basically most thought in the west is post modern, with a modernist background. the modernist says, things are objective. the post modern prefers to diverge to an acknowledgment of subjective interpretation. both of these guys are trying to validate an objective argument using post modern methods. all unconsciously of course as im sure neither of them have studied philosophy. the difference is that Jamie is taking a "historical" position whereas Jereme is relying on a different interpretation based on new ageism, liberalism, and basically some shit yuppy white ex christians came up with in the 70s as they embraced forms of "buddism/hinduism" etc.... of course these interpretations are all a big mix of gnostic, new age, liberal, post hippie thought. i include Jaime and his attempt at fundamentalism because evangelicalism has also been watered down in the west as progressive elements have shown the absurdity of stoning witches and excluding other ethnicities from church attendance etc.... and even more in his own actions as the bible clearly states, "a man shall not have long hair" oh wait, he cut it off. in conclusion, they are both nuts, and neither is capable of rational thought.