian enterprise. The question becomes,
what are the teachings of the prophets in the Old Testament?
Did they actually teach as Islam says, a radical unitarianism
or is it something more fluid or is there differentiation
in Yahweh. In fact, modern Jewish scholarship unanimously is undecided
on this question. There's a lot of Jewish scholarship that
is listed here. For example, Daniel boy Lauren later I
have Summer and I have a Siegel, and they admit
that in the Old Testament itself, not due to Christian deviation,
but in the Old Testament itself we find many, many
passages that show differentiation in Yahueh that differentiation is not
just located in rabbinic debates. It also continues into later
medieval debates with Jewish cabbal law, and you could see there.
For example, Gursham Scholam in his book on Kabala, he's
the respected cabalist theologian of the Middle Ages or a
scholar of medieval kabbala. He points out, for example, to
beat three beginningless lights that are mentioned. Now, I'm not
a cobbalist. I'm just pointing out that this shows that
the Jewish tradition is not monolithic in its presentation. So
I'd like to come back then to my screen to
me here and point out that the first display of
Trinitarian theology in the law of the Prophets is for example,
here on this whiteboard. And I'm showing this whiteboard because
hopefully guys can see this. This is a tremendous amount
of texts. Now, this list of texts that you see
me post. If you've read Justin Martyr against Trifle, the
jew is trent even aware that Justin martr argues from
the Old Testament Theophanes to prove the deity of Christ,
and his attempt at proving triad It's like Trent's never
talked to a Muslim or never read these church fathers.
Oh but wait a minute. Trent didn't know what the
word triad meant. He thought it was a pagan, anti
Trinitarian term when it's constantly used in the Eastern Church fathers.
So now Trent is doubling down, as we said, tripling
down that the Old Testament saints did not worship the Trinity.
They worshiped a Unitarian God. Has he never read John
five through nine? Has he not read Second Corinthians three,
where Paul says that Moses looked face to face with Jesus.
If no man sees the Father at any time, as
Jesus argues in John to the Pharisees and John five,
then who was Moses talking to? This is the point
of Jesus' argument to the Pharisees. I don't think Trent
knows the Bible very well at all, and particularly not
the Old Testament at all. I think Trent knows a
lot of pop apologetics, because remember Trent was not too
long ago a Deist who converted to Roman Catholicism, And
so I don't think Trent knows the Trinity. I think
he just accepts that the papacy got all this right,
and that's why most of his debates are cultural issues
or the papacy. I mean, maybe he's debated other topics.
I don't know. I don't follow these paper Roman Catholic
apologists because they're typically pretty low tier. But I mean,
this is just sort of mind blowing to me. The
I mean, what do we just talk about? Last night?
We spent how many we spent the first hour talking
about Old Testament predictions of the Messiah, and when the
Muslim called in, we started to go into various texts
in Isaiah, and as I mentioned, there are more than
you would you could even imagine in Isaiah. If you
haven't read Isaiah in a long time. It's called the
Fifth Gospel for a reason, Trent. Why would it be
called the Fifth Gospel if the Old Testament teaches a
Unitarian God. Why is the Messiah said to be worshiped.
Why does it talk about Yahweh, his Son, his Angel,
his covenant messinger, and his spirit all the way back
in Genesis? Do you understand that Genesis teaches the triad?
Do you understand that when Tripho is against Justin martyr.
Justin Marter keeps arguing from Genesis and other passages to
prove that who do you think Jacob was wrestling with.
It's like these people have never read the Bible or something. Bah.
But wait a minute, if we're talking about Roman Catholics,
that's actually fairly plausible. Outside of someone like Scott Hand,
I'm starting to think that maybe they don't actually read
the book. It's a closed book to them, as Paul says,
it's a closed book to the Jews and Second Corintha.
It's the very passage where it says Moses was talking
face to face with Christ, that the Jews have the
veil over their heart. It's almost like Roman Catholics and
Muslims have the veil over their heart. Yeah, because they're facts,
similar fake religions. That's why they're religions of dead works
without the power thereof. And I'm just citing these because
there's too many to fit on a single screen there
with typing it all out. You can screenshot this later
and go check the various textual references here for just
examples of Theophanes. And the reason I included that Theophanes
is that these are particularly useful for demonstrating the manifestation
of Yahweh in the Old Testament, proving differentiation. So not
just Yahweh, but also the angel Messenger that he sends,
who has the name of Yahweh as a root in Exodus,
the same angel that's present in the Burning Bush. That
angel is spoken of as the Messenger of the Covenant.
He's spoken of as and judges turning the face of
towards Gideon. Yahweh turns his face to Gideon. So are
you noticing a pattern that the refutation of Muslims is
becoming the refutation of the Roman Catholics Because Trent's actually,
in a backwards way, back doorway correct that actually you
and the Muslim and the Jew do worship the same God,
because it's the wrong God. So Roman Catholics, Muslims, and
Jews actually do worship the same Unitarian God, and that's
the wrong one. So actually, Trent, in a roundabout way,
is actually correct. And why does he say that? Because
that's the basis of his church's dogmatic teaching and knows
Ratat And he doesn't even realize that sighting Acts seventeen
doesn't prove this romas one doesn't prove this, he's just
assuming that Acts seventeen and Romans one teach natural theology
when Romans one doesn't say anything about syllogisms and a
ratiocination process about syllogisms and coming to some conclusion at
the end of a bunch of syllogisms about a generic
god existing Romans one says that it's on the heart
of every man. It doesn't say anything about intellectual syllogisms.
It's not talking about natural theology in your ridiculous churches.
Since but Trent knows he has to defend no Strette
saying that he and the Hindu and all of them
are the same God. Isn't that interesting? The Hindu also
is part of this natural theology process, and he thinks
Acts seventeen backs this up. All Acts seventeen says is
that God is the one giving these providential gifts to everyone,
and yet he is unknown. The very point of the
passage is that the God that they're after is unknown
to them, and yet Trent is telling me no. Actually,
at the end of a rational process, the pagan can
reason out and come to at the end of a syllogism,
how many pagans are sitting there doing syllogisms outside of Aristotle.
Let's be real here, Come on, this is this is preposterous.
And even his own people, his own cohorts, whom he's
had debates with, are falling out like tim and recognizing, Hey,
wait a minute. The Roman Catholic Church's post Vatican two
teaching on the Jews is a direct contradiction to the
pre Vatican two teaching on the Jews. Yeah, exactly. But
it's also a contradiction when it comes to Muslims and
Hindus too. You don't see that the Catholic Church regards
with esteem the Muslims. Oh, you mean the ones that
you called crusades against in the Middle Ages. You esteem them.
They adore the one God. What is the one God
that shared between a Muslim and a Roman Catholic When
every Muslim will tell you that we don't worship the
same God as you. There is no generic unity that
is shared amongst an anti Trinitarian group and a Satanic
group and a Monotheistic group. If I believe that Satan
is the creator of heaven and earth, and that he
lives in subsistem in himself, am I then also esteemed
by the Catholic Church with the Muslims. Do you see
how stupid this is? And then it goes on to say,
although they don't revere Jesus as God, they revere him
as a prophet. Oh so anti Trinitarians. So now we
can substitute Younomians and Arians and Jehovah's witnesses the Church
regards with esteem. The Arians does it because I'm pretty
sure at Nicia it calls Arius the mouth of Satan.
So now we regard Arius as the mouth of Satan,
I mean, as a true worshiper of the One God.
Do you understand Muslims are more removed than Arians are
from Christianity. There are multiple attributes that Muslims don't believe in.
They do not believe that God is imminent in the world,
and maybe even some Roman Calolicies don't believe that. Who knows.
I mean, this whole Roman Catholic system is a gigantic mess.
And you've noticed they won't come in debate anymore. All
they're left with is why I'm a bad person. That's
all they've had for the last seven years is how
I'm a bad person. And yet they keep expanding in
their carbohydrate intake. Have you noticed that Abara and Lafton
are looking even fluffier. Well, I guess when the religion
is no help, you take solace in the buffet and
then dainties and pastries. But it's not just Muslims. Oh.
Whereas the Roman Catholic Church formerly talked very negatively in
its liturgical practices about Jews, now they're the older brothers
and they're part of the Covenant. That doesn't make any sense.
That's a contradiction to previous traditional Romanians Catholic teaching. Now
where's the Hindu statement? Yeah? Now, remember this is not
saying that Hindus seek out and have a natural desire
for the One True God, because we could say that
all human beings have an innate desire for God, because
we all have a news. This says that in Hinduism,
in other words, in the false religious system, the demonic
system of Hinduism. And if you read Father Sir from
Ross Orthodox in the Religion in the Future, you can
see very clearly that from the Christian perspective, this is
a horrendous, terrible, demonic religion. Does Vatican two say that
it doesn't mention anything about it being demonic. It says
in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it
through anexhaustible abundance of myths. They seek freedom from the
anguish of human condition through ascetical practices or a profound meditation,
or flight to God with love and trust, God with
a capital G. Did you read the first sentence in
Hinduism In a completely demonic religion, Paul says that the
gods of the nations are devils. David says, the gods
of the nations are devils. There's no better example of
this than Hinduism. Vatican two says in Hinduism they seek
a flight to capital G God with love and trust.
And then it says similar things about Buddhism. The deities
of Hinduism and Buddhism are not the triad. They are
not secretly Jesus. If Jesus has a way to reach
those people, he can do that. But it is not
the demonic system of Hinduism or of Buddhism. That is
the means by which they reach God. And that's the
bizarrow language of Vatican two. And it's not just no
sra tat the same stuff is said in lumin gentm. Sixteen,
because these liars will always sit here and say, well,
we don't have to accept no state because it doesn't
have the same level of authority as the other documents.
You got to accept them all. And what a ridiculous
system anyway, because it doesn't even tell you which documents
are which Every individual Roman Catholic gts to figure out
which documents are in which authority been The Plan of
Salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator. Okay, what does
that mean? Does that mean I only have to acknowledge
a generic idea of a creator like a freemason does
or a theistic Satanist. The first amongst these is the
Muslims who hold the faith of Abraham. No, you don't
hold the faith of Abraham if you're anti trinitarian, have
you regulations? The only way to be the seed of
Abraham is in Christ because Abraham worshiped the triad. Did
you hear me, Trent? Muslims worship and adore the one God. No,
Muslims do not adore God. You understand, adoration is worship.
So this implies that God accepts the worship of anti
trinitarian groups like Muslims. Muslims hate the Triad. They hate
Christ because they don't believe that He is dead, divine,
and John says, if you don't believe that Christ is
God in the flesh, you are a spirit of Antichrist.
So this is saying that people who have the spirit
of Antichrist motivating them to stamp out Christianity and the
Trinity and the deed of Christ are part of the
plan of salvation also actually worship Christ. This is preposterous.
This alone is enough to tell you that this is
not the true religion. This is a departure from Christianity.
And Trent and all the other frauds are defending this,
and they will keep doubling down and doubling down and
doubling down, because to admit that they're wrong on this
means this whole system collapses. And Roman Catholicism is a
giant cult and they cannot accept that it is this blatant,
this out in the open, and this fraudulent, and it
is because it's in everyone's face. This is why they
act so they act out. So this is why they
spurg out. This is why they lose it. This is
why they're calling you names and everything in the book.
It's all a manifestation of the deep down insecurity and
fear that they know about out their papacy and what
it does and how it acts and how deceptive it is.
Now on top of this, we had, we had Francis,
let's say, if there's anything else in this, uh yeah,
let's talk about Let's talk a little bit about this,
and then we'll go back to the point about Francis's
skittles comment, which I'm sorry that people can't figure out
that Francis throws a bone to the traads about once
every few years and then he immediately walks it back.
He's done this the entire time. By the way, all
the post Vatican two popes have done this same, very
this very same thing, where they charge forward with two
or three years of absolutely scandalous rebellious behavior and then
they walk it back two steps. You walk ten steps
and walk back two steps. It's a very common Overton window.
You know, it's a methodology, it's a technique of bureaucracy
and control, and then you throw a bone to the
trads to keep them on the leash, and they all
fall for it. All these people fall for it because
they're naive and their dupes, and so Francis says skittle stuff,
promotes skittles civil unions openly everywhere, and then says, supposedly, oh,
but we don't want f in the seminaries. Oh, by
the way, did he do anything about it? Or do
you just say something? Because the entire trad Catholic Twitter
world is championing this like this is some great achievement.
All your showing is your own a foolish because he
can talk all day long and throw you a bone
all day long, nothing changes. He's not doing anything. He
could reform these seminaries. He has the total plenary authority
of the Roman bishop, universal authority. He could actually communicate
all of these airing bishops in one stroke of a pen.
He doesn't do any of that. He throws you dummies
a bone and you eat it up, and then tomorrow
he'd be back to the revolution. And it wasn't even
twenty four hours before he walked it back and cucked
his comments, as Luigi showed on his Twitter. So, by
the way, as soon as I put up my tweet,
I said, how long cow down to Francis apologizing for
his comment. It wasn't even twenty four hours. I didn't
even get to put my tweet up it our he
was already apologizing for I could even make a joke later,
or we can go back to any of those and
so let me go back to my screen share here
and points out that the triad there. I don't mean
to argue either, that the Old Testament explicitly uses the
word the words triad. Know all this necessary, as the
Jewish ost scholars are admitting, is that the Old Testament
believers spoke of Father. Yeah, I have to address this
because this is such a basic argument. That's so dumb. Okay,
it doesn't matter if the Old Testament saints use the
word triad or not. It does they don't have to
use the word trinity. Okay, you understand whether it's the
Aphilis or whether it's Tertullian using the word trinity in
one Okay, we wouldn't be so stupid as to say
that nobody believed in the Trinity until Theophilis or Tertullian
uses the word trinity. Okay, do you understand how dumb
that is? When Justin Marter argues for the Trinity, he
uses the Old Testament text that means he's arguing that
the Old Testament he's the Trinity. They don't have to
use the word t just like when you translate the
Gospel into into it, you don't have to use the
word trinity, use whatever the Inuit word is for that.
This is so dumb, and I can't believe somebody as
intelligent as Trent, who is intelligent, is that he can't
get this, or that he doubles down on these foolish
mistakes is bizarre to me, which tells me this is
a cult. Tell me what the difference is between Roman
Catholicism and a giant cult. I don't see it. And
once Father Moses said that the other day, I'm like,
you know what, this is a giant cult. And they
all act like total cult leaders, I mean cult believers,
I should say, because they freak out and foam at
the mouth and lose it when you start bringing this
stuff up Angel of the Lord or Son of Man
and the Spirit in a real distinctive way. And they
do although I mean imagine using the New Testament to
prove the Trinity and then trying to say that nobody
knows the Trinity until the word is used, or until nicea.
Do you understand how stupid that is. If we're using
the New Testament to prove the doctrine of the Trinity,
then it means the New Testament teaches the Trinity and
the Old Testament. This is so dumb. I can't believe
anybody would make this dumb of an argument. And by
the way, it's actually the argument that Muslims make.
Speaker 2: Muslims say trinity, not use to Totrian Totoian use word trinity, invented,
invented trinity, invented, Niceah, trinity. You're using the Muslim argument, Trent?
Why are you people following these people? What is wrong
with you people? How are you so deluded? How are
you so confused.
Speaker 1: To follow? You have no discernment at all. You don't
have a discernment to figure out the people pushing stabby
for years. Why would you trust their discernment on this stuff?
I just I'm mouthful. I can't understand what it is
about you people that you find attractive about this stuff.
Are you that low tier in your argumentation? What do
you mean you people? I mean you people in the
audience that follow Trent and Matt Frad and carbohydrate Lofton like,
how are you that loads? Heer? I just I can't understand.
Help me understand. Come on the chat, please, please come
on and help me understand. What is so convincing in
these uber load tier Muslim level arguments from people like
Trent Horn. I can't understand it. Help me understand. Please,
you don't see how low tier this is. I mean,
I know a bunch of you have watched Sam Schimun debate.
And when Sam Chimun debates, where does he prove the
Trinity from? When he's debating the Muslims and the Jews
and the Unitarians the Old Testament? And here's Trent telling
you that, no, Jews didn't worship the Trinity in the
Old Testament, the Old Testament, Saints worshiped a generic deity.
Here's another Roman Catholic at least admitting that Trent is
way off base. I'm Roman Catholic, and Jay is right.
I don't understand what Trent is doing. Trent can't admit
he's wrong, And because admit that he's wrong on something
so fundamental exposes that Trent basically doesn't know fundamental theology.
This is embarrassing for a Roman Catholic theologian, an apologist.
Do you see what he says right here? Faithful Jews?
Did they worship God before Christ? He says they did,
but not the Trinity. There is no God but Trinity.
So Trent triples down on the very mistake that I
called out in the debate. Trent is a Muslim. He's
making all the arguments Muslims make. Do you know how
many times I've had Muslims? Last night, the Muslim they
called in. What did he say?
Speaker 2: Oh? The Jews not worship Trinity, don't believe in Trinity,
and book don't see Trinity.
Speaker 1: Oh well, okay, I guess that settles it. Trent Al Horn,
Shake trent Al Horn, follow the great son of Thomas
al Suma al Abu Aquinas just I mean, I'm just
going I'm gonna start calling him shake Trent Horn, what
tree shaik Trent. That's when they start singing the Koran.
You know they're gonna have They're gonna like the like
the she has they sing the songs to Ali Ali
and they're gonna start singing to Trent, to Abu trent
a Bu anyway, I don't know. So we're gonna open
it up. Somebody said pearl Is in Trent's harum. That's funny.
Ali and trent O