Hi, I was listening to your first hour, and I'm not too sure
if we have a debate here. I'm a libertarian. I live in New
Hampshire. I'm forty two years in the libertarian movement, and I'm part of
the free state movement, which is moving libertarians to a particular state to basically
gather together, create a liberty society and get away from people who aren't particularly
interested in libertarianism. Yeah, you could think of it as a migration of
Catholics to create a Catholic state, or a migration of Jews to create a
Jewish state. Now, I think my main issues in terms of libertarianism is
that it's kind of premised on a lot of Enlightenment values. And although I
would agree with some of the ideas in libertarianism, I'm just not sure how
or why I should believe in classical liberalism. So would you say, for
example, that you believe in utilitarian ethics as a libertarian? No, no,
No, I'm primarily an ethesis. So I believe that libertarianism is actually
rests on a very simple concept that one owns one's own body fully and exclusively,
and from there all of libertarianism springs forth the non aggression principle. If
you own something, you can protect it, and you may not take someone
else's body. So from there we get the right of association, which is
moving my body in concert with someone else who consents. We get the right
of speech, using my body to exercise its vocal cords. We get the
right to labor, which is using my body and movement to produce things.
Libertarianism is actually a very very thin ethic. It doesn't say what one ought
to do in order to be a good man, that we rely on other
religions and philosophies to do. Okay, What it says is that is that
here's a minimum standard under which if you fall, you are doing evil,
and that is violating someone else's self ownership. I'm glad that you brought this
up. By the way, I was an anarchico libertarian train by some of
the very best, and I abandoned that. But I'm glad you brought up
the point that it's premised on self ownership. Now, as orthodox we would
deny that you don't own yourself. And so as you've explicated all the what's
known as the rights, that the negative rights that you discussed there are premised
on all that. So how do you typically receive or respond to somebody who
says you don't own yourself? And we reject that first innst of all,
Well, Mike, guess is that you believe that you are a steward of
God's ownership. Is that is that accurate? Sure? Yes? Right?
So has God seated that stewardship to another prison another human? No? I
mean, and in a loose sense we can we can talk about right.
I prefer to stay away from rights language. But obviously Orthodox Christians aren't going
to say that you can enslave a person right exactly or something like that.
However, it's usually cashed out more in terms of duties. I'm gonna virtue
ethics rather than ownership, because part of the problem is this, this is
kind of an absolute that like you own yourself, and therefore freedom becomes the
highest principle. Although Worthodox Christians value freedom, it's not an absolute. There's
higher things. So that means in certain situations I have no problem violating then
app like I don't actually you know, if it violates higher higher principles,
I really, you know, we don't care if that violates somebody's will.
Now, that's I don't think that you can put that into its slavery.
It just means freedom's not an absolute. So under what conditions would you say
that a man uh may be enslaved by you? For example? What?
How, how how might that happen? Well, I rejected enslavement, but
for example, I have no problems if, for example, somebody's moral choices
if the state, you know, if they were so detrimental the states stepped
in and says we're not going to allow you to do this, and we
don't care about your your freedom. Not because there's certain there are certain things
the preservation of a Christian ethos on a societal structure uh that's healthy and promotes
virtue, that would override somebody's freedom. So in that case it would be
yeah, if it's deemed to violate higher principles, I have a question for
you after that. Go ahead, yeah, and then and that makes that
makes good sense. So what you're saying is that there is a group of
people who basically can decide what your body may do and what it may not
do. Is that is that accurate? Well, I mean I have a
question because you I think you're missing that. You just posited the very thing
that you're saying nobody has the right to do, which is to tell people
what is the correct metaphysical stance of their body. So you said, for
example, that you have to follow the NAP, which is you own yourself
and to not harm others, And then you said a few sentences later that,
but there's also no aughts. Well, why I followed the NAP if
there's no AUGHTSU are you? Are you speaking to me? Yeah? Oh,
I'm sorry? And I said that there is no oughts? Yeah,
no, I I thought, I asked you. You said that if a
group of people deemed actions no In your opening statement you said I don't hold
that there's aughts like we ought to do this or that, where you said
that libertarianism doesn't hold that, Yeah, and then you subscribe to that.
Do you have to look to ethics and philosophy to decide that? Yeah?
So I follow Then why I followed the NAP? Right? So I was
saying, I don't know, I don't know exactly what the ought king,
Uh, but let me restate it. The self ownership libertarianism, which is
really just a minimal ethic. It's not it's not the highest ethic. It's
the minimal ethic. It is the ethic below which you cannot go unless you
uh, going beneath it? You are evil? Okay, why I I'm
sorry? Why ought I follow the NAP because of self ownership? Because of
self respective? Because of respective self ownership? Don't believe that? Well,
but that's just that's not telling me why I ought to follow. That's stating
what you believe. I'm saying why ought I believe the NAP? Well do
you are? Are you granting self ownership and not accepting n A P Are
you saying that you you do not have self ownership? That God has ownership?
And no, I'm asking even more fundamental at you said you're an ethicist.
So in terms of ethics, Uh, what's the normativity for the NAP?
On what basis? Ought I follow it? Yes, self ownership,
Self ownership is our fund That's that doesn't answer the question of ought. Stating
what your position is doesn't tell me why I ought to do it. Well,
you use your body in order to deny self ownership. Okay, but
that's a statement of what is the case or what happens. That doesn't tell
me why it ought to be. Some way or not Somewhere I am stating
I don't know that I've stated in ought. No, I'm asking you why
I ought to follow the NAP. I see, I see you. If
you do not follow the NAP, you're violating self ownership. You're saying that
we don't believe that that right? Right, I understand that. I understand
that. So you're denying self ownership, which is fundamental to libertarianism. Now
we could talk about the fund the reason why we believe in self ownership.
Some people think it's axiomatic. I don't believe it's axiomatic. I believe you
have to actually use your own body as owner of it to deny it itself.
So it's a performative contradiction to actually deny self ownership. You are using
your body as and saying I don't own my body. And if you're you
know, who is this person who is using this body to deny that that
they may use it? Okay, but none of that tells me any ought
or any basis to believe in an ought in regard to the NAP, Well,
we would have to first establish self ownership, and if you're so,
my question. But even if he's established that that is the case. That
doesn't tell me that I ought to abide by the NAP. Maybe I believe
that I own myself and that I should set up a dictatorship at the queisats
Hatarak, and I'm the god emperor and I'm going to take your wives and
set up a hero. So why ought I not do that? So you
don't believe so in that case, one would not believe that one each person
owns oneself. One would believe that you own yourself and you own other humans.
No, what I'm saying is that there's no basis to believe, right,
So there's not a basis for ethics, is the point I'm just trying
to get clear. Are you saying that that that you would believe that you
own yourself and you own other human deeds? I'm saying that even if I,
even if I accept your first principle that there's self ownership, nothing about
self ownership tells me that I should accept the non aggression prim I see.
So if you if you believe in let's say, let's let's go ahead and
grant that there is self ownership, and now if you violate someone else's self
ownership, you're saying that that's not, that's not that's not a terrible thing
to do. Yeah, on what basis is a terrible or wrong? So
if you murder someone, you rape them, you're just utilizing their body for
your own self. You aren't you denying their self ownership? Then why don't
Why am I back? If I can believe in my self ownership, why
do I have to respect anyone else's I mean, if you want to talk
about natural rights. For example, when I look out in nature, I
don't see the animal kingdom caring about uh, the rights of other prey that
the predators prey upon. Mm hmm. Right, well we would say that
they're not self owners Well, I'm just saying, I'm saying that if I
want to base rights in nature, if you believe in natural rights, maybe
you don't. I would. I don't believing rights based on self ownership.
Okay, but so the but self ownership doesn't tell me that I am bound
to in an ethical way believe in other people's self ownership or respect their self
ownership? Right, right, right, right, And that's where we were
just a little while ago. What you were saying, I own myself,
but no one else owns them, I may abuse their bodies as I choose.
What I'm saying is that you need a basis for that ethic extending beyond
the individual. Why is this a universal principle that everybody should follow the NAP.
So what Jay's saying is, even if one granted and we didn't,
we don't, but you own yourself, there's no moral that follows that I
can't steal the person or enslave them or do something. Well, this is
like going from uh, it's like the naturalistic fallacy is basically saying all you
is you own yourself, and now you're moving to an ethics, then you
ought not to enslave or do these things to other people. Well, that
doesn't fall That's all Jay's point is, Well, I'm arguing that you're you're
denying self ownership by taking the by owning another human. You're saying, well,
I own myself, and you know, how do you know? Why
does it? But not just assuming that it extends universally? Why should I
assume that? Well, because how do you own yourself? That's just restating
the position. How do you justify that it extends out beyond me? I
know you're saying you think it does, But on what basis why should I
think that? Well, you have no basis then for your own self ownership.
No, I can affirm my own self ownership and just simply not extend
that to anyone else. And why am I wrong in doing that? Well,
because they have self ownership, Because on what basis You're just reasserting the
position. I want to know. On what basis is that extended beyond me?
You're denying if if if you have no basis to know that you are
a self owner. If you're saying that I am a unique human being and
only I have self ownership and everyone else I own, there is no there's
no you have to assert self ownership. You have to say, well,
not I own myself because I control my body. I think of this as
my body. And why am I bound to respect other people's self ownership?
Well, because you would be disrespecting there's self ownership exactly, So what's wrong
with that? So you can't we are saying so libertarian is a saying that
disrespecting self ownership is evil? That is where evil? Oh no, it's
exactly. So now we're in the domain of value judgments. What's your basis
for value judgments ownership. Yeah, and we've already been in about twenty times
through why that doesn't work as a justification Because you're saying that you could just
go ahead and say I own I own myself. I'm saying you're making a
move that's not justified to extend that out beyond the individual to everybody universally.
How do you have a basis for any universal ethical moral claims on what basis
is that universalized? Maybe it is, but what's the basis? Well,
I don't think that you can apply it to yourself unless it is universal.
Well, that doesn't tell you that it is universal. That's just saying that
you think it is. How do I know that? Well, that doesn't
even follow either. I mean, think about the problem of other minds.
You can affirm your own mind, it doesn't. Yeah, it doesn't logically
follow our other minds because you affirm your own mind, assuming that work even
self evident. Yeah, I mean we start with self ownership, and perhaps
your argument that it's just axiomatic. I mean, if you if this is
actually one of the I don't believe in axioms, I'm organing is not accient
on it. This is actually one of the reasons why we are separating,
right, This is I'm part of a libertarian separatist movement. We believe that
there are most people are authoritarian. Most people do believe that they own other
human beings, that they may make rules to how other people may live their
lives and choose to choose their things. And I agree with you that that's
wrong. Don't since we don't believe that we actually are choosing to separate ourselves.
I agree that that's wrong, that tyranny is wrong, but I have
a basis for why it's wrong, and the arguments that I'm hearing from you
don't tell me why it's wrong. Basically, all that amounts to is that
you don't like it. No, it denies my self ownership. Yeah,
but there's no reason why it's wrong to do that. You haven't given any
reason yet that I am. There's no reason why I should not be as
slave, is what you're saying. You haven't given a reason why it's wrong
to violate the NAP That isn't circular or self referencing or a reassertion of the
thinking question. Okay, so you're saying that I have no I have no
basis if I believe that I own myself that I have not that belief can
be overridden by someone else, and I have no reason to say that it
is an evil to enslave me. Correct. There's not a basis for objective
moral claims in your position that I've heard, And to me, that would
mean that the classical liberal underpinnings of libertarianism is where the mistake the error is.
So that was the thing I said at the very beginning, is that
I don't know why we would accept classical liberalism. Yeah. Yeah, I
mean, if if this were absolutely clear and other and everyone believed this,
we would all be libertarian. Libertarianism is a very very very small belief,
very very tiny, and that's the reason why why I believe that we need
to separate. Because most people subscribe to the belief that they may they may
violate someone else's self ownership. We consider that to be a great evil,
right, And I agree with you, But I have a basis as to
why that's evil. I have an objective ethic, but in your position,
it sounds like what it just is. It's just that way. I'd be
curious if you don't mind. I'm sure that you've said this and if it's
if it's too redundant to repeat, I would love to hear Europe Well,
I think this is why you need something again to theism to justify the ethics.
It's not going to be it's not going to be justified without some kind
of theism. But look, hey, I appreciate those objections. I'm gonna
help let let Andrew if you can't put Andrew on. And he uh,
he's always has a lot of good stuff to say about libertarianism. Do you
see about how that worked. I just overrode Jay Dyer's prey will and I
violated his nap and I told him what to do violation of Thanks for thanks
for bringing me into this space. I appreciate it. I was, I
was listening. I wonder if I could uh speak to this a little bit
with you guys. Yeah, so this morning I ate sausage, and I
ate bacon, and I ate lamb and I had eggs. That was multiple
different animals which I participated in violating their self autonomy. Why don't why don't
they own themselves? How come I own them can walk out and eat their
face whenever I feel like it. So yeah, I'm really just trying to
get to uh self ownership of human beings. Yeah, yeah, I'm trying
to get I'm trying to extend the principle. I'm asking you why I can
take a monkey and I can saw it's head off and a crack its skull
open and eat its brains and that's okay. How come that's not wrong?
Then I violate his self ownership. We don't really believe that animals have self
ownership. I mean I actually that's not that's not one hundred percent true.
There is there are vegan libertarians. Oh yeah, I mean natural law.
Wait wait, wait, wait a say wait a second. I'm so confused.
You don't think that animals own themselves? Does that mean that I can
say one? I don't know what ESA is. Can I's actually assault an
animal? Oh? I could you? Yes? You can? Of course,
there anything Why is there anything wrong with that? I mean, after
all, I only own myself. The animal doesn't own itself. I own
the animal, right, that's right. That's right. So you can go
out and ground and pound dogs in your world view or what? So?
That is where so libertarianism is only is only a basic minimum ethic of how
we ought to treat other human beings. Now, on top of that,
you can have all different types of religions, believe in all different types of
gods who give you whatever beliefs or whatever you have. Yeah, this is
a really cool story, dude, this is a cool story. I like
the story. It's neat. Can can use a person owns yourself and owns
a dog, go ground it, pound the dog or not? Can you
physically do that? Yes? You can? Yeah, but but if it's
not violating the law of self ownership, and why shouldn't you be able to
go ground and pound the dog? Bro? And there are cultures that that
actually believe that. Yeah, just be great. Wait, so I just
wonder. I mean there's libertarians that defend these things too. So in your
worldview, in your worldview, you think it's okay to go out and have
sex with a goat because you own the goat, Bro, Well, why
is that not okay then? Well, because libertarianism isn't a full belief in
a full philosophy of life. Libertarianism is only that minimum. What sort of
word garbage is this? What word salad is this? What do you mean?
It's not a full philosophy of life? It's been asking you specifically,
if a man has look goat, Libertarianism can't tell you that that's evil.
Yeah, it can't even tell you that that's evil. So would I do
that? No? But yeah, I'm asking if you would do it.
I'm asking why a person who owns a goat, who owns themselves, but
the goat can't own itself because you own the goat, Why can't they go
out and do that to the goat? What could you possibly appeal to as
a reason why they ought not do that? I can appeal to a religion
under liberty under libertarianism. Libertarian doesn't cover that. That is not so it's
not a very useful philosophy, and libertarianism is not a full philosophy of life.
What it is It says that you may not do these things. You
may not murder, you may not thieve, you may not reap. So
is it a religion because it so hold on, So it sounds like a
religion because it's sort of now you're at the all up, but now you're
at the point of just sort of saying it has these dictates and that's what
it is. Well, why should I believe those dictates? That's been the
question here. Yeah, and and many people don't. That is why we
are. Okay, So there's not a reason to believe libertarians. Okay,
Well, I believe there is. I believe that one owns oneself and that
each person. I believe that's a universal ethic, and I believe that each
person does. I believe that if you're if you actually start enslaving people who
are right. So you've restated right, and I'm not trying to be mean
too. You've restated the position many times that you said it's universal, and
I want to know why or how you think that's universal on what ground?
It seems like that Jay has pointed out that you're simply stating psychological preferences and
your belief system and then claiming, but this is just what I believe,
and I believe it's universal. But you haven't given any adjustification, why,
anyone, why it's anything beyond simply your subjective kind of mental state that you're
having. I think that's what it is getting. Yeah, exactly. Yeah,
Well I don't I'm not too sure I can convince you of it.
Uh, And I believe you know it's it's you know, you can go
just to say that I have that belief and I believe it very strongly.
The reason I wouldn't as a a goat is not because of libertarianism, but
because I have these other beliefs that are on top of libertarianism. But but
those other beliefs can do not allow me to break that fundamental belief of respect
for each person's self ownership, that I will not turn another person. Okay,
and I'm not trying to be mean to your dentist, but we've heard
you state your position many many times, but we're asking very specific questions about
the justification for the position. So we're going to move on. I appreciate
that. Now you can stay as long as you want. You can stay
of them. I don't care. You can to do J I said,
I'm leaving. What part? What part of I'm leaving? Am? I
am? I overwriting your naps? You're my self ownership? I'm not your
slaves. M C. Wallace? What's up? Hey? What's up?
How are you doing? Man? Good? What's on your mind? So?
I want to speak about the Bible. What do you think? Can
I? Can I make a request? Can there's there's a there's Abraham listening?
Uh, we both kind of want to make the argument and then you
can bring up, if you want, anyone else with it too. The
guy you talk about, the guy that name is Ibrahim Abraham Charles. I
see, let's see I see Ibrahim, yeah Abraham? Yeah? Okay,
so you want him to come on with you? Is everything? Yeah?
Yeah, you don't mind? Sure? And what do you all want to
talk about? Uh? The topic is the the Bible and the contradictions in
the Bible. And what's your position? What I am you there? What's
your position? So? We is the is? The is the Bible divine?
What's your position? I'm a Muslim? Okay? So you want to
debate is? No? No? No, I want to debate the Bible?
Okay, Well I want to debate the Quran? Can we do that
too? We can do whatever you want. It doesn't matter. So,
uh, are you ready for it? Do you want me to? You
know, I'm waiting for you to give you the heads up? Well,
what do you want to talk? What specifically are the topics you want to
talk about? So? If you would believe that the Bible is divine?
Correct? Do you believe the Koran is divine? Absolutely? Absolutely? Do
you believe that revelation has to be consistent with what came before? No?
No, no, So my point here is the argument? What is it?
Yeah? I think we're on is we say it again? I said,
do you believe that new revelation I e. The Koran has to be
consistent with what came before? New revelation? I mean, the Putan is
one. So okay, does the Quran say that the revelation came to the
Jews and the Christians? Yes? Okay, so is that the revelation that
came before? Huh? Does? Does the Quran have to be consistent with
what came before? But real quick, you're jumping to the pudd on,
right, And I said, I'm not gonna write, but I'm not going
to accept any I'm not gonna sorry, right, So the art the point
and the reason I'm asking that is because I'm not going to accept any new
revelations. And your Koran claims to be a new revelation unless it's consistent with
what came before, because what came before tells me not to accept anything unless
it's consistent with what came before. So do you understand that? The point?
I want to your Bible? Right? But but your but your but
your Koran is your Koran is late. So again, let's not even debate
the exactly that's why you don't want to debate the Koran exactly right? No,
because those the Qurans. Does the Quran say that I'm supposed to go
and check what the Quran says against the prior revelation. No, it's a
confirmation. We don't believe that those Oh wait, it's a confirmation. How
can I confirm it if I'm not supposed to go check it to previous revelation.
I can prove that if we discussed the Bible. All right, So
you won't talk about the Koran because none of you can answer. Have you
seen the debate with Daniel kick get you? How did he destroy me?
When when he when you can't answer the same thing that he couldn't answer.
No, it's not a deflection because the revelation that came before, the revelation
that came before tells me not to accept your revelation. So if i'm if
I'm a seventh centur No, let's pretend we're all seventh century Jews, Arabs,
Muslims, Christians and we're hearing right the Quran being recited. How am
I supposed to go and confirm it? If I'm confirming against the older prior
revelation. Well, God actually tells you to confirm it right exactly, So
you understand that's it. That's an admission of my position. That's why I'm
making this claim to you. How do I confirm it? What do I
confirm it with? What do I confirm it with? What do I confirm
it with? God tells you, He tests you. He asked mankind to
confirm it against what? What do I go to? Linguistic the literature of
what? Of what? The literature of what? Of what? The Koran
tells me? To confirm it with the literature of the Koran. That's so
stupid, you know what I'm asking your Bring me a verse, just one
verse. I just asked you. See this is why these people can't answer
these questions. You see how quick they collapse. You just collapse with one
simple question, what do I What do I check it against? You said,
the grammar of what, the linguistics of what? You just bring me
one verse of what? You can't answer this, Bring me one verse and
try to try to try to create one verse from the you can't one verse,
not a chapter, not ten chapters, one verse. I've got it
right here. I've got it right here with your dumb dollar script. It
doesn't work. It doesn't work because so you just you just fumbled up on
a basic question. It says it says he sent down the book upon them
in truth, confirming what was before, he sent down the Torah on the
Gospel. Correct. Oh, exactly, Silence, I just cited the text.
You said, give me one verse from the Koran. I just did,
see silence. I just gave you the verse, dummy. I just
gave it to you. Can you hear me? I just gave it to
you. He sent down the book, He sent down the book upon the
in truth, confirming what was before he sent the Torah and the Gospel exactly.
And this is exactly why I'm proving my point on why I want to
debate the Bible. So I just gave you the thing you asked for,
and you're restating the original thing. So you can't prove this, can you?
Your Koran is a corrupted mismatch of the Bible. It's a copy and
paste job. I gave you the thing. How do I how do I
how do I How do I I'm not running. You just got you just
got body. How do I check that the Koran is correct? How do
I check that the Koran is correct? How do I check that it's correct?
Contradiction? I just read you the verse you asked for, and now
you won't talk about it. Well, that's not even the verse I was
referring to. You said you asked me for any verse? You know?
I told you. God tells you God? How do I check the Koran
challenges? How do I check it? How do I check it? I'm
trying to tell you. Let me explain to you. So God and the
challenge is mankind to put on? Is perfect? I just read three three
for you. I read three three for you? Three three here? Okay,
read it again for the fourth time. How do I check it again?
How do I check on booting? If you don't answer, I'm gonna
boot you. The way you checked, the way you prove is from God.
And God explains this to you. He tells you bring me one verse
like any verses in Does it not say what I just read that you go
and check it to the prior revelation? Does it not say that you're still
miss why are you from it? So you notice? So he just got
busted. We just got busted. Do you want to defend your idiot friend
there? Do you want to answer this? But Aim? Do you want
to answer it? Oh you didn't. You didn't say my name piece people,
I didn't come in in for that type of heat discussion. Uh huh,
sure exactly. Yeah, I'm sure you did it. MC. What's
up? You gotta u mute MC un mute. I don't even see MC
anymore. Did you bring him in? Yeah, you're sitting right there at
the top, mc wallace. Go ahead, all right, Corey doo,
what's going on? Guys? All right, so let's look at what's up
dude. Right here, he has revealed it to you, the book in
truth, confirming what came before, as he revealed the Torah and the Gospel.
So according to the Qoran, I can go to the Torah and the
Gospel to see that the same things taught in the Koran were revealed beforehand.
And you understand, this idiot just completely collapsed and wouldn't answer any of these
basic questions. He even said in the discussion that it's supposed to be checked
against the prior revelation and then completely collapsed as soon as we went into a
little bit of depth. Go ahead, man, what's up? Go I
think I can see the future, and I think what they're going to do
is there a flood all the coastal cities. Bro Okay, that was really
funny. Corvid, what's up now? Speaker? That was weird. Who's
the fats? Oh? My only point is that y'all are debating a bunch
of books that were written by men. Mm hmm. How many cigarettes do
you smoke a day? The name is Andrew Okay, So the thing is
that you're debating story versus story. It's really it's really deep, dude.
You got his man, JP, it's not atheist night, as I said
multiple times, h go ahead, man, JP, what's up? I'm
mute, man Jacob, Hey, what's up? How you doing? Are
you there? Uh? You have to come back out and come back in.
We lost your dude. I can't hearry you. Terry Yack, are
you there? Gonna? I mute? Man on? Mute, Terry Yack?
Do you want to talk? Get on mute. I don't understand why
these people wait all this time to get on here and they don't want to
talk. Oh shot, Sorry, sorry about the I just want to say
that every song book was written by a man, and atheism is retarded.
Every every book is written by a man. That's actually correct. So it's
open discussion. And then we'll go to sea tonight. It's Muslims, Evangelicals,
Protestants, Arians chose witnesses, Mormons. I thought these Roman Catholics were
so called scholars and they were the intellectuals, and that scholasticism like in the
West and everything. But they don't even know basic terminology of the East.
And that's also odd given the fact that Trent supposedly attended the Eastern Riot for
so long and he doesn't know triad is like common the Byzantine terminology. This
is bizarre. Yeah. I also wanted to say about the Quran. Muhammad
had a torah brought to him and he confirmed the Torah, and he was
supposedly illiterate, so he didn't even read the book, but he confirmed it.
And so when you asked them, okay, he confirmed a book that
he didn't even read. When did when did this corruption happen? Because he
confirmed that in his lifetime. So we have the bed Sea scrolls. You
know today we it's the same. It matches up. So I just think
the wholemislim position is stupid. Roman Catholicism is definitely a could and so is
absolutely yeah and uh. It's also later in the same uh sora, it's
it's in three as well. It goes on to say Ala will teach him
wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel. Yeah, he will be Yeah.
So so the ass omption is in the in the Quran that the revelation.
Sorry, I didn't mean to boot Colin. Colin, pop back in here.
I didn't mean to boot you accidentally accidentally remove the wrong person. The
assumption is that the only way that you could test the revelation to supposed revelation
to Mohammad is the prior revelation, obviously, and the Koran even tells you
that. It says that I'm the same deity that talked to Moses, that
talked to the prophets, that talked the the jeel Okay, which is not
a book. JP Barbosa, Hey, what's up. So I've been talking
to a few friends of mine. I may inquiry going to a Orthodox parish
in town, and I thought it was super interesting when you were making the
connection between the worship of the synagogue and the temple and the continuation with like
modern estern Orthodox worship for a while there, I mean, I saw that
Protestantism had a bunch of problems with continuity and that things wouldn't match up.
So, if anything, I was I started going down the path of like
Hebrew roots and all that type of stuff, and then thankfully I walked away
from that. But a pushback I've got for some of my friends is the
idea that why should we care about how the Jewish people worshiped in the synagogue?
And I remember in one of your videos we talked about in the Old
Testament some profit giving the instruction for the worship in the synagogue. Do you
remember who that was? Yeah, So basically it has to do with the
time of Hezekiah, right, So it's set up I think a couple I
think a couple hundred years after David. But it's in my article that the
Bible itself teaches a sacred tradition. So I'm going to pull that up here.
Let's see. So it says my article says, when we serve at
the Old Testament, we realize that the patriarch's alter. Genesis operated according to
an infallible oral tradition when God was not giving you revelation, of course,
and so when Abraham built an altar, he didn't have a book or written
text necessarily to instruct him. He had truths that have been passed down from
the time of Adam in the godly line of Seth, and whatever revelations God
had spoken to those people, he didn't refer back to a book necessarily called
Genesis. As an even better example, we can look at the four of
the Temple worship of God based on the oral tradition of Second Chronicles twenty nine
concerning King Hezekiah. Yeah, I was right, and he stationed the Levites
in the House of the Lord with symbols and the instruments the harps, according
to the commandment of David and God the king seer and Nathan the prophet.
For thus was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets. The levites stood
with the instruments of David and the priests with the trumpets. So here we
have the organization of the liturgical worship at the Temple, and it's said to
be done via Hezekiah. However, we don't have a written record of what
David commanded concerning these things. Furthermore, it's also clear, nor do we
obviously of David or God or ex human Nathan or God. It is also
clear that David flourished some two hundred and fifty years before King Hezekiah. So
it would be argued then that David's revelation right was passed down in some form
orally presumably, and that's how the liturgical worship at that time was organized for
the Temple. So not everything, by the way, passes from the Temple
into the church. Obviously some things were a detriment to the easy spread of
the Gospel. So for example, if we're going to be setting up churches
throughout the world, then a lot of the land laws that relate to Israel
and the actual land, like the Jubilee laws or the not sowing seeds in
a field or whatever, Obviously those wouldn't carry over. Not everything about the
temple carries over, right, like animal sacrifices, but certain things do carry
over. But the point here of this text is just to point out that
as Hezekiah is organizing the liturgical worship, he's doing it on some tradition from
David, Gad and Nathan two hundred years before his time. That's not written
down. And by the way, reminder, I forgot this other text in
a Soura five, which is even more clear, where Alla says, quote
unquote, we sent Jesus in the footsteps of the Prophets. We sent Jesus
confirming the Torah revealed before him. We gave him the Gospel guidance and light
confirming what was in the Torah. So let the people of Gospel judge what
all that has revealed in it clear as day. You're told to check the
revelation of the Qoran against the prior revelation of Torah and Gospel. How could
I do that? If Torah and Gospel corrupt, thus you must look to
Kuran. You see how dumb this is. This is how stupid this religion
is, and it collapses from this rcord. Go ahead, Sorry, Oh
you're okay, Uh, yeah, that's really awful. I appreciate that if
you have time. I have one more question when it comes to Orthodox worship.
I don't know if that's sure. You want to go over, Go
ahead, sure. So when it comes to incense, right, we see
how would nate ab and abay who tried to offer incense unto the Lord,
and they try to, you know, do their own home, and that
doesn't end very well. A question I've had is where does Orthodoxy get their
mix of incense from. Is that just from a oral tradition? I think
from asking people. People have given me different recipes that are used, and
I was just kind of curious on that. Well, I don't think the
sin of native and Abayhu is the recipe. It's more so that they did
it in the incorrect way. They weren't supposed to be doing it the way
they did it, and so they were killed for doing that. I mean,
it's a little we can go read it. But we have the prediction,
for example, in Malachi one, from the rising of the sun to
it's going down, my name will be great amongst the gentiles. In every
place, incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering for
my name will be great amongst the nations. The gentile nation says the word
of host. So Malachi one is predicting that in the Messianic era, one
of those signs will be that the nations all over the world will offer incense
to God. So there is some allowance to some prediction of this permission on
the part of the church to eventually have incense as part of the worship,
and of course, from the earliest days of the church up until now,
that's obviously been the church's practice. So one of the signs, according to
Malachi one to eleven of the true churches, that you would notice these kinds
of things. So I don't think it's so much about the mixture, and
I don't actually know where. I'm sure it's probably just some tradition as to
what makes it up. But if we go and read Leviticus, I think
it's either ten or eleven. It's ten. It says that they offered strange
fire, as He had not commanded them, So their sin is more of
an intentional inner thing, that they're doing this in some improper way. I
don't think it has anything to do with like the mix. I see,
all right, Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah, I think that really
covers the questions I have right now. Father Dickon, do you know what
the tradition is? He? I mean, Father Dicken's a participant in the
liturgy, so he could probably answer this better. Than me. What do
you know where the tradition as to what incense is used. I mean,
I'm sure it's like Frankensin's murder, right that the wise men m Father Digan,
are you there? He's indisposed at this time. So that's a good
question. Let's say, Zeus, we are being honored the presence of the
chief of the Greek gods. The Greek pantheon is honoring us with its leader,
Zeus? What's up? Zeus? Ei? There? Can you man?
What's up? Yeah? So I have a couple of questions. First
of all, I remember in the stream you had with I believe it was
doctor bou Branson, he mentioned the essentially the ecclesial structure of Old Testament Arudaism,
how they would have synods. Yeah, it's in the debate with It's
it's in the debate with Dale the Protestant, right. Yeah, I just
wanted to ask you to go more in depth into that and how that relates
now with the New Covenant Church. Uh. Well, everybody can go watch
that stream. It's called Jay Dyer bau Branson debate with Dale the Protestant and
doctor Branson gives just some analogies between the structure of the synagogue and the rabbinical
structure in the Old Testament, and how they judged matters. You know,
you have the levites and the priest judging matters, and then the synagogue system
set up by Ezra helps to do that throughout Israel and in the diaspora.
So his point in that talk was just that it's decentralized and the best model
for that, he says, He argues, you find in the Orthodox Church.
It's not the Roman Catholic system. Mister Owl, can hear me?
Hey, what's up? Hey? I had a question about discussing if we
as traditional Christians, I'm a Catholic, sometimes miss the forest for the trees
when debating very technical theological matters. I see that as as a Catholic,
I can clean a lot of knowledge and wisdom from our Syriac Christian brothers,
our Orthodox Christian brothers, and I wonder if sometimes during these debates that if
we aren't, if it wouldn't be a better use of our time to think
about ways that we can build a better traditional Christian coalition to overcome the evils
of the world. Instead. Well, but we think that theology is first
and foremost, So, how are we going to build How are we going
to build a coalition with people who are heretics? Should Basil have built a
coalition with Eunomias? Yeah, but like from my Catholic perspective, can you
stop you in bubble gum if you're going to come on the fricking stream And
I'm just sorry, I'm just not in the mood for this kind of a
piety discussion here, Colt, what's up? He's over here with them Bubbleicious
trying to piety signal with Bubblelicious. What's up? Man? Oh hey,
Before I begin, I just want to state real quick that I think today
is the anniversary of the fall of Constantinople, So I think prayers would be
good. I don't know, Sorry if it's random, That's just something that
was on my mind. Anyway. Two questions I have, So one is
about the Trinity, and I've noticed that there's a lot of debate about you
know, people I know Protestants, I mean I do, Catholics do it
too, but I know it's more of a proof text for Protestants. They'll
show these proof texts like, oh, well, this verse in Galatians.
Paul calls Jesus the Spirit of Christ. And there's other passages. I'm sure
I don't know them off the top of my head. What would your what
would be your take on some of those Bible verses they'll point to I'm assuming
to be going to be a not hyposthetic origin. Ryan. Yeah, nobody
believes that the Holy Spirit sent Christ. Right, But if you read Isaiah,
I think it's Isaiah forty I just read it last night, forty nine
or somewhere. Let's see here, I am the Lord has sent me.
Maybe it's forty two. I just read it last night. Anyway, something
else, No, this this matters. I want to I understand. I
want to go to it though, because it's in Isaiah, and it's a
really important passage for this for this point, it's forty eight. So this
is a messianic prophecy. Is Christ speaking come near to me? I have
not spoken and secret from the beginning, from the time that it was I
was there, and now the Lord God and his Spirit have sent me.
Okay. So this is the Messiah speaking about his coming his economia. Okay,
And nobody out there believes that the that this, that the Holy Spirit
generates the Sun. So this proves that we can't take every passage like this
as that's economia and read it back into the intertrinitarian relations. Yeah, if
you don't mind it, because I was actually going to bring up something else
that I thought that was interesting about this topic. Whatever you want, Yeah,
And I just wonder if you could check my thinking and make sure it's
proper. But something I've thought about is that, uh, a lot of
people who defend the filioquin is that you know, they'll they'll look at those
passages. But something I thought about is that, well, if the Holy
Spirit coming through the sun, if that is a reflection of hypostatic origin,
I don't think that can work because from what I understand. You know,
if you read the Gospels, what does it say Mary and the Holy Spirit
conceived. So wouldn't it be fair to say all of the actions of the
Sun are becaused the Spirit and Mary, you know, conceived, and or
well, the Holy Spirit calls Mary to conceive, So would it be fair
to say that the Son in some sense was through economya manifested by the Holy
Spirit, since it was the Holy Spirit that calls Mary to become pregnant.
Would would that be a fair statement or was there something like that? Wait,
I'm sorry I said this argument again. I don't know. Something I
was just thinking about is you know, since all the actions of Jesus the
incarnate flesh, isn't that because the Holy Spirit caused Mary to become pregnant?
So would it be fair to say that in some sense the incarnation was caused
by the spirit in some sense? Since you know, sorry, this is
kind of no. No, I mean I think you can say that,
because I mean, that's what the passage in Isaiah just said. It's talking
about it's talking about the incarnation. Yeah, I don't know. I just
couldn't help but think about it, because I know, even though I'm a
Protestant, I know, generally with the exception of the Moravians and maybe I
don't know Minna Night's generally Protestants except the Philli Oquay. And I've just been
really trying to think about this issue because for the longest time I actually used
to be like a Deist and a Trinity denier, because you know, I
was a Trinity denyer because I thought the Trinity was Sabellianism. But of course
nobody taught me what the Trinity actually meant. When I learned what it actually
meant, it makes a lot more sense. And I'm actually a Sunday school
teacher at my local church, and I remember when I got a question about
the training, I said, hey, look, this isn't the Western view,
but this is the Eastern view. And I'm giving you all the Eastern
view because this is what's given at Constantinople. Sorry, by the way,
I haven't read the Council of Constantinople. I'm still working through some of the
pretty nice scene fathers. I actually just got yeah, sorry, Constantinople won
the second Ecumenical Council. I don't know. That was just oh no,
Monarchical trinitarianism seems to make more sense, absolutely, yeah. And it's the
best way that we refute Islam too. Now if you notice, and John,
excuse me, John fifteen it says Jesus actually explains in this very passage,
if you pay attention the difference between personal origin and economics, sending economia
when the helper comes, who I will send to you from the Father?
So Jesus sending it to the apostles in the economia. Right, So that's
the economia. The spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. Okay,
so very clearly in John fifteen twenty six, Jesus distinguishes for us the
economia and the existential hyposthetic origin, which is from the soul cause the Father
alone. Okay. The second thing I wanted to discuss was the canon.
And again probably not that they for me to say, but i'd say Orthodox
more so than Catholic on this issue. But it really starting to win me
over on the canon because I don't know if people are just being dishonest or
they haven't read it yet, but I've seen patristic witness to the Dutero canon.
Yeah, you can just search. I mean it's literally sighted dozens of
times, the new system of sites to Deuerro canon dozens of times. Yeah,
I've been looking into those passages. I actually just got done reading the
Wisdom of Solomon and yeah, did you notice that? Did you notice Romans
and Wisdom parallel? Yes? But I also noticed parallels between James and Siroc.
Yeah, and there's parallels when Jesus a lot of his parables, they're
in dudo canonical texts. Yeah. The only one that I really haven't seen
yet. And keep in mine eyes read very little is Third Maccabees. But
I know that's not the core of the debate. Well, Third Maccabees is
interesting because it's another at testation to the way that abomination of desolation can be
mirrored because Ptolemy does the same type of actions of what Antichrist has and will
do, which is you have Antiochus apafanis in Maccabees profaning the temple. You
have in Third Macabees told me instituting a buying and sell mark that everybody has
to have, which is interesting because it actually said I didn't realize I've forgotten.
It says this. I went back in there the other day and I
was reading Third Macabees. It actually says the mysteries, So what do you
know. Third Maccabees actually mentioned the mysteries like as in the Mysterieschools two says,
when Ptolemy assaults the Jews, he creates this is, by the way,
is a key helper to understanding and decoding the meaning of the apocalypse.
So let's see. And now here's a bunch of this is just a bunch
of new This is some Catholic website, but it's basically citations from the Dudero
canon in the New Testament. But let me show you this fascinating passage in
third Macabees here. M hmm, I don't want a PDF. Let's see
it's another PDF, okay, Macabes two. And this is a verse twenty
seven. It says Jewish. Oh I knew it. I knew there was
a Maccabee's reference to the word Jewish. This is what I was looking for
with that idiot black keeper Israelite called in. Was this right here? Dang
it? And see how I found it. I knew I had just read
this, and I forgot it was in It says the Jewish nation. Look
at that. There no reference to Jewish in the old tests of me.
Let me tell you something right here, and look at third maccab He's twenty
seven told me proposed to inflict public disgrace upon the Jewish community. He set
up a stone tower in the courtyard with his inscription, Nobody who does not
sacrifice shall enter the sanctuary. All Jews will be subjected to poll tax the
status of slaves. Those who objective that are taking in force to put the
death. Those who are registered must be branded on their bodies. With fire
and the ivy leaf symbol of Dionysius the mysteries. Now in my text,
it says those who are not initiated into the mysteries. Wait, oh,
it says it right here, look verse thirty. In order that it might
appear, in order that he might not appear to be an enemy at all,
He described if any of them preferred to join those who have been initiated
into the mysteries. Look at that fascinating text. Third Macabees. So the
very text that people downplay are actually very deep insights into the motivations and machinations
of the Antichrists in history and how they operate and act. And told me
here is saying that you have to take the mark. This is an early
mark of the beast. In other words, this shows us the patterns told
me. He's doing the exact same thing. He profanes the temple too,
by the way, For I remember, just like Epiphanes did, and the
earlier Macabees Antiochus, and just like Titus does in seventy eight eight. So
this proves mirroring. Do you understand? I just want to specify that I
was not being anti Third Macabees. I just stayed here. I didn't think,
I don't think you all right? Well, yeah, because I was
about to say, because I was listening to a debate the other day between
Trent Horn and some Protestant over the cannon, and I actually thought Trent Horn
did mostly well. The only area where I noticed Trent got stuck was it
the White debate. No, I don't know who he debated. Actually I
don't remember. I'm sorry. It was on the pips for the Klinas,
but I'm trying to remember what it was. Okay, so this is very
technical, but you know how in the Latin Vulgate, Ezra and Nehemiah are
first as dress and second as Druss. But sometimes that was just one book
called first as Druss. I don't know what y'all call it in the Orthodox
Bible, but in Protestant Bibles with the Judo can it's called first Zdruss,
and the Latin Vulgate it would be second or third as dress. I know
that kind of stumps tramp up a little bit. And I'm just thinking,
you know, this isn't a problem for Orthodox that's in their Bible. Yeah,
I was gonna say, I mean, it's dress in our Bible.
So yeah, And this is an attack I've seen from Protestants, and I'm
kind of wondering what your take is, is that Orthodox have a different canon.
But the only thing that I'm aware of is that I think the Russian
Orthodox Church has I don't know what y'all call it in y'all's Bible, but
if you get a Protestant Bible with the Judo can, it's called second z
Dress. Is that in. That's in the Russian Bible, right, I
don't know if it's in the Greek Bible. So we have what's called first
Ezra, which is second Esdras, and then second Ezra, which is Ezra
and second Esdras, so it's it's both, all right. I was just
bringing that up because I know that I'm pretty sure that's in the Russian Bible.
I don't think it's in the Orthodox Study Bible because there is no full
breaks of tuig and translation of it. You'd have to translate it from the
Latin Vulgate. It's just from the research I've done, I just seen to
this, and in fact, one of my dear friends who's half Russian half
Ukrainian, she's got a Ukrainian Bible and a Russian Bible, and they both
have that book. I don't know. Yeah, no, I think you're
right about this, and now you're correct about this. And also I think
some of the some of the Slavonic Bibles also include Enoch. I think,
now that's interesting. Yeah, they're they're not necessarily, but it's included in
some of those versions. Yeah, I was gonna ask, because I know
there's also Fourth mccabees, which I know is put as an appendix but not
canonical. Yeah, I'm not familiar with what the status of fourth mccabees is,
but I think for the Orthodox it's not that big of a deal because
we don't have a problem like admitting that there's tradition outside of the written text.
So it would really only be a problem for somebody who has a kind
of a solar scriptura type position. And so when we argue for the canon
against the Protestant we're not arguing that that our position is right because of solar
scripture. In the Orthodox Church. We're saying that it's not a problem for
us because we're not restricting divine revelation to the written text only, so we
don't have a problem. I mean, the you know, some of the
early Church traditions are in you know, extra canonical text pro to Evangelica,
James, right. I mean, there's traditions about Mary in those extra canonical
texts, and it doesn't it's not a problem for us. Nor is the
Book of inocal problem for us. If we admit there's tradition outside of you
know, the written text of Scripture, and some of those extra canonical traditions
can be oral or written down, there's still extra extra canonical traditions. Does
that make sense? Absolutely? I didn't think that was a problem for y'all,
since solo scripture is not a principle for the Orthodox, so I didn't
think a book or two variation was going to be devastating. So I don't
know. I'm just kind of curious about that. And then I know it's
going to sound game retarded. But part of the reason that the Orthodox have
winning me overset I just really like the content of these books. I know
that's a stupid argument to make. I know there's the historical but I just
I like, I don't know. When I try to tell people about the
Bible, you know, I want to tell them about Tovid because it's a
very inspiring story or maybe women. I might tell them about Judas the widow
that became an unlikely hero and stuff like that. And you know, it's
kind of unfortunate because something I tell a lot of my friends is that,
you know, these books were printed in the original King James Bible except for
third Maccabees or Paw one fifty one, but all the rest were And then
I tell them that Eastern Christians unanimously accept these books. And it's kind of
terrible because I think up until the eighteen thirties, all of these books were
printed in Protestant Bibles in their own section, mind you, But yeah,
yeah, I appreciate that. Let's see, now I'm going from memory here
that I might be thinking of Second Enoch because it's only in Slavonic, which
is interesting that maybe some Slavonic Bibles include it because it's only in Slavonic.
That's interesting. So second Slavonic. Excuse me, a second Innich is only
in Slavonic. Jewish supergraphica preserved in the Slavonic language. I'd be antertued to
know why it's only preserved in Slavonic. That's interesting. You know, a
lot of this stuff we don't even know, like it's there's like mysteries around
various books. So but am I right that some Slavonic Bibles have Enich kind
of like the way the King James Bible, the original King James Bible included
the apocrypha, but it was like an appendix. I think some Slavonic Bibles
have Enich as an appendix, if I'm correct. Anyway, Father Deacon can
maybe speak to this if you're available. Had it. We had a question
earlier about do you know the origin of the incense that's used in the liturgy?
What specifically the is just a tradition? You got? I'm mute if
you're there, FDA storm the cat five dollars? Sorry? Got what what
did you ask? Because like when you when you bring me in like for
it, it mutes like I can't hear you for a little bit, like
a few seconds. But you're asking somebody about the Somebody asked if there's any
like basis or is it just a tradition in terms of like what uh incense
is used in the liturgy? Oh, that's weird. It just was with
the clergy this week and we were talking about incense and here you guys are
asking what what incense? Well, typically ideally is the act like a good
quality like from Jerusalem of frankincense Orr. I mean, I'm but he was
asking why that is it merely because the wise men bring that? Is that
one? I think? So? I mean, for example, Father Russell
to answer this question, somebody was getting all upset. You know, why
do you Orthodox? You gold in your and your altars? And uh,
you know, shouldn't that be better used than the poor? Now, my
my remark is like there was somebody in the Bible that gave that same argument.
Do you remember that? Yeah, Judas, Yeah, he didn't end
out too well. But number two and this was Father Russell's point. And
I always love this because Orthodoxy just keeps what was always capped and gold was
always used in worship of God. Who were we to undo it? And
that's a really kind of great way of thinking about it, that Frankinson's and
gold, these are used in worship. We're not gonna undo what has always
been used in worship for God. M All right, let's see now remember
the guy guy. Tonight's discussion is specifically Catholicism, Libertarianism, Protestantism. Like
Keeper Israelites, anti Trinitarians, Muslim's, Unitarian shows, Witnesses, Mormons.
That's a nice topic. So I'm not mad at anybody asking about the cannon
or incense, but those aren't the topics tonight, mister Owl, got it?
I mute hi, I'll be concise. Well the way did you hear
that? Supposedly? I don't know if this I don't know if somebody was
making a joke, but they said Nick Cage is going to play job?
What the heck? I feel like I'm in a dream. Go ahead,
I'll be concise again, what in particular, how could you elaborate on what
keeps Catholics and Orthodox from forming a strong coalition? I'm sorry, where they
still respect each other? And technology? So again we're not that's not the
topic. So again I'm not trying to be mean, but specifically, I
said what the topic was, Paul, what's up? Is Nicholas Cage gonna
play job? What the heck? Dude? Maybe somebody was making a joke
on Twitter. I thought that was real. Oh this says this makes it
like it was a job. What. Oh they're gonna oh no, they're
gonna make it a horror. I guess it could be a horror job is
kind of a horror job is kind of a horror story. So our hero
Nick over here is gonna be reportedly playing job. O don't know, And
now it's saying it's not job, it's I don't know. I thought it
was gonna be job. All right. Now I'm worried it's going to be
something blasphemous. It's going to be playing Jesus' father Joseph. Anyway, never
mind, good news disconfirmed. Paul, what's up? Man? I got
I mute? Oh hey, Jay, I do apologize, but you emphasize
that it's about Catholic, libertarian Protestant. I just had a question about Orthodox
history. If you were just entertain my question, would that be okay?
Or I mean, is it a sud bold question or like something really in
depth? Uh no, it's I'm not so. I'm reading a book by
Timothy Whare. It's called The Orthodox Church. I'm sure you heard of it,
right, Yeah, right, yeah, yeah, Well I'm currently chewing
through. I'm about halfway through. But it has to do with the schism
of the Orthodox Church. Yeah, so you mean with Rome or what do
you mean? Yeah? Between between the Greek easton and the Roman West.
Okay, yeah, is there like a specific flash point that Orthodox Christians point
two, like, yeah, this is what actually caused the schism, because
apparently there's like many many different schisms, like the air control of the Mediterranean,
the Barbarian invasions, that the papacy. I think, yeah, to
answer that question, I think there's a series of events that kind of we
see the papacy evolving into a thing that kind of goes outside of its balance,
particularly in the eleventh century. So the Gregorian papacy is something they look
to. The Gregorian Reforms ten fifty four is kind of an easy date to
point to in terms of mutual excommunications. But the dogmatization that we have an
issue with is really at the Council of Lions in twelve seventy four. So
we would take issue with that in terms of the double eternal hypostatic procession,
and then it's reaffirmed in Florence, and between Lions and Florence in the West,
we have what's called the Palamite Synods in the East, which are the
rejection of the teaching of Lions. Ah. Okay, that's that's all I
got. Thanks million Yeah, that's a good question. Yeah, I think
that's the that's kind of the definitive because that's that's the definitive statement from Rome
as to what their position is that we definitively ended up rejecting. So uh,
let's see Cato. Mm hmm. Hello, what's up. I just
have a question about heresy, specifically a Roman Catholic heresy. Okay, So
I've heard you say that the like I've heard Lawski say. I think it
was Lawski who said that the philioquay subverts the whole or subdues the Holy Spirit
and the Trinity and therefore causes ecclesiastical problems in the West. That being of
the Holy Spirit doesn't actually guard the Latin Church from error anymore because they've demoted
the Holy Spirit. And I just wanted to know what you think about that.
Do you think that heresy specifically the philioquay has any societal problems and or
can cause societal issues to occur in the best Yeah. So this has argued
more in a more philosophical way in doctor Philip Schard's book Church Papacy Schism.
Pharrell's God History and Dialectic also argues this point, which is that you get
two different manifestations of two different Europes. You get the Byzantine Europe or the
first millennium, which is the uh, you know, the Orthodox view,
and then you get the Franco Papal Latin Church, post Gregorian reforms and post
Philioquay. That's manifests in a very different way. So and I agree with
that, yeah, because a friend of mine once told me that Orthodox Church
or Orthodox philosophy doesn't hold to consequentialism. And I remember I read a good
bit through Father Sarah from Rose's book about I think it's called Orthodox Survival Course
where he literally makes a consequentialist argument and about how the Latin West goes in
a far worse position than the East could ever go because of the here season
Rome. Well, yeah, but I mean that's not equivalent to having a
consequentialist ethic. I mean, I could use an argument from David Hume.
That doesn't make me a Humian. So oh right, maybe I got the
word wrong though. I also have another question. Do you know, Jonathan
Hill, I know you're I know you've you've made your your Actually this isn't
on topic, but it's kind of on topic because it's a a bit a
bit orthodox theology. He denies that Christ assumed the universal human nature and could
you explained a bit by what you mean by that and what right? So
this is, this is taught in uh Saint Cyril in many places. If
you get the book UH Christological contra assumeing Saint Cyril of Alexander, The Christological
Controversy by John mcguckan. There's multiple chapters in there about Cyril's Christology where he
explains that recapitulation necessitates this notion of assuming all of human nature in a single
divine hypostasis. So this is taught by Athanasius, this is taught by Cyril,
and it's also later taught at the Seven Ecumenical Council. Sat the Theodore
or the student teaches it and is on the Holy Icon's book. So the
only way that all men are resurrected is by Christ assuming the nature of all
men. That's that's what recapitulation is. Are you familiar with the recapitulation.
Yeah, I've heard you explain it. Well, are you familiar with it?
Uh? It's I'm pretty sure all men are resurrected because Christ assumed all
Yeah, yeah, so the extent right, So Adam's fall right is on
all of his descendants, right, and that's why they all die. And
that's first Green is fifteen, and so all men are assumed in Christ and
their nature is resurrected. That doesn't mean they're all sayed, because you're judge
on the basis of your individual hypostatic mode of willing. That's Saint Maximus.
So this is the cosmic scope. This is taught in Saint Maximus. It's
not even up for debate. It's a very well known doctor. Is that
the same as a pocket the stasis? No, it's not the same,
right, Okay, that's all I had to say, thank you. Yeah,
And there's a great article on this from Professor Monsritis. Let me pull
it up for you, Georgios Manserrites. And the article is Christ is a
universal person. Have you read that? Okay, I'll get to if I
have no money. Right, it's an article right here. It's easy,
easily accessible, all right, okay, And I mean he's just kind of
laying out this. I mean he's one of the most famous theologians in Greece,
very famous Orthodox theologians, priest, he's a professor of theology at University
of Dessaloniki. I don't know if he's a priest. I don't think he
is, right, Okay, I think I heard you mentioned him in one
of your older videos. Yeah. His book on Gregory Palamos is really good.
So yeah, I think, I think, I I think I know
what you're on. I will thank you. J Yeah. So here's this
article about Christ as universal person, and this is explaining this point of recapitulation
and the assumption of Christ, universal Christ assume university of Nature. Again.
It's taught in the Seven day Memdical Council and the writings of St. Theodore's
Today on the Holy Icons. Mattie Ice, It's also all of Maximus's cosmic
theology is premised on the same idea, Maddie, as you want to talk.
What's up, Mattie? Are either all right? I'm mute? Go
ahead? All right? Moving on, space hound, space hound? What's
up? Go ahead? I don't know much about Orthodox but what do you
guys believe about lordship salvation versus free grace? Yeah, I mean that's really
more of a Protestant evangelical discussion. We believe that you can lose your salvation
we believe that you have to spend your life basically in repentance and good works.
That's theosis. Okay, that pretty much answers it. Let's see man
in the something I can't read the man in camo. I can't read it.
Looking at the man in the cameo. Oh yeah, mm hmm.
You there, I'm mute. Uh huh? Are you calling me from the
metal factory? Yeah? Sorry about that. Here you go. That's better.
He's calling from the factory where they make metal. Go ahead, anyway,
do you put man? I can't hear nothing, dude, I can't
hear nothing. Sorry, man, David, dude out here. He's dude
out here excavating getting iron ore, trying to trying to argue getting iron ore.
What's up? Man? I just had a question about the like in
terms of the trinity, about what about what the trinity? Uh? What
do you What is your response? When you like do somebody say like they're
one in purpose? There are three different beings but only one in purpose but
not in like ess. Well, I would say, look up monarchical trinitarianism.
That's doctor bo Branson's lectures. It's really really good, necessary approach to
the Trinity that the Orthodox have. It's very different from most Roman Catholic thought
and Protestant ideas, so that would be a place to start. But I
mean, I'm not really I can't really give you a whole Trinity lecture in
terms of like what what all that is tonight, But I appreciate that you
can go look up his lecture Stan, what's up? Stan? To the
hold on stand and to the people in the chat. I know it is
not too late to call in if you want to call. We've only gone
for a couple hours. I'm a little worn down, but I still got
enough gas in the tank to pull a full I can be a I can
be a mad mad Max Rakatanski for a little bit longer. Jamie, could
you make me a double shot so that I can uh, so all I
could get some fuel on? Go ahead, man, what's up? He's
going? Jay? Thank you very much for the work you do. Just
want to say that first. So I had a question, as it's more
of like a history on Protestantism kind of thing, wondering if you know the
history of Protestantism in Russia, only asking because my parents immigrated there. I'll
go ahead and tell you. I do not know very much about Protestant Russia
at all. All right, well, well thanks anyway, now, I'm
sorry I couldn't help you. I mean, there there's a plenty of Orthodox
people that are like super duper deep into history and all kinds of niches of
history. But that's not a feeling I know anything about. Thank you,
thank you, all the great, all great. I can't tell what it
says, Alph the Great, Alfred the Great. Hi, how's it going.
Hey, I've recently looked up something in Islam and apparently they have like
a bodily resurrection at the end of time where everybody gets resurrected into bodies.
And I was just wondering, is this like sort of objective proof of copy
paste from Christianity, like sort of they've just gone taken it. Well,
I mean I wouldn't say that alone proved, but I mean, I mean,
you know, we believe Jews believed in resurrections, so we wouldn't say
the Christianity copied and paste Judaism because of resurrection. So I wouldn't locate it
just in the idea of resurrection. I would say, if you look at
like throughout the Qur'an. You have all these stories people mentioned. Biblical stories
are flipped and mixed up. There's whole passages of the Gospel of John cited
in the various places of the Quran. The Chrime in Passing mentions the Gospel
of Mark, the Gospel of John, It mentions the Torah in Jeal.
I mean, so, I think that other things might point to copy paste,
but I wouldn't say that resurrection alone does. I was just sort of
emphasizing the bodily pot because it sort of makes no sense if there's no one
to inherit the entirety of human nature. I think you said it earlier.
That's what sort of made me go, hang on, that's like sort of
weird because if it's based on the fact that Jesus took on every single everyone's
nature, right, the entirety of humanity, and that's why everyone gets raised,
and then if there's no Jesus to do that in Islam, then why
is everybody being raised into their own same physical bodies. Yeah, that's an
interesting question. I'd be curious why Jews or Muslims would believe in the universal
resurrection. That's a good question. Yeah, and I would sort of point
back, I guess, because it's sort of like, we have the explanation
later on for the for the resurrection, but the Jews have it there.
I suppose, Yeah, well, I suppose they would just say, well,
that's just what God wills, so he just swills it to be that
way. But you know, that's the funny thing though about that, this
is this is bringing up a point about the Kuran that I see where you're
going. Yeah, so many things in the Qoran that only makes sense in
the context of the totality of Biblical revelation, like Messiah can Messiah is a
Jewish Hebrew term out of the prophecies of the Hebrews for an anointed one.
Okay, without the context of the anointing and the high priest being anointed and
all that, this idea of Messiah means absolutely nothing. And in Islam there's
really no significance or meaning for this term. So it's a crib and cut
and paste. And I would say, I say, I would say,
yeah, you have a great point here, which is that so many things
in the Qoran don't have any context or big picture meaning. They're just mentioned
and it's like it's like the Ark of the Covenant. They think it's a
flying box that had Moses' jewels in it. I'm serious. And the reason
they thought it's a flying box is because they said had wings on it.
So they didn't even understand that the wings of the seraphim on the arc doesn't
mean the box has wings. So there's so many things. Yeah, there's
so many things in the Quran. If you look up Gabriel Side Reynolds's book,
his book is actually just going through like ten or fifteen examples of weird
stories that are in the Quran that don't make any sense, and they're all
jumbled up from the Bible. Yeah, thank you very much. No,
that's actually a great point exactly, like why are all the human beings resurrected?
Another point you could make too on this is well in Islam, like
how is God dealing with evil? Right? Because in terms of Christianity,
it makes sense that there's a body resurrection and there's an end to evil,
But like it, what does it mean in Islam to how is your sin
dealt with? How are the demons dealt with? Right? Again, it
doesn't make sense because in Christianity, the person of Christ is the christas Victor,
the conquering one. He's the one that does this work. And in
Islam it's just like, oh well Allah just willed it to be this way.
Yeah, And I'm pretty sure it doesn't Islam technically have original sin if
you go with the Orthodox position of sin or original sin, because if you
don't affirm that we have the guilt about him and it's just about a fall
in nature. Then the fact that I guess we are prone to sin,
which I guess every and sex would agree with that we're sort of prone to
sin, and that's at least our nature. Everybody has inherited that from like
from their body. I mean, if you had inbred parents, you sort
of have them same defects, So that nature if you corrupt it by iron
breed, and I guess, yeah, And we see that with a Bora,
right, we see that in real time with Eric Burro. Right,
it was a joke because I don't know the joke was that I'm saying,
that's come on, right, I went right out anyway, though, thank
you very much for the good questions. Uh huh uh Roman Omen Hello,
yo, Hey, I don't know if there's not this is on topic or
not, but I have a question about monism and a New Age. Okay,
my dad is is super into that stuff. He's all into like,
oh show, so I got Ru, Abraham Hicks, all all of that
New New Age, all of that stuff right, And every single time I
try to talk to him about Christianity, he's just so used to Western Christianity
because a prostism. He has no idea what orthodox he is. And I
always try to bring up a coherent reason why, because his whole stick is
that God is love right, and I always try to explain him that's not
it doesn't make any sense because it's I mean, it's true. I mean,
he thinks everything is God right. So I'm trying to explain to him
that doesn't make any sense, and that he thinks that all religions are saying
the exact same thing, but they all inherently contradict each other. So how
do I explain to him that you understand what I'm getting hit? Right?
Yeah, I would honestly say, don't worry about trying to argue and debate
with your dad because if he's not really you know, unless your dad asks
you specifically, hey, why do you think this or what's your answer to
this. You're never gonna debate or apologetically convince your parents of something, So
focus on living a virtuous life and being in living orthodoxtriciennity, and eventually,
you know your dad will see that in you and he'll start asking you questions
that you will never ever, ever apologetically debate your parents. Luke, amos,
go ahead. I'm starting to get a headache. What's up, Luke?
Let me read some of these super chats. Storm of the Cap five
Dollars. Another thing that can cast doubt on science is Einstein's relativity. It's
as bad as evolution, in my opinion, at least, all kinds of
contradictions that basically you have to assume a kind of postmodernism. Yeah, I
think you could make that critique of a relativity like it kind of seems like
it's super speculative, and if it's true, you know that basically everything's undercut,
including the principles behind relativity. Storm of the Cap five Dollars Einstein himself
and was confronted with self refeting problems and trying to find a one way speed
of light. He said, we can define it as true if we all
agree it's a social convention and it's true. Well, that seems ridiculous,
so I haven't read. I did read one essay from Einstein about the United
Nations of the World government, so that tells me a lot about Einstein.
Michael the Archangel three dollars do an impression of Cameron the math Wizard, the
ever sweet and round Michael Bitch teats Lofton when they meet Daddy Francis for the
first time. Well, I'm not gonna do that for three dollars. That
requires but yeah, I mean, if people want to follow the idea that
there's a Baysian quick books spreadsheet argument for the papacy, be my guest,
Sam sue like ten dollars. I have a simple question, what's the best
philosophical argument for divine simplicity? I have Protestants are skeptical. Protestants are skeptical
divines. Everybody believes in divine simplicity. Who believes in divinity in the Trinity?
Okay, everybody, even Protestants believe in divine simplicity. So I'm not
sure what you mean there. If you mean like absolutely divine simplicity, that's
like the traditional Roman Catholic Augustinian position about defining God according to the Neoplatonic definition
of what simplicity is, and then what's stated at the fourth latter In Council
by the Roman Catholics when they accept Peter Lombard's definition. So I'm just not
sure what you mean that there's Protestant skeptical divine simplicity. Anybody who doesn't believe
in divine simplicity in any sense would be a polytheist, because divinity is one.
It's not composed, it's not acted upon, it's perfect, it doesn't
imparts, it's not in time, it's not in space. Those are all
the things that we believe about the divine essence. Gostit's just ten dollars.
Will you debate biblically? Unitarian? I mean, he can hop on the
stream if he wants ten dollars again, gustitious, Will you debate him?
If not? What are the videos that refute his position? We did a
three hour lecture years ago about the trinity in the Old Testament. Every argument
debate against Muslims goes, for the most part Daniel Hikikachu goes into arguing the
triad from the Old Testament. So just look up is Jesus divine is the
Trinity God. That's my talk from four years ago. Can we get Eric
Abara at the Golden Corral? Impression? How's that? Luke? Five dollars
at the world? How the world do you not have seven hundred thousand subs?
Hey? That's right exactly? Yo? Can you hear me? Am
I on yep? I have a question. So it's about like Mormonism,
but it's like related to it might in some way be religio what we're talking
about today? Can I ask it? Or is that too much on it?
Right? So I was talking to some Mormons the other day and they
were telling me that they don't actually believe in like a prior god to the
Father and like he some of them were saying, like he exalted himself.
And then we started talking and they were talking about like creatio x like materia
and how it's like necessitated, and then they were telling me that like there's
like this uncreated super material that like they like he like he derives logic from
that material, but it's like impersonal, but then it like listens to him
because it loves him. Like I don't know if he knew anything about that
it was just Wow, this sounds wild. It sounds like this sounds like
like an Aristotelian hellenic view. Well, I think it was like weird new
Platonic stuff they were talking about too. It didn't make any sense, so
I asked as like in their weird version of like, uh, well it
makes that would make Actually actually that wasn't would make sense because Platonis is trying
to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, so that wouldn't make sense. Yeah, But
what they said was is that like the material. And I was questioning him.
I was like, so he derives his logic from the material. And
then and then they were getting on Matt, so I was like, he's
so is he does he submit to the impersonal material? Yeah? So this
is panism so but yeah, exactly, they were like, so there's this
uncreated super material that and there's also like this uh like logic that he follows.
So I was like, is this like pseudo deism? And they were
like, because he like submits to the logic, but it but they like
exist co substantial, so they like have the same will as each other.
And he said that and then he told me that this is if you read
uh Basil's hexamarn too. This is where Basil starts critiquing Aristotle's diet. This
sounds exactly like the material is conscious, so it is a person. And
when you formed, he forms that material into new gods or something. That's
what he said. He said, the material is ultimately conscious, this uncreated
material, and it and he and it loves him, and he loves it,
and so when he speaks his word, the material, out of love
for him, responds and then creates. I was like, what in the
world, Yeah, that's crazy. Well I would I would guess that maybe
they're kind of all over the place, you know what I mean, Like
I remember reading that, like there's I remember reading in an old Mormon website
where they had some of the sermons of like Brigham and Joseph Smith, and
like sometimes they would sound like they're Unitarian, and then sometimes they would sound
like they're Polytheis, and then sometimes they would sound like they're Trinitarians. So
I would imagine they're kind of all over the place. Well, I kept
asking him, I was like, like, what do you what do you
think about this? And he's like, well, the church doesn't have a
direct statement on this. So the church never directly said that there was a
God before the Father, so we're just going to say there wasn't and he
like exalted himself from a human form. It was so weird. Yeah,
that's crazy. Now there I need to get They have a one guy who's
a systematic theologian of Talmadge, but I'm trying to find his systematic theology,
so that would probably be one of the better routes to go. But yeah,
I appreciate that this sone's pretty nutty. Let's see what is that,
guys, because he might know the Mormon there used to only be like one
Mormon systematic theology and it was by this Talmage dude. And I know that
because like fifteen years ago I was going to debate Justin Hart, who was
Mitt Romney's faith and values person. Oh I found it. It's the systematic
theology of Jeff Warren. You mean Warren Jeffs. You mean Warren Jeffs.
Because that's the traditional Latin right Mormonism. That's the traditional Latin Mormon right,
which believes in you know, like extreme beliemy. But you got to turn
them into prairie muffins, like they got to look like they got to look
like eighteen hundreds. Aiden, what's up? Aiden? Go ahead, Aiden,
what's up? Oh? Sorry about that. Hey, j I'm an
inquirer in the church. I'm a former Joba witness, So I just have
a couple of questions on a millennialism and then a quick question on the Trinity.
Okay, so you know, obviously, you know, growing up like
a witness, the whole point of the faith is really just that we're living
in the last Stays and that all these things are going to happen, like
the world governments are going to start persecuting false religion and then only Jovah's witnesses
will be left as the only standing religion, and then Jesus Christ is going
to come back with one hundred and forty four thousand. So I just didn't
know if the church has, you know, the Orthodox Church has an explanation
as to what the one hundred and forty four thousand are. And then if
there's going to be like some crazy events that happened prior to Christ coming back,
yeah, I would say get a book, like I think one of
the elders has a commentary on the Book of Revelation. But I probably said
that at this stage, probably the best commentary in Revelation would be Peter Leithheart's
two volume commentary. My godfather is presently writing a commentary on the Book of
Revelation Dean Arnold, which will be good, and also David Chilton's commentary on
the Book of Revelation is really good, so I would probably agree with with
either Chiltern or Lighthearts. My godfather will also, I think probably. I
mean, he knows he's read all those all the ones that we've mentioned,
so it's going to be a really good work when he's it done. So
I'm gonna I'll probably be defaulting to Deans when it gets written, because he
really wants to reconcile kind of all of these all these topics. But Scott,
what's up, Scott, hey, Jack, can you hear me?
Yes, sir hey. So recently I was having a debate with a Roman
Catholic on purgatory and he brought up Matthew twelve thirty two, which essentially states
that whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, yeah, we'll have a yeah,
right, which presumes that sins can be forgiven after death, and Orthodox believe
that too. But that isn't prepurgatory, okay, And what would be like
the Orthodox do essentially right, So purgatory is the idea that there's a created
fire that tore you to pay for the temporal punishments that you owe to God.
And you don't see anything like this notion of a gigantic temporal debt scheme
where God's holding you liable to all this that you have to pay off in
the afterlife. And it's all really this deviation from the early Church's canonical penances.
So the idea is that if you committed a certain sin, you would
be banned from the Eucharist in the very early Church for a certain amount of
time. And so the idea was that, well, if you committed a
bunch of sins and this would be stacked up. And so God's basically stacking
this up like a being counter and then he's punishing you with a created fire,
which I don't know how his soul's burned by creative fire. But and
then when you pay that all off, you can go to heaven again.
Nothing like this in the early Church. The statements about being purged by Paul
are people in the church being purged, having their works tested at the Last
Day Judgment, Paul says very clearly that God is a consuming fire. And
so when Saint Mark Mephesis, if you read his Homilies against Purgatory, when
he when he rejects this, part of the reason that's that it's rejected is
that there's no created God. God doesn't have a created fire. God is
a consuming fire, and so the uncreated energies are the fire of God.
So there's no this thing as created fire. It's all just pagan silliness.
And then what exactly is like the Orthodox view of like when you go into
the after life, like people praying to you, Like, how exactly does
that process work in Orthodoxy? Right? So prayers for the dead help and
aid those You could read the soul life of the soul after death by Father
sur from Rose, but that's not really tonight's topics. So rum catal,
I know that's kind of purgatory is relevant, but we're not doing Orthodox after
life tonight. We're doing Catholic staff, Libertarianism, protestantsm blacky Beers, Arians,
Muslims, Joe's Witnesses, Mormons, all of those are on the topic.
Guys, If you don't if that's not the topics. Please don't bring
I'm not mad. I'm just saying, like, that's not the John Ronald's,
Ronald Donald, the rdds, the ron Donald duce and ron Donald does.
Very few will get that reference, can you hear me? Yeah?
I wanted to ask specifically about filio quid and how we see references of it
in sixth century, which is usually what Catholics use to justify it. Well,
I mean depends on what you mean by the references, Like what specifically,
because because a lot of times these are these are texts about economia or
their texts that can be eternal manifestation, they don't necessarily have to be eternal
double hypostatic procession. Yeah, I'm like, not specifically, but something that
I guess sort of references it, or maybe something even like Saint Augustine's references
to like I guess some people call it predestination, uh huh? And what
about it? And like, I guess a little wisdom. Christianity is like
based on Augustin's ideas, absolutely sure, so like, what what do you
think of that? Well? The Orthodox Church did not accept the totality of
Augustinian theology as it's representative mindset. It chose the Cappa Docians their view of
the Trinity at concept at double one, not the Augustinian view. So really
we don't have to even go too deep into that. Not dissing you for
that question. It's a good question, but all we have to do really
is look at concept and numble one, accepting the Cappadocian model of the Trinity
and not the Augustinian model. End of the debate. Okay, man in
the in the camos, you want to try again. Now that you're back,
I'm looking at the man in the camera. Oh yeah, can you
hear me? Yeah, okay, perfect, Sorry about earlier. I'm not
sure why I was cutting in out and then right afterwards, Uh you go
ahead, go ahead. Uh yeah, So I was going to have some
questions about Catholicism, but uh uh you pretty much answered him already some other
persons that already asked. So my questions are like, can I talk about
a little bit about Protestant Protestantism and uh, libertarianism. Yeah yeah. I
wasn't sure if you want to do multiple at the same time or not.
But anyway, first one is uh, you know, I was kind of
like in a discussion with a Protestant and we were talking about the Saint Peter's
cross or something like that. But he was like telling me, like,
you know, oh no, it's not just I'm thinking he's a Protestant.
But he was like, oh no, it's not Saint Peter. It's just
Peter. You just call him Peter, you know. So I just I
was like, well, he became a same because he died in Christ,
you know, and all that. And I showed him verses about it,
you know, in the Bible, you know, saying like the same tool
inherit the Kingdom and all that. But he says, like, you know,
he's like, nothing in the Bible says that you've become a sing when
you die or whatever. So I want to see what your thoughts on that
was. Well, I mean, the New Testament does talk about the Saints
many times over in Paul's epistles. Paul writes to the Saints at Epicus and
so forth. So it's just a tradition in the Church that people who lived
exemplary holy lives are honored in that way because they manifest the theosis and the
uncreated grace that they were partaking of. So anyway, Number one, what's
up? Joan Vandershoot for three dollars, says you should have a floating window
of the topics people always call in off topic. Should have dancing lights in
flamingos. I mean it's listed in the top of the you know, the
the Twitter space. But I appreciate that. John Shawn ten dollars. Well,
the libertarians and atheists actually have the same reality check that Richard Dawkins recently
did. It's hard to say. I mean a lot of people have,
you know. I think in general, humans have a religious commitment to whatever
the worldview is, even if they're totally irreligious. The way humans operate,
we have a religious commitment just fundamentally. So kind of think it's almost like
everybody's in a cult until we find the truth. Junior Gallo two hundred dollars.
Wow, big fat super chat. Really appreciate that you made the whole
evening tonight, Junior Gallo, so much megaprops to you for that huge super
chat. Sincere hypocrite three dollars. There are no oughts in a world that
lacks Tello's correct except for nap and my freedoms. Yeah, I think we
saw at the beginning of this chat that the you know, sort of just
just reasserting the libertarian position without giving an account for it is kind of a
weak position. How come everybody that debates you doesn't understand the questions that you're
asking. It's also tire someone you pre sub them. Well, I think
people aren't used to and they're not familiar with what it means to give an
account for a position. They think that means just restating it or telling a
story, or telling the psychological motivations as to why they believe it. You
know, we're asking for the good reasons to believe or to not believe this
or that position, and people just don't know what that means. So definitely
a one dollar I'm not trying to ran on a little bird's parade. Maybe
you should figure out what the sex goat issue is when we try to set
up our libertarian communes. I mean, it's a pretty common critique of libertarian
isn't that's gone around? I mean it used to be, like seven years
ago, the critique was, is it okay for me to do whatever I
want? Cowitus wise with a sex with a cat carcass. That was the
way it was framed seven or eight years ago, and then libertarians just kind
of sit there and I guess if you want. But actually, if you
go back to my cokesh debate, I said, is it wrong for me
on my private property to erect giant billboards of the most horrendous prawn? Oh?
Yeah, exactly how do we handle that? I don't know, far
hulb for ten dollars. I don't know how you how to join the call.
You call it the Twitter man Twitter space. It's linked in the show
description and it's been linked in the chat probably one hundred times. But I
have a question regarding the universe. Can you point me the direction of something
on cosmology from the church and enlightening other scientific stuff. I love your stuff.
I don't think we have a set opinion on cosmology. So you know,
the focus of the Bible and orthodox theology is the things that relate to
God and then the things that relate to the natural world. I mean,
we have a few we have some things to say about that, but I
don't think we're wedded to any like specific view of physics or cosmology. Unless
the view of physics or cosmology interferes with the theology. You know, I'm
just not sure. I'm not training that you could probably look at. Doctor
Bradshaw has a degree in physics, so he would probably be better for that.
Somebody did just point me to a book that doctor Bradshaw I think wrote
the opening four and I I haven't read the book yet. I ordered it
and it's some a physicist who wrote a book about energy, energy and physics
from an orthodox perspective. Sounds really fascinating. But maybe that would be something
that you would want to look at in that direction, But I'm not training
those topics. Five dollars five says for five dollars you have any information on
the Trail of Blood. Yeah, it's a crazy cult. Ideology is completely
ridiculous. There's no there's no Baptist secret Baptist tradition. If you read Look
at the Trail of Blood, their list of the Baptist saints going back to
John the bapt just as a bunch of anti Trinitarian cults. So it's a
completely ridiculous book. Sean ten dollars, Hey may for some reason, I
watched an old episode with you and Benny Wills from five years ago. It
was great, you were wild. Thank you be cool to see Bennie back
on. Yeah, but Jamie just said a an interview with Benny Wills a
couple of months ago on her channel. Yeah. I like Bennie and I
haven't really talked to him as well. Know what he's up to. Paranoid
Joe ten dollars, Thank you, Christen five dollars. Please consider raiding Father
McHale when you wrap up. Okay, thank you for the stream, all
right, appreciate that. Emmett three dollars. When you were studying Calvinis and
went to Rome, did you have to throw away tag? I was really
unclear about that for a long time. I thought for a long time maybe
I could be a pre suck Catholic, and then I just threw it away
because I thought, well, I'm going to submit to you know, and
you know my assumption was if Thomas Aquinas and the Roman cows like doctors of
the church, if they didn't see it, then I probably am not onto
anything new. But so good question, narrow path. What's up? I'm
sorry number number one? You were next? Did you want to speak?
Go to humute? Can you hear me? Uh huh? What's up?
Jay? J J. I just think it's hilarious when people do that.
It's like over and over man. Uh So I am newly chrismated Orthodox,
I guess probably about eight months ago, and uh still I'm trying to lay
off talking to uh like, Protestant family and friends as much as whenever I
first started, because it very quickly becomes like a like just not worth it,
And so trying to practice that. Every once in a while, I
still get into some discussions and often it comes up the idea of like,
I know it's not as simple as well, the Orthodox Church hasn't changed in
two thousand years. But whenever those types of whenever the conversation gets to that
point, they'll they'll often kind of talk about things that have changed and then
call them innovations and say like why is that different from the Roman Catholic Church,
or why is that different from all of these other things? So how
would you, I guess, frame that in a way that makes it so
that you're like, makes it make sense? Makes what exactly makes sense?
Like? So the Orthodox Church? It's what I've heard other people say that
kind of makes sense to me. Is that the same way that a fire
and a fireplace in one sense it doesn't change because it's still in the fireplace.
It's still doing what it's supposed to do. It's not out in the
house. But it is constantly changing in another sense, because that's the nature
of fire. And so in the same way like humans and the human part
of the Church is constantly changing, and there's developments, but that's not the
same as like innovations in theology and things like that. You know, Yeah,
I mean, I find it difficult to explain that. Yeah, I
just would out of hand reject the idea that dogma develops or changes. So
the explication of something is not the same thing as it changing. So we
would say that the totality of the faith is present in the first, second,
third century. There's nothing new that's being added other than terms that make
things more clear, more precise. So, in other words, in hypostatizes,
dogmatize the Fifth Council, it's not used in the second or third century,
but it doesn't matter, because the idea is there, or what that
is expressing is implicitly there, just like the word Trinity isn't the Old Testament.
Yet they have the same faith as we do, according to Hebrews eleven.
So I guess I'm just not understanding like where the disconnect is, Like
why why do they even think that it's changed? What's even changing? What?
I don't understand any anything that would be different, like liturgy, Uh,
I guess evolving. If if you could call it that or whatever whatever
they had before John Crossostom's liturgy, why would they change it to this,
that and the other. I think it's hard to see. I guess it's
more it comes boils down to nuance and inability to Yeah. I would say
that the fundamental components of the liturgy are there from the beginning. It doesn't
It doesn't change. Yeah, now, there might be there might be certain
like lower T tradition that not not capital T tradition. You know that like
Russians do this at this point or other people do that, but that those
are things that are not essential to the liturgy. There are liturgical essentials that
are common amongst the different rights, so to speak. But that doesn't mean
that the essence of that is changing. Okay, yeah, no, that
helps you know. The nicing Creed doesn't exist in the second century. That
doesn't mean that the faith developed and evolved so that you could have the nicing
creed. It's no different. We don't want to be antiquarians too, because
you actually see one of the problems with the Orientals and why they went in
the heresy was trying to be locked in, for example, into a language
in concepts. They couldn't develop the words to address some kind of issues that
came up. So we're definitely not antiquarians. But like Jay said, obviously
the dogma the essentials don't change. Yeah, exactly, I think he stated
the father deacon there made the point you're trying to make that. Okay,
there's certain things that are like new to that generation, right, the second
century didn't have the niceno Constanpolitan creed. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense.
I guess when ever, I've or past instances, I guess it's difficult
to articulate in a compelling way that doesn't just sound defensive or doesn't just sound
like I'm like changing the goalposts or something like that. So yeah, I
guess I just need to work on that. But also, just last second,
here shameless plug doing a podcast. We got a hundred subscribers. Curse
World Problems Orthodox adjacent, but more more so, we're just clowning around we're
a couple of clowns that do comedy and stuff like that. So if you
want to check it out, to be a massive honor and anybody else who's
listening. We don't know how else to grow it, but we're I think
we're doing well. We got like seven episodes out, So thanks for your
time, all right, and that is a narrow path, enjoyer Rock Barcelos.
Yeah, I'm mute, I'm you, I'm you. Hello, it's
it's it's for me. What's up? Sorry? Sorry? So regarding libertarian
libertarianism, would you say that perhaps, uh, in the at least in
the regarding ethics the forced association part of the criticism of libertarian ethics, which
is said they have a case there or not for what the association? The
forced association, like the criticism on forced association, that the state forces you
to to associate. Right, I think I think that there's a case there
to be made the ethics, But I don't know what do you think there?
You're saying, is it wrong for the state to force associations? Is
that what you're saying? Yeah? Yeah, Like for example, like a
society, right, a society in order to be a society has to be
a voluntary wouldn't wouldn't you agree, Well, that's one of those assumptions that
they have. But how do we know that that's the case. How do
we know that that's the case. Why should we think that? Right?
I mean, are you voluntarily a member of a family or are you born
into one? Right? In that case, you are just born there?
Right of course? Well, I mean don't Milton free men and certain members
say that that's like trampling of liberty. It's like a collective right, like
a baby's a parasite on the mom right, right. But in the case
of well, if if a person is just born, is just born in
that in there? The person doesn't have a choice of course? Yeah?
Is that is that a violation of liberty? Um? Right? Mmm?
Well if a person is just mm hmm, Well, I guess I would
have to think more that. That's fine, you can think on it.
Let's see. So tonight's topics, as we said, are listed, So
please not I'm not trusting at that guy that was on topic as these what's
up asis? I'm sorry, I want for communists, we're all what's right
at red red terror up in here? What's up? Dog? What's up?
Dog a? These you got? I mean, hello, hey,
do you hear me? I'm coming from Protestantism, specifically Christian constructions. Maybe
that's the way how I found your channel. Thank you for your clarity and
your contents. It's very helpful, especially how you flesh out the test and
dental arguments. And also I got interested orthodoxy. So now I among a
couple of things to reconcile and see how in my tradition could be kind of
fixed. One of them it would be, as you point out, penal
substitutional atonement in in its mysterious kind of Nestorian elements. Yeah. So uh.
One, I had in mind two ways to direct my mind to solve
it. One would be could you please My question is could you please comment
on my directions so it could be helpful for me. Two directions, one
to see how First, what is the nature of rest of God? From
Orthodox perspective? What is anger, wrath and hatred all these divine energies?
And if so is it? Yes? The answer is that yeah, said
that you're correct, that God's justice. I don't know if I would say
anger and wrath or energies, but they express the manifestation of divine justice.
So yeah, my mind is almost mush. I don't know if I have
any more energy, so we're gonna have to end it. Guys, will
remind you to head on over to chalk dot com. Use a problem,
go J forty four life to get access to the best and supplementation available.
That's h o q dot com. Chalk dot com. Use a problem,
go J forty four Life, that's J forty four J y four four L
A F E, and you get access to this amazing, amazing product over
here at chalk dot com. Boost testosterone. Man up. Become a toxically
masculine, toxic masculinity emitter. The toxic masculinity will emanate from you when you
use chalk dot com use a promo CODEJ forty four Life, and I will
see you guys very soon. Be sure and get ticke us to our event
as you guys know, June twenty second in Las Vegas. It's going to
be an epic infotainment event. The tickets are in the show description right there,
the next live event. Be sure and get tickets now, and I
will see you guys there. And otherwise the