The standing, those stands, the spellings, the most snow, some things
I love and I won't spend, spend spend. The new neo platonist wine
Mom is making a big fuss. So the way it works is you have
to request to speak, y'all, hold on, I gotta turn the air
on. It's gonna get hot here. He's about to get hot. It's
getting hot in here. It's getting hot in here. So put on all
y'all clothes, two or three layers and sweat some mo what's up, y'all?
Welcome as you know, it's open for him? Where's this crazy woman?
The way it works, guys, as you request to speak, When
you request to speak, I give you the microphone and you get to come
on and you get to say whatever arguments you want within reason, within obviously
the terms of service. The toss the t os, baby, the t
and them tosses. If you don't stay within the tows, you get toused
out of here. Is there boy having fun today? It's a it's a
hot Monday. Because you put on more clothes. Everybody hit like and share.
I really want the angry wine mom to come in here. I mean
she was dipping into that Fransias since seven am, it looks like, and
she's over here. She's about ready to tell us about Hypashia. She's explaining
to me that I don't understand the great mysteries of neo Platonism and hypatia.
And then I'm scared to debate the Pagans, even though we have offered open
forum all the time over here for pagans. The Pagans usually are the ones
that freak out. They're like, I'm about ready to fight you in real
life. Remember that one guy now now now the Australian pig. And now,
the way it works, as you know, you guys know, is
you request to speak, I give it the microphone. You make whatever arguments
you want. Now remember typically we want to stick to arguments. My feelings
are not going to be hurt. If you want to call and say that
I'm the worst person ever, it doesn't bother me. I'm sure many of
you think that. Let's just get that established from the outset. I am
the worst person on the Internet. I won that award last year. Chase
Haggard gave it to me Worst Person on the Internet award. I've got it
hanging up above the toilet, and so we don't have to debate that anymore.
So I can see the debate about whose worst Internet man I am.
I'm the KGB sorcer. In fact, I have right here in front of
me this wonderful gift that I got from my buddy Mark Hackard, and this
is the Minox preferred This is the KGB's preferred Cold War spycamera. Pretty cool.
It's an actual Minox spycamera. Comes with this cool leather spycase. It's
the leather Soviet edition. And it's funny because when I put the picture up
with Jamie holding this, everybody thought it was a pregnancy test. No,
we didn't go to a steakhouse and piss on the pregnancy test and then pull
it out of the steakhouse, I mean. And it says in the description
of the picture that it's a Cold War KGB spycamera. So what that tells
you is that people don't read your descriptions. So if you're putting up pictures
on Instagram and you explain in it in the description, you wasting your time
because ain't nobody reading no descriptions. And this is the this is the metal
saying that the KGB would use right here, if you see this, to
whip people. So when they got in trouble and they got arrested, they
take the CIA man bag of whapa, they whip him with this little thing.
That's not what this is. This is to measure because older cameras,
right, they don't have a focus. So if you're this far away from
the if you're doing a document, there's little knobs on this thing that tell
you how far to keep the camera away from when you're shooting down to the
desk. So interesting with these old school cameras. Here, some nerd got
on Timmy and said, let us do a KGB created camera. I didn't
say that, so it was the favorite. It's their favorite camera. Western
Intelligence use the mind us, okay, but that doesn't mean it's not the
favorite of the KGB. And as you guys know, I'm here as a
KGB operative and sorcerer to under Dugan and Vladimir Lenin take down the papacy.
So that's what I'm commissioned to do. I get paid in dugan Coin,
which is a yet to be revealed crypto. It's gonna go public here in
a little while. We'll have an ico launch of dugan coin and then you
guys can just pay me a dugan coin directly to fund the NKVD takeover of
America. See a lot of these, A lot of these track cats think,
oh you're KGB, nah Bra KGB went away thirty years ago. But
what didn't go away was the NKVD. And I hope the track cats clip
that right now because I want to serve my Lord Stalin as best I can.
Okay, where is this crazy woman? Where is this woman? Harpet?
This this harpy waking up yelling's harping on her freaking box wine that she's
all doped up on. We got moms out here doped up on box one.
So she's saying, I'm here. You gotta request us. You know
I don't see you in the request to speak. So the way this works,
right, So take the Virginia slam out of your mouth, put the
box wind down, take a break from the Franzia, and you hit the
request to speak button and then I give you the microphone. When you guys
get the microphone, you're gonna be muted. That's how the app works.
So you gotta u mute yourself. I'm about to have a wacky morning DJ
saying that's a monkey or a toilet flush. That means unmute, because nobody
ever remembers to unmute. Nobody knows how these spaces work, even though we've
been we've been to this for like how many years now, least a few.
So what's her name? It's not how patient? What's what's your name?
Lisa rannaz In, Lisa, you gotta hit request to speak. I
want to give her first disc because she's so mad. She said, I'm
scared of her. She said, you're scared to debate. And I was
like, okay, here, you can have the microphone and she said,
no, you're scared to debate. My big brother. Lisa requests to speak.
I hope she's the one that called your tyrannical riner And you're arrogant as
fuck. And by the way, you're awful person. And by the way,
you need to repent. You need to repent Holmes barely regardless, you
need to barely repent dog. You need to repent. Essay, Lisa,
where are you at? You've been harping all morning like a good pagan woman
ought to do. Yeah, So militant Thomas is saying that he wants to
come in. But yeah, I don't think spaces works for any PC or
laptop as far as I understand, it only works on I'm gonna go to
somebody else. If you don't come on here, Lisa were you? You're
not in here. I'm in here. You got that frenzy a cloud in
your vision. Baby. Maybe you're a wine aunt. Maybe you're two boomer
to aunt. Maybe you're not a wine mom. You're a wine aunt.
You don't. You don't how to work this thing. You gotta work it.
Put my thing down, flip it, Robert sit, gotta work it.
Let me work it. Can The boomer worked a Twitter up up,
a Twitter back flip, but the Vier sit, where are you at?
You're talking so much shit all day long? By the way, so we
had about five or six trads talking smack. I'm not talking about Christian Wagner.
He did say he would like to do a debate. Uh. All
these other track cats and Roman colics, about four or five of them.
They're mad, they don't want to talk. But guys, if you would
hit like and share, we're about to open it up because this woman ain't
gonna come I don't guess you just wanted to talk shit all day. But
shocker if you guys didn't see it. We did a great interview with Pearl
and Tim Gordon and Glenn, so you can go over here and that interview
is linked right here. That was a lot of fun something right there,
occult feminism, how feminism infiltrated the churches, And actually that conversation turned out
to be We recorded that several days ago and it turned out to be way
more relevant to the recent drama on Twitter with Father Barberg and the Antiochian Ecumenists.
So go check out that discussion because everything we talked about there applies to
the principles that we've laid down with Rachel and other interviews and in my own
lectures on how churches get subverted through think tanks. In Geo's Foundation Money University
Placement ARCon money, somebody was like, you call him the Greek church nastic
because the arcons is a honorary title given to wealthy Greek patrons and prominent individuals.
It's not talking about nastic arcons, so it's getting no idea what they're
talking about. Okay, So this woman called me a coward all day long
and it wouldn't show up. Shocker, a woman is behaving like a woman.
By the way, the other Roman Catholic dude that was talking shit all
day, he did the classic move of you're all full of shit, your
orthodox are full of shit, You're you're full of it, You're full of
horsepoop, and then I called him out and then he plays victim. You're
so mean, and look how behave dude? You just called everybody full of
shit and you're mad that somebody called you back out. I've never seen you
do a formal debate where you were charitable, total lie. The majority of
the debates we do are formal debates that are terrible. These don't count.
These are goofy fun day debates. This is entertainment, infotainment. Maybe where
are you at? I really want her to come because this was this was
gonna be. This was the entertainment right here. We're about to get some
wine, wisdom, we'll go. We're going to somebody else to maybe you
can figure it out. George of Forrest Cooper. Preference is given to people
who disagree. Got an un mute bra yep? Are you a just hey?
What's up? How you doing? Not bad. I think I just
found your stuff. So this is all new to me. Okay, are
you a disagree or man? It depends on the subject, short answer being
coming from the American side of sort of the reformed movement, that's where I
stand, But I don't know if I what my travels can say that it's
the same everywhere I go, even in the United States. What you consider
like reformed a Baptist in the Midwest is like Presbyterian in the southeast or Southwest.
Okay, so so you're saying Reformed Calvinists closer to yeah, yeah,
anyone who anyone who engages in the subject, like we know that there's You've
got your five points of Calvinism, and it's like, well, the label
only goes so far. So the label of Calvinism because you're a Baptist,
you mean, yeah, Like, which which part of it? Because I
think it's almost like it's got so many subsects now, but it would be
let's talk about just theology. It'd be a preference of sovereignty of God or
the free will of man, recognizing the tension of the two. But you
said you're coming from a Greek Orthodox position, Well, I'm Orthodox, But
I don't attend a Greek church. So there's a lot of Orthodox churches that
are not just Greek, and the majority of Orthodox are not Greek. But
yes, I'm I attend a Russian Orthodox Church Russian doctor, So I mean
they're They're definitely not common in the areas that I've lived. Where is the
point of a difference between an American version of a Russian Orthodox Church as opposed
to other options, Well, I mean, differences are typically gonna be like
linguistic or kind of local traditions in terms of culture. Theologically speaking, sometimes
there's a difference of emphasis, but we all possessed the same Niceno constant to
Politan creed, and we all belay the same eight slash nine ecumenical councils.
So if you're saying differences between Orthodox Churches, the differences usually relate to if
there's ever a schism or something like that. Most of the time it's something
jurisdictional. Sometimes it's theological. But I mean the canonical Orthodox Church is all
of the professing Orthodox churches that are in communion and follow the same canon law
and the same patriarchal structure. So that's the Orthodox Church. That I'm talking
about Russian just happens to be a jurisdiction within that. But in terms of
what you're talking about, Um, I mean, I'm curious if you want
to get into the specifics of disagreements, like because I at a time where
I was a Calvinist Baptist or Reformed Baptist, I guess you could say,
and I went to Reformed Baptist church or maybe maybe a year and that's when
I moved into Covenant theology and Presbyterianism back in about two thousand, about ninety
nine. So I was already a Calvinist by two thousand, ninety eight ninety
nine is when I was getting into James White and reading a lot of Reform
Baptist stuff and Reformed Baptist Confession and Spurgeon and all those guys. Um So,
have you ever looked into the history of the formation of the Biblical Canon?
Yeah? My degrees are in theology and philosophy. Okay, excellent,
Well you sound like the perfect dude to talk to. I enjoy it.
Yeah. So, um so, why should we accept the Protestant canon of
scripture? Why should we accept the Protestant Canada Scripture? Yeah? Not the
Orthodox canon. Where's the difference between the two? Well, I mean the
Protestant Church typically follows the masoretic text, so there's some differences in that minutia.
But we also have the Dutero canonical text. Okay, so is there
it would it be worth saying that there is the poor canon and then there's
the additional canon, Like the difference between what how does that have any play
on something like soliscritura or authority of the gospels, Like do you see the
addition of the what you consider the additional I would consider the additional ones,
the additional canon, to be just as authoritative as the Protestant canon. Is
that the argument? Well, I would say, if you look at the
Patristic tradition, they do try to prove doctrines from citing the dut canonical text
all the time, So I would say they're useful for doctrine as well.
But in the Orthodox view, they don't have the same emphasis and premisey that
the Gospels do. So in the Orthodox Church, for example, in the
liturgy itself, there's a priminence, a pre eminence that's given to the Gospels,
even over Paul's epistles. But we don't have a false dialectic to say
that, oh, because there's a premacy given to the Gospels, that therefore
means that Paul's epistles are fallacious or erroneous or something like that. Even Paul,
within his letters says that this I say of my own opinion and not
of the Holy Spirit. So even at times in Paul's opinion, he says
that not every jot and tittle is of the same level of importance. And
so I don't have a problem saying that the duter canonical texts are less important
than something like the Gospels. But that doesn't mean that they're not going to
be useful, for example, in proving doctrines like praying for the dead.
So that's one issue of the duer cannon itself. But the other issue is
what is the epistemic principle that you have to know which is the right list
of books? And how do you have that without the historic church that chose
that. Okay, so I'm just putting this all together. It's been a
while since we've had a conversation on this layer, so I'm enjoying it right.
Well, I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but you
said your philosophy. You said your philosophy, student philosophy major, guys,
So what's the epistemic principle by which Protestants determine the true canon of Scripture without
reference to the historical church? Would reference to the historical church be considered a
negative or a positive? Well, I would say for you, it's probably
going to be a negative because the people that put the canon of Scripture together
don't believe anything of what you believe. It might be a little bit broad.
That would have to be a little bit broad because saying that we don't
believe in any of the same things, you don't have to be more specific
on that po Well, let's say, let's say the Classical Reformation teaching,
for example, that people that deny grace alone, faith alone, solo scripture,
you know, solo feed a those people do not teach the Gospel.
So that would mean that all the people that put the Candida scriptsure together did
not teach the Gospel. What did they teach them? I mean, I
don't I don't see the difference. Because they teach, they teach the or
they teach they teach Eastern Orthodox theology. I mean, you know, we
can go read these people, right, yeah, yeah, not very fair.
I just don't know if I agree with your premise, because the well,
the premise was a question. How could you disagree with the premise.
It was a question or the premise that you don't believe what they believe.
Which premise. So if the early if the early Church fathers and the people
who wrote, or even even the what we consider just even the Reformed New
Testament or the Protestant New Testament wrote what they wrote all took place before you
had Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed and so and so forth. So well,
hold on. So the recording of the texts is not the same thing as
you knowing which which books go into the Bible. That's two different things.
So I would agree with you. I would agree with you that the apostles
were inspired to write down the autographa right, But that's a different that's a
different issue. That's a different issue from you knowing what the specific Apostolic authored
texts were because you don't have a time machine to do that. You have
to trust in the testimony of the bishops that handed those texts down for many
centuries, and that produced the Canada Scripture. In about the seventh century thing,
How is it any different than an orthopox position because we both received the
same texts. Well, we receive it from a historic church. That's my
point is that you can't divorce the Canada Scripture from a historic body that preserved
it and made the normative decision as to what books go into that book.
Yes, I agreed. You cannot divorce the people that we have now from
people carrying it on through time. Right, So what do you think the
people who preserved and transmitted that text in the second, third, fourth,
fift six, seventh centuries believed? Give me and give me give me a
touch point where I can start on, like about what salvation about? Was
alre we talking about? Like the lamps? Are we talking about? Did
they believe in apostolic succession? Oh? Have you have you read, for
example, the Cannons of Nicia, not for a long, long, long
time, but the only elements of it. So that's a good point.
But you did read the Cannons of Nicia only sections? Okay, what do
you think we're in the Cannons of Nicia? Wouldn't be able to tell you
anymore. This is a problem. Well, I'm not talking about the Creed
of Nicia. I'm talking about the cannons. That's different. Are we still
talking about like um, because then they seeing creed how to deal with the
divinity and identity of price. Well, that's part of what the Creed dealt
with, but then it also had to deal with heresy and some of the
other issues that they're dealing. Yeah, and the cannons, which I have
up on the screen, deal with the sacrifice of the Eucharist, They deal
with the apostolic succession, they deal with the episcopate, they deal with baptismal
regeneration, they deal with the hierarchical clergy, they deal with excommunication, they
deal with viaticum, or giving the Eucharist to those who are on their deathbed.
I mean, none of this is reformed Baptists, because we wouldn't be
able to make the argument as reformed Baptists because what you call reform Baptist didn't
come around for so the church what was in a blackout? I thought matt
Jesus said Matthew sixteen, that the gates of Hadeus would not prevail against the
church. Where was the church in these centuries? Who's still with the people?
What people these people are orthodox. Is calling them orthodox and contemporary language
a little disingenuous? Uh? No, if I'm literally showing you all of
the things that they believe that we believe. Let me read you Kennon eighteen
of Nicia. It has come to the knowledge of this Great Synod that in
some districts and cities deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas no canon
or custom permits this. They should not give the Body of Christ to them
that do offer. Also, it has been made though, that certain deacons
touch the Eucharist before the bishop touches them. Does that sound like a reform
Baptist church to you? No, not at all, because it has to
do it has more to do tradition and ritual than it does to do with
theology and belief. So tradition and ritual and not the algia belief. You
don't think that liturgy is part of the Algian belief? It is. I
think that I think we're still dealing with the practices of man versus what is
true? Interesting, So, where does the church get its worship service in
the first and second century? Since you want to talk about ritual, it's
worship service. Yeah, I mean, you're saying that rituals don't matter.
So wouldn't God have told us a proper way to worship? Don't don't Oh,
sorry on that one. Don't say that I don't think ritual is important.
I'm saying that rituals, well, you're saying these are bad rituals.
And I'm saying that where does the church in the first and second century derive
its pattern of worship from? What's the proper way to do a church service?
And how do we know that? Does the New Testament have a service?
No? Oh, but the Apostles established worship. So is it Have
you considered that maybe the worship services themselves or something that are not in the
scriptures that are apostolically established, it would still be if they're apostolically established,
they're still partially established by the dictates of Man. You think that the Apostles
didn't teach authoritatively only what they wrote, because Paul says, all the things
that I taught in Ephesus for three years to Timothy, you pass those things
on. So you just told me, no, you only passed on they
only they were only authoritative in the written To this day, we can I
think that you're talking about authoritative written I'm thinking, well, you're just begging
the question, because I'm telling you that the Apostles established liturgies, and so
we worship the same way that they laid down that worship. You know,
we can go read how in the first and second centuries the bishops of that
time wrote about the worship of the church. Right, you're an as ignatious
cyprian, okay, And they describe the same type of worship that we do
in the Orthodox Church, the real presence of Christ and the euchris and so
in that argument, and so in that argument, you're saying that the Orthodox
Church is the only church that follows that authoritative doctrine. Absolutely. Ah,
So that's what and what does what does that have in relation to salvific principles
or salvation? Well, the Orthodox Church is the one true church, and
your church is, as you just admitted, a recent invention, well more
recent if you're going to call it an invention. Maybe that's a stretch,
but I can understand it. Well, now, wait a minute, do
you have continuity with the church that I'm talking about? Yes, yes we
do. No, you don't what Orthodox bishops ordained any reform Baptist elder.
That wouldn't make that doesn't necessarily mean it's the same thing. So well,
do you began this just but you began you began this discussion by talking about
how many different divisions and splits there were in the world of reform Baptist and
Calvinists. Yes, but that argument can be applied to all of Christianity.
No, it can't. That's my point because Jesus said that the body of
Christ would be like his body, indivisible. There's one Lord, one faith.
When Baptism as the nice increase says one Holy Catholic, Abistolic Church,
one Catholic. Yeah, okay, so your argument, So the argument that
you're making is that there is only one true church and that is the that's
part of the argument I'm making. Yeah, how many bodies did Jesus have
as a physical body, the one right and the Church is the extension of
that incarnation of his physical body. Yes, so there can't be two,
three fifty thousand churches. Do you believe in the noetic effects of sin?
I believe there are no edic effects of sin, but I don't believe what
you think about the noetic affects of sin, because in your view, even
after regeneration, the noetic effects of sin are still in effect, and so
it should be precluding you from making any normative dogmatic statements. That's why the
Reformed confessions all say that nobody can bind another person to their interpretation right,
freedom of worship, freedom of conscience. So then are you are we talking
just about a difference in esthetic because you have no I mean, I literally
write I'm not being rude too, I'm just literally just said that heterodoxy versus
orthodoxy inside the church outside the church. So no, it's not a matter
of aesthetics. Okay, So then is it beyond reproach to say that the
Orthodox Church views only people within are your position within the Orthodox Church only sees
people within you or within the Orthodox Church to be Christians at all, and
everyone else is on some form of heresy? Correct? Where's the line between
correct? Where's the line between Christianity and heresy? The Orthodox Church? Well,
so it's membership to a human body. Jesus's Church is a panthropic institution,
is not a human institution. And that's precisely what your heresy is.
In the New Testament, Paul in many places says that the Church is the
body of Christ, and you're saying it's a human institution. So you right
there just kind of gave the game away. That's a good call for the
second here, that's a good call. The point. The problem though,
is that I don't know where you draw the line of who is inside and
who is outside the church. Well, I mean, again, there's either
you're either Orthodox or you're not. So are you in community with the Orthodox
Church or are you in communion with a recently invented group. What does it
take to be considered truly Orthodox? Well, I mean it's not just being
a member obviously, you also have to live it and believe it and you
know, participate in the sacramental life of the Church. So I'm not saying
you can just notionally think it, Oh I think that I'm Orthodox. No,
it's actually like joining the visible group known as the Orthodox Church. This
is at which Orthodox Church is the right one, the one I just explained
to the public, canonical Orthodox Church that exists throughout the entire world. It's
the second largest Christian communion, so called Christian communion in the world. And
how many versions are how many different Orthodox churches make that same claim. It's
because you don't understand this fundamental misunderstanding of what Orthodox theology and ecclesiology is.
Different jurisdictions doesn't mean different churches. Man, you understand that the guy that
Paul was talking to in ephesis, Timothy, that there's still an Orthodox Church
in ephesis today that descends, that descends from Timothy and Orthodox Church from father
to father to father to the father. That's apostolic succession. Correct, that's
Timothy's the Paul's letters to Timothy. I laid hands on you, Timothy,
you lay hands on men after you because the giving of the Holy Spirit is
transferred. And he says, don't lay hands on men lightheartedly. Make sure
that they're good men who can pass on the entire deposit that I committed to
you, which, as he says in acts, was three years day and
night teaching, not just written because he didn't. As far as we know,
there's only two written letters to Timothy. And yet he tells Timothy to
pass on the entire deposit of what he taught for three years straight. So
the I think where the issue is going on here, I think where I'm
gonna I draw the line on this one is said, I don't know if
I would want to place I don't think. I don't think you can place
salvation within man's institutions, even though where you keep calling it a man man's
institution. I'm telling you that Jesus said in John that the Holy Spirit would
be given to the church. I mean, don't you think Pentecost was significant
that he says the comforter will lead you and guide you into all truth.
And you're telling me that at some point apparently the Holy Spirit left the visible
historical church and then it had to be restored by whatever sectarian person you follow.
Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.
The Church is the kingdom. It's a visible society set up by the Apostles
in history. And so what you want is a church or a group divorced
from that historical institution. It is not a man's institution. It's a divine
institution. That's the point. Well, saying that I wanted might be a
little disingenuous. Let's start there, because well, I'm saying, but if
you, if you when I say you want it, I'm coming into understanding
more and more about the Orthodox. Okay, fair enough, but it hasn't
been well, what I meant by you want it. What I meant by
you want is not to impugne bad motives, but to say that your defense
of the reform baptistposition would mean. That's what I meant by you want.
You want, you want to defend the reform baptistposition, and that's what I
meant. Okay, So then it is calling it reform Baptist. It'sself caught
causing it to become heretical. It's the lack of connection and communion with the
Church in history and the heterodox beliefs that make it not a true church.
Not the name itself. Yeah, we could go with a heterodox beliefs for
sure. The connection to people, um, the connection. Yeah, But
you just keep you just keep reading, lying, you just keep you just
keep assuming that there is no Apostoli succession. And I've given you two points
already that the Bible itself was put together by these people, and that's my
Paul says to Timothy that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.
He doesn't say that the written text of the pillar and ground of truth.
And he tells Timothy to pass on this inheritance, this deposit by the laying
on of hands. That's a historical Continuitian succession. You remember the Old Testament,
there's a laying on of hands and the giving of the Holy Spirit Moses,
Joshua, there is Yep, there's the Father. Yep. I'm familiar.
Okay. So the apostles are modeling that same structure for the spiritual Israel
and laying on hands, not on the basis of biological descent, but to
induct men into the Melkizedekian priesthood, because Jesus's priesthood is a continuing press beter
it, which is the Melkizedekian one Allah Hebrews seven. So then so then
what is left for those people who exist in the world. I mean,
I know, I know half the answer to this one. But what is
it left for those people who exist in the world who have not had connection
to or communication with an Orthodox church or there They're understand they're the Orthodox churches
are for people who claim to be Orthodox are even stretching between Hey, by
the way, um, I don't mean I don't I think the point that
the problem is the world is big. How do we deal with that because
I think there's a solution to be had here. Hold on, you have
to request to speak, So I'm not woman says I'm muting her. You
have to request to speak. I'm not muting you. And also, by
the way people are saying in the chat for Christian Wagner, if you want
to come on, they're saying that it does now work on PC. So,
um, spaces didn't used to work on the computer. Yeah, that's
what people are saying. But yeah, so I mean the question of what
happens to people who don't know about Christ, we lately we leave that to
God. That's not we don't know that, so you know God's going to
deal with them and the way that God deals with them. But there is
the doction of recapitulation, which means that all men do, by the virtue
of the universal nature that Christ assumed, have a connection to Christ. But
um, we're not told about their ultimate destiny. But we know that it's
our it's our duty to tell people to repent and come to the church.
You can't you can't divorce. You can't divorce christology from ecclesiology. As my
point, that's why the church can't be a purely human institution. Oh no,
I agree there, it can't be a purely human institution. The different
than the argument being how much of the Orthodox Church is human and how much
of it is of God. But it's a good argument. I do appreciate
it, to be clear. When I were, my experiences within theology are
much more focused on Orthodoxy as opposed to like bloodlines or patriarchal follows. But
then you're also looking at like, I'm sure you're you know, you knew
exactly what I'm talking about because you came from some of the more reformed very
and you went into an Orthodox I think I would like to hear how that
happened and why you chose it. Well, I mean, I've got I've
got videos on I've got videos on that, so you could go, um,
you know, watch those longer videos where I kind of break that down.
So I won't, I won't restate that whole story, but uh,
you know, I had I had a long time where I spent in both
Calvinism and the Roman Calic Church. And so, to make a long story
short, the Church Fathers, the formation of the Cannon, reading all the
Eastern Church fathers and seeing which lined up with scripture ultimately was the kind of
final decider for me on that topic. So then yeah, no, that
that makes sense. It's it's a it's a useful thing to discuss, especially
as far as um as we as Christians grow out of that fourth grade version
of faith into something a little bit more solid, meaningful. We have to
look at history as a whole. Uh well, yeah, let's we're gonna
give somebody else not going to be rude to you or anything, not being
mean, but appreciate. Yeah. I really enjoyed this one. So yeah,
well hop back on. You're welcome to chat any time or bring any
other issues or questions. Now, this woman says, This woman says,
I have a requested to speak and you have me muted. No you haven't.
Everybody can see how many people are requesting to speak. Okay, is
the wine mom on the list, Lisa. No, she's not, so
she has not requested to speak. She's saying, oh, you're not gonna
let me speak. You didn't request to speak. I've asked you ten times
to request to speak, so you're not there. She's like, look,
I request, I request to speak. I request, No you didn't.
There's the list of people requesting to speak. I really would like you to
come on. I mean, you made such a fracus today and you're obviously
not on the list to request you not Maybe you just don't know have worke
this? You just hit requests to speak And by the way, Wagner,
you can come on too. So again today we're giving preference to people who
disagree. Constantine just hit a mute, I think can you hear me?
Jane? Yes, sir, how are you? How are you? Uh?
I'm I can't hear you? Speak up, be quick about it,
because I wish you're the YouTube channels sometimes when I get the chance. Okay,
I've always wanted to ask you this question, which is what is the
actual difference between Oriental Orthodox Church and the Eastern orthodoxters. I mean, I've
tried to research about it, but I clearly cannot understand what the actual,
you know, problem is between the two churches because I'm an Oriental Orthodox Church
followers. So so again I would say, go go watch the videos that
David and I've done. We've probably done five different streams on that. So
David Rhan is really good on this topic. That's his specialty. So if
you want to get into nitty griddy, I would say, go watch all
the videos that David and I have done together. But really it's just a
matter of the place of Chalcidon, whether or not we are wedded to the
terminology of the younger cyrilophusis whether or not these the Fifth Council was good enough
to reconcile the two positions, and then the place of certain people that your
church considers saints, like Severus, which we would not consider a saint.
So those are the main issues of departure. But I would recommend to go
watch the videos that we did with me and David talking, so let's see
here. Thank you for that though. So this woman is still not here.
She's made such a huge fuss all day and tell you then what request
to speak? She literally is so she just she can't even figure out the
buttons, dude, She's like, tell me what to do request to speak?
It even works on PC now, So people don't have the PC.
Excuse, well, I'm not I don't have my phone. Okay, so
I think we have another disagree or man, Nick, what's up? You
got it? Arm you bro? Hello? Hello? Is this our libertarian
buddy that we had an argument with before, Yeah, I would just like
to say, I would like to make the argument that the Orthodox Church sucks
and rosy Crusianism rosary Cruisianism, the rosy Cross is where it's at, and
the they Orthodox got it wrong in their lame and in a monarchic theocracy,
I would create a new title of king Pope, and I would declare that
all Orthodox Christians or heretics and I would have them burned at the stake.
And then I would create devices like a spiked coffin and enclose most of the
Orthodox Christians and Baptists in them. And this would be part of the new
forms of a program. But first, that's really funny. Angles are forgiving
and I have declared it. So I will first let the Orthodox Christians repent
before do you have an argument? Are you just you just? Are you
just trolling all? And then I'll start the Order of the Cruciform Sword.
I like that because that we're getting into. We're getting into all right,
I'm gonna boot your will be the only way. Why would you like,
yeah, why would you even want to interact with me? Being this this
ridiculous. I do like the idea of the order of the cruciform sword though,
because that's from Indiana Jones, right, yeah, and actually that's Rotio
Crucianism and and actually I was just joking and Rosy Crustianism, I think is
what the cross of the rosa bar, the cruciform sword it actually is.
You say it was as well. I mean they're they're wearing Muslim hats,
they're wearing fezzis, so yeah, but it's more like Rosa Crucianism because of
the cruciform the rosy cross. Well, but I mean, okay, I
mean that could be, but I mean Sufi's you know, they will they're
kind of uh synchrotus, so they'll try to have you know, secret meanings
for all these things too. So I don't know what spillwork Hadden is mine.
So whatever. Also in the New Indiana Jones there's a crescent that if
you noticed in when the um there's that artifact it's like a it's like a
dial that they go in the tomb that's like a crescent and that and that
that's kind of like part of like this uh Satan worship cult thing that's going
on where you have the crescent, the black sun crescent thing it's a it's
in, it's in Egyptian um methology to the Crescent, whatever the hell that
is supposed to. Did you have a presentation, an argument, or a
critique you'd like to make. Yeah, I just I just think religious fanatics
that think everybody's a heretic is not politically viable for a humanist from a humanist
perspective, why should we Why should we believe the humanist perspective? Well,
a humanist perspective is basically that, Um, No, I didn't ask for
our definition. It's not didn't I didn't ask for a definition. I said,
why should we believe it? It's not compassionate towards humanity, it's not
good for humanity. Okay, so we should be compassionate. Why on your
on your system, just give me the reasons why that's what we should do.
Maybe it's true. I don't know to tell me why. Because the
religious doctrines all over the world, and eventually theocricies go against Why should I
accept the religious doctrines of the world that teach tolerance and not the ones that
teach jihad and death? Well, why should you accept your own religious So
that's a that's a two. That's a two quote quay. So what's the
argument from your position as to why I'm supposed to accept what you're saying?
Argument is, do you remember the last time you called in? It was
the exact same conversation, and you haven't made any progress since then? Do
you not understand the question I'm asking. I'm not being mean to you,
it's honest question. I make the argument that theocracy eventually goes its own theism,
it goes against its own religion. That's not telling me why I need
people. That's not telling me why I should choose your perennialist tolerance religion,
because it's do you know what? Let me ask you this, Do you
know what a two quo quay fallacy is? Perspective? I want to know
why the humanist perspective is true? Maybe it is, that's what I asked
you last time. You've gotten even worse than the last time. It is
true because less people die and dying is bad. What's the basis for this?
Do you know what a two quot quay fallacy is? Okay? Well,
yeah, if it's funny. If it's funny, yeah, I mean,
if it's funny, then we can just move on. So, uh
whine, Mom, where you at? I thought you were coming? Request
to speak? She says, Look, this is the woman calling me an
idiot and a coward all day. Here's the exchange. Request to speak,
Hit the button. What point you have to join the chat? Goofus like
Boomer needs it spelled out right, like literally, step by step join that
request to speak. Put down the box. Wine. Let's see if she
can figure it out. So we're giving preference to people that disagree. I
know a lot of you guys always want to come in, call in and
ask theological Q and a. UM. I'm not mad or anything, but
yeah, let's have people that disagree with the takes that I have, people
that haven't called in. Bruce, Bruce Wayan, what's up, Bruce Wayan,
Bro, I'm you dog? Hello? Yes? How you doing good?
What are you chewing? A smacking? Yes? So I wanted to
ask you, how do the Orthodox have assurance about salvation? Well, we
can have assurance that we are experiencing the grace of God, but salvation is
not just a past event. It's a past event and an ongoing event and
a future event at the in the escotoon. Okay, So there's no,
there's no there's no assurance that you will persevere until the escaton unless you in
fact do persevere. Okay, and um an orthodoxy, the sacraments are necessary
for salvation correct. Normatively yes, if a child dies, if a child
like the Innocence you know that are murdered by Herod, if a child dies
in some cases like that, the martyrs, bautism, desire and all that.
But normatively, yes, the sacraments are absolutely necessary. Yeah. Sure.
Um, let's say, for example, you have to understand why the
eu Christ might be necessary, why confession and why baptism is like a necessary
under normative curs circumstances. But welcome marriage and the other sacraments because it's a
sacramental lifestyle that we live based on the estate that we enter into. Not
everybody enters into the marital state. So it's not like you've got to stack
up all the hit points and lock all the achievements by getting all of the
sacraments. So it's not a role playing game. It's just living out and
participating in the sacraments that are appropriate to your station in life. Got it.
And Jesus the Son is he's a god he's God in an orthodoxy,
he's like a God being. But when he becomes a human, isn't he
sort of two beings at the same time? When he takes on let's say,
you know, human nature, doesn't he like isn't he like God?
No, he's a single but he's a single being with two natures. So
this, for us is the teaching of the hypostatic union. It means that
the two unions were united in the divine person of the logos that assumed the
human nature. So we when the Church rejected Nestorianism after Saint Cyril and Ephesus
and the disputes there, that was a rejection of the notion of any dual
subject in Christ. Christ is a single subject, a single divine subject,
and the natures are dual. So how can the natures, let's say,
unite? How? I mean, how is that possible? And what is
the how is it? Because it's a divine person with a divine nature coming
into time and space and taking on a human nature. How is it possible?
God? What is impossible for God? As both the Old Testament and
the New Testaments say, oh so, just a question about like, you
know, what is the philosophical necessity of let's say, God being tryun rather
than a Unitarian. I think there's a good argument to be made for why
unitarian and diatic positions are metaphysically destructive, theologically destructive, and impossible. So
I think there is an argument to be made for that, and it gets
into stuff like the arguments against modal collapse, the arguments against absolutely vine simplicity,
the idea that there's an exchange of attributes between the persons and love and
energies, et cetera that occur between the fathers and the Holy Spirit that don't
require a created order. And if you look at somebody like Originism or like
origin Originism is a great example because Origin thought that for God to be eternal
and to be Father and to be Lord and to be creator required that he'd
be eternally God, Lord and Creator. So that means that he had to
have a creation that he was lorded over, and so you get this neo
platonic and sort of you know, heterodox idea and Origin as an example,
you could look at Aristotle as well. If you look at Arisol's philosophy,
he has a diad because he defines God as an eternal actualizer. And if
God's an eternal actualizer, then there must be something other than him that he
actualized. And so that would mean that an eternal actualizer is eternally moving or
causing or actualizing a prima materia another world or whatever which is not Him.
So that would be, as Basil says, next, Samaran a diad because
you've given an eternal attribute to the created order. So now you have it.
Now you have a dual principle God. So unitarianism and diadism I would
say, cancel one another out and are impossible. All right, God,
She's just another question about salvation. So you know in Romans eight, you
know, Paul says for those he predes also called he also justified, and
then he also glorified. Doesn't that just mean that, you like, once
you're justified, you can't you're going to be glorified and you can't lose your
salvation. Uh No, because there's also many passages that talk about the possibility
of tasting the heavenly gift, being cleansed in the labor regeneration and falling away
all lot of Hebrews. So um, I think there's a you can speak
of a corporate predestination, which is the way Paul speaks in Ephesians. He
calls the visible church at Ephesus the predestined in Christ. So he's not writing
to the elect. But there's also a sense in which, yeah, sure
God knows who will persevere till the end and so on an individual basis.
God does know who the final elect are, but that doesn't mean that he
caused them alone to be the elect, because we believe that God can create
a world where there's secondary causes, and usually Calvinism is kind of hinging on
this idea that there can't be secondary causes and God must be the immediate direct
cause of every event. Yeah. So another question about um Orthodox tradition.
The Orthodox tradition is infallible, right, Well, I think there's aspects of
the tradition if you're talking about what relates to divine revelation that are infallible,
but not every quote tradition is divine revelation or quote infallible. So what aspect
would you say is infallible, like I know, acumenical councils. Yeah,
I mean any anything that would pertain to divine revelation, right, So,
I mean there are there are canons in the councils, for example, that
relate to cities that no longer exist. Okay, so are we still baland
to that canon? How I mean it doesn't exist? So um, there
is a imporal aspect to some of the canons and the councils that I don't
think equates to the eternality of the truths of divine revelation. So I think
that's a higher category. Okay. So Paul, and you know, multiple
passages he talks about, like you know, keeping the tradition on Orthodox often
use that you know, passage to talk about how it's important to keeping a
tradition, etc. But you know, how do you know what the oral
tradition is? And like you know which traditions he's talking about? What he
says that you should keep the traditions of other It's and Thessalonians, whether It's
and Covinthians, because you know it, you know it. Yeah, it's
not like a Roman calic mindset where there's a document somewhere that has all of
them listed, or there's some secret a Gnostic tradition where you get it whispered
into your ear when you convert. It's known in the experience in the life
of the Church. And that's why there is no perfect list of this and
neither Roman Calics nor Protestants have the perfect written list of all the things that
I have to believe. The attitude, the mindset is totally different Orthodoxy because
you're gonna experience a lot of things that tell you about divine revelation and show
you God, the lives of the saints, the liturgy, right, So
it's not possible to have a fixed written list of the things that you have
to believe, Okay, But like, how do you determine which one which?
Well, I'll give you an example. So I mean when I think
when Paul's talking there, he's talking about the whole deposit of the Apostolic faith
in Toto that he passed on to Timothy and what he passed on to the
Thessalonians, right, So what that means is that something like liturgy is something
to be passed on. For example, in when when Paul talks to Timothy
and he's talking about the traditions to pass on excuse me, the succession to
pass on me, he says, I laid hands on you, you lay
hands on in after you the laying on of hands there is connected with the
passing on of the whole body of the faith, so that would include apostolic
succession as part of that deposit to be passed on. Also, liturgy is
a great example of this because the Apostles, for whatever reason in divine providence,
they didn't write down how the liturgy was to be conducted as far as
we know. Maybe Paul wrote something down about that. But so in other
words, the church is a liturgical worship itself is an attestation to this tradition
that has passed down that is not specific in scripture, you see. So
liturgy is a great example. So you can go read the ancient liturgies and
you can see as I pulled up there with Nicia, I mean Nicea is
listing cannons that clearly show the Universal Church in three twenty five operates like the
Orthodox Church. Huh, Yeah, you talked about liturgy, and I think
earlier you said you had, like you still have the ancient liturgies of I
think Saint James. Correct, you can read the liturgy of Saint Mark,
Liturgy of Saint James, Liturgy of Saint Basil. I mean Basil's a little
later, but it's still ancient. Okay, So the ones that are written
by the you know, Saint Mary again, Saint James. Howcome the Orthodox
Church doesn't It does sometimes, it does, sometimes use those. It does
sometimes, yeah, some hold on. Sometimes it uses them when it's appropriate.
But as church history progresses, because the pre eminence of the Byzantine Empire,
most of the Eastern Church opted towards tending to do the liturgy of Saint
John chrys system. So sometimes it's the most of the time it's Chrystostom,
sometimes it's Saint basil Um. But Orthodox churches that are other patriarch its will
still do those. A's why if you can go to Western right Orthodox churches
that do the the ancient Western right. Oh okay, So another question about
well, I'm gonna I'm not trying to be rude, but we're gonna move
on because like we've already done a bunch of questions. But I appreciate that.
So we're taking, uh, given prominence to people who disagree. So
this woman is still not here, no answers. So you can see talk
smack all day, how dumb, how much of a coward, I'm socially
retard and then they won't come. Same with all the other Roman Catholics that
all day long smack smack smack, Hey, come chat, come make your
argument come. It should be so easy, right to dunk on the ortho
Ros. Just come dunk on us dog, and then they don't show up.
I mean, who else is like saying you can have the floor to
talk as long as you want to make out of arguments. But nobody else
is saying that that would would the wood David? Yo, let's say,
can you hear me? Um? Okay? I had a question, No,
do you disagree? Hello? Yeah, do you disagree? Oh?
No? Um? Are you sho? You go ahead? I mean,
but I want to get preference to people that disagree, but go ahead,
okay. So, um, I had a question because I was looking into
different realist positions and um, it's reading Aristotle, and I was wondering,
um, what your critiques of there was Mondo's view of objective essences, universals,
holomorphism and like that kind of stuff, Like what do you think you're
critique with that of? That would be yeah, So you can read the
doctor Philip Sherard paper on Immortality of Man and the soul. I forget the
name of it, but that's a good critique of that. I'm not trying
to be rude, but we're not. That's not the topics today. So
the topics today are atheism, Protestantism, Islam, pagans, cults, world
religions. I thought our wine mom was going to call in, but she
is. I thought I was promised entertainment, you see, and now I'm
let down. Jordan, what's up? Well, the way you guys can
support the stream via super chats through stream labs. Use the stream labs function
to ask your questions sending your super chats right there by the way. Does
anybody mean to the Baptist guy? Nope. Remember when Dale had his meltdown
this last week. If you guys didn't see the Baptist not Baptist, that
was an interesting interview. I thought it was a just a discussion. I
didn't realize that when we went there and showed up. I don't care that
it was going to be a quasi debate. So I want to recommend that
everybody go watch this uh pretty lengthy debate that we have with Dale here the
Protestant if you want it was me and doctor Branson in some Protestant guys and
everybody's really cool. We had a good time. And then, for whatever
reason, throughout this discussion, and the only reason I'm bringing this up is
that nobody was rude or mean to Dale. Nobody did anything mean. And
then what happened was after that extensive discussion, he did an hour plus melt
down stream that everybody whose orthodox is mean and awful and satanic. And this
is the pattern that I see, right, which is that people make this
big start of this big fuss. You can interact with him in a completely
charitable, civil way. Nobody was mean to Dale. Nobody said anything rude
to him at all. And what did he do? Oh? I was
person here as a victim. There's so many of you, there's so rude.
He cried about it. Okay, nobody was mean to you. Man.
People are gonna have to man up. I mean, this is just
pitiful to act this way. And everybody can see when people act this way
that it's ridiculous. Just like the Roman Catholic guy today, right, what
did he do? You? Gordduc a fool of trash bulls horseshit? Oh?
Okay, come on, in debate, you're so mean, can't duck,
can't do whether you're uncharitable. These people do all of the things they
say is uncharitable, virtuous victims signaling dart triad traits. If the genie mgatachi,
I can't pronounce your name, what's up hello? Um? I was
wondering, Jane, just really quickly, because I was trying to study the
Church Fathers, like, um, what do you think it's the best responses
like by the Church Fathers to pirniu is on slash academic skepticism. And also,
um like post Roll's bracketing method because I've been trying to research I think
like those methods because they've been appealing to me for a long time. I
was wondering, like, all right, well, post Roles bracketing is still
based on the notions of epistemic neutrality and that reality is not theory laden.
So bracketing doesn't really get anywhere or do anything. It doesn't do the work
he wants it to do. And that's why later host Rol like wandered off
into like quasi Buddhist views. Um, where do the Church Fathers deal with
Purrhanism? Well, I mean Athanations has a book called agentes, which deals
with a lot of like classical pagan arguments. But I would think that puronic
skepticism is kind of easy and self refuting, so um like in its method
of like epoch like I mean, in the modern time, I think it's
has been like dissolved into like fallibilism for the most time. People like people
accept that you can't have no anything absolutely, so you know that they'll you'll
book put like fallibilism as a charge you is like a threat to tag or
does it not solve the self authenticating um foundation question? Still yeah, I
think it would have the same epistemic problems that we always highlight with versions of
evidentialism and foundationalism. Um. I mean, if you're if you're gonna be
a skeptic, you're giving up debate. And so if if a person wants
to live that way and go that way, number one, they can't live
that way. Um. But the point is that from the advantage point of
apologetics, if a person accepts that word view, then they don't have anything
against Christianity. So we've done our job right. Our job is not to
uh put out the official refutation of every possible position. If our job our
job is to show the positions to be absurd, and if they surrender objective
logic, debate, certitude, et cetera, all those kinds of basic principles,
then I mean we've done our job as an apologist. Skepticism is not
a real viable position. It's it's really a surrendering. Well, I mean,
it's been like one of the most influential movements throughout Western philosophy Dykart Hume,
you know, etc. Like um, that people have been treating it
as like like almost a stats point. So like I feel like a lot
of theism has grown it onticism. So and so every time they make every
time they debate, they're defying that principle and proving it to be false.
Skepticism. Yeah, well, I mean, like yeah, they might have
to like say it's like a method of inquiry, but it's like, you're
right, it's not just a method of inquiry. It's a it's a world
view. You're talking about puronic skepticism. There's no you can't have your cake
and eat it too, right, This is what the epistemic nihilists try to
do. They try to have their cake and eat it too, and it
does it doesn't work that way because they're like in assuming a world view implicitly
absolutely every sentence assumes an entire world view. Yeah, but is there any
way for them to get out of that by saying that they are there like
that. That might be the case that they are assuming things, but they're
suspending judgment about No, exactly, it's manifest. No, you can't know.
It's that's a that's just bait and switch. That's that's lying because you
can't utilize things that. Then you say, you don't have to justify.
Oh, my sentence is all presupposed logic and universals and all these things.
But I don't have to give a justication for those because I'm a skeptic.
That's just that's being a sophist, like in in the outline. Look,
if they can do that, I can do that. Okay, Well I
believe in God and I don't have to give an account for it because it
just is. So they're basically just saying it just is. It's not just
like it's just a conforms with their appearances. No, that's it. That
is to say that. No, No, that is to say that it
just is. Well, why is it? Why am I supposed to follow
with what appears to conform to my appearances or to my experience. Right,
So it's begging the question to say that, well, uh, my skeptical
propositions require entire metaphysics, but I'm not going to be committed to those metaphysics.
Well, then that's just being sophistical in like in saying that you're like
you're they don't get Look, they don't get out of this dilemma because they
say I'm a skeptic this. It's it's self evident in this sense that that
doesn't work because if they can do that, I can do that. Oh
okay, then God exists. I don't have to give a justification. It
just is well, I doesn't that depend on the notion that they're saying it.
It just is No, I guess no. Everybody has the same requirements
for justification. That's the purpose of debate. So as soon as they enter
into the utilization of logic, universals, et cetera, they don't get to
just say, but I don't think there are logic and universals, because nobody
can know. That's just being again a sophistry. Can they at least question,
like the method in which the transcendentials are No, because the making a
sentence requires a certain making a sentence requires a certain kind of world, certain
kind of metaphysical structure to reality. Oh yeah, it's it's perfectly evident.
I meant more that like the method in which the transidentials are derived, that
we come to them in the first place, like holesteral, you know,
the epoch method is going from the ground versus you know it's yeah, you're
just you're just grasping for another human uh, system building project. The point
is that human system. Humans can't build this kind of a system. How
are you gonna how are you gonna build an epistemology from the ground up?
Given that just the fact that man's finite, Well, I mean, I
feel like there's like a it's not that man is finite, but almost it's
like there's semi infinite in that they possible. Wait a minute, but see
now you've launched into a vast metaphysical idea. So so what is this?
Is it skepticism or these obscure metaphysics of hust roll like which or are you
like them both? It's it's I feel like hustle is kind of like both,
like it's even not like the ancient skeptics, because it's not like he
has no mentaphysics, right, Like he was a transcendental idealist for most of
his lives. Yeah, but but I mean then he would number one to
be subject to the same problems of Kant. Number two, why did that
take him into basically some sort of Buddhist position towards end of his life?
And number three, the whole project, the bracketing is built on. They're
not being uh that that reality is not theory laden. So you're gonna have
to first, I would say, solve the dilemma of um saying that reality
is not theory laden. Sure, I'll have to wrestle those questions. Yeah,
but I mean these again, the point though, is that these are
futile projects, right, It's like, what's the point. What was the
reference? Oh um? But something about Alexandria, about against the pagan arguments
that you ran, oh Athanasius's book against the Heathen or ad Gentes. That's
great, thank you for your time. Yeah, well good, good questions.
Yeah, we haven't had those kinds of questions in a while. Let's
see here. I can't believe our my mom never called in Christian logos.
This sounds like, is this going to be our evangelical guy that always like,
how many profiles does this guy have if this is him? Right?
The one man I had a question too about tell us down kind of what
your disagreements were with them. Well, I don't necessarily have a problem with
a person who is newly converted trying to be a public person or something like
that, because I was already kind of doing this stuff when I converted.
And of course he claims that he has permission to be doing what he does,
so I'm not coming at him on the basis of that. But the
repeated pattern of, you know, working with and aligning with people who are
very hostile to what we do is one problem. He's committed to promoting an
ecclesiology that I think is wrong. Every time we have a conversation about it,
he basically just doubles down. The argumentation that he uses in the papers
that he cites are kind of low tier. They're pretty bad. It's like
citing the Old Testament about the fact that there was northern Israel and southern Israel
as if that's applicable on a one to one basis to the Church. Or
the New Testament. No, the New Testament. We're told that the Church
cannot be divided, so you can't use these Old Testament examples as if the
church is Old Testament Israel or something. I mean, just the whole and
the whole project is all about we have to figure out how Roman Catholics have
holy orders. And it's just silly because once you start digging into it,
you find out that really this ends up being number one ignorant people that are
ignorant of the Roman Catholic position because they don't realize that the development of the
Roman Catholic position was that matter, form and intention are what you need for
a sacrament, and that leads to atheists and Muslims being able to baptize.
So so they're gonna have to be consistent and either go in that direction with
this sighting of Fluorovsky, as if we just follow Flurovsky because he's Fluorovsky,
right, that's all they ever do is cy Fluovsky, and the guy that
they all united himselves with went total Foremite liberal. So I don't know,
I mean, it's just like a repeated pattern of bad behavior, and you
know, and then he says, oh, they don't know how to use
transcendental arguments. The dude literally just got into this like what a year,
six months ago, and he's like, Oh, they don't know how to
do transcendental argumentation. It's just it's just silly pride. And you know,
We've been super nice for that dude, and I've always tried to be kind
to him, and he just wants to be a douche, so whatever.
Yeah, yeah, and he kind of goes for this like communal ontological argument
over the transcendental kind of tag form that you use, and to me,
I just see an issue with this, and he coins it like the communal
ontological argument, which, you know, I respect people that going on doing
this, but even me studying philosophy for three four years now, I'm still
struggling and grappling with a lot of this. Yeah, I mean, he
shouldn't he shouldn't be I'm sure maybe he means well, but he shouldn't be
doing it. It's gonna and what happens is that this least a disaster a
lot of times. People that and all the people that he's aligned himself with,
like they're essentially basically Petrodox and apost date Now so you know he wants
to go on that conquest. I mean, it's just the problems that happen
with a really young person that is a new new convert. So I would
say avoid two loss bound. Yeah, I got you. And do you
have any like specific arguments against his communal ontological argument. I feel like that
kind of falls back into natural theology. Yeah, any any type of argument
like that would be essentially a natural theology type of argument. So I'm just
going to ask the basic critiques that I would have of any any position that
posits self evidence axiomatic principles, because they don't achieve, they don't achieve the
status of justification. Yeah. No, I'm saying agreed. I feel like,
you know, in your transcendental argument for tag it can entail you know,
the ontological argument. You can still use these arguments, Yes, you
can make it, you can make for a higher justification there, correct,
Whereas he's kind of pushing that away and kind of merging the Catholic kind of
natural theological. Yeah. The whole project of everything, Yes, everything he's
doing is to try to make it an ecumenist Roman Catholic. And it's just
like we've we've all been through that. Man, we already know all the
pushes in the try to. We don't need you a new convert to save
orthodox apologetics and to save Orthodoxy and give it Thomisum and oh we gotta.
I'm not saying he's giving it thomism. I'm talking about like I've seen this
many many times, Like people come to the church, especially if they're academics
or philosophers, and they almost always think, I need to save Orthodoxy with
this thing. I need to make them Thomas father Deacon himself says that he
used to be this way, and thank God that he changed his mind,
right, yeah, yeah. And the thing that I stumble across all the
time is, you know, you think you have this bright new idea,
or you see some thread line, and after a couple of minutes of study,
a couple of months of studying, you fall right back into Oh,
this has been in the church Father's for years. I just haven't studied enough.
You know, a lot of this comes up as you're going so hopefully
on my channel. I've never misframed you or anything like that. If you
ever do have any critiques for me or anything, I'm more than open does
too. So yeah, and I appreciate that approach, and I think that
on a one to one level too, Los belland was has always been open
to discussing these things, but it doesn't get anywhere, and he just keeps,
uh, you know, doubling down. So and he you know,
continues to align himself with the people who again don't like what we do.
And so I wouldn't. I would avoid that, dude. Yeah, one
more question, just with Pavlov Florensky too. Do you have any disagreements with
Pablov Forensky. I talked to Bishop Maximus before and he's like, yeah,
I'll never read that guy, Like, we don't really follow anything he says.
And I was kind of looking more into that, and I wondered if
maybe you knew I have. I've only heard I've heard negative and positive things.
I know Laski cites him positively in one place, so he might be
insightful. But I've not read uh Florensky, so I can't say. But
okay, yeah, the Pillar and going to Truth like it has some pretty
good arguments, but I can see where he can maybe be stepping kind of
on that border line of just kind of getting skeptical with it or kind of
getting a little too far out there maybe, so I can kind I can
kind of see points of contention there, but overall, you know, I
was just wondering what your opinions were on all that. So I do appreciate
that, Jay, thank you. Yeah. And usually, by the way,
people like Tilo's Balance or people that we helped convert, and then they
don't listen and they go do their own they want to be on their own
quest and they make huge mistakes and then they have to learn the hard way.
So Ater eight, did you want to say something? No, I
just u requestion in case you guys wanted to ask anything. Okay, Yeah,
I mean if you if you know anything about Pablo Fornsky two or which
you've heard. I've been doing this for about four years. I'm twenty six,
so I'm not going to claim I know everything. I'm definitely just trying
to find sources that know more than I do so I can keep progressing.
You know, I don't know too much. I've run a few things um
that seemed okay from what I read, but that doesn't mean everything is So
I'm just not qualified to speak on Okay, I'll get it. Alex Bain,
what's up, Alex? Thank you for those questions? Uh, logos,
So those are good. I'm glad you weren't the evangelical dude that always
calls in. Thanks. Yeah, Joe, I just want to know why
you're a coward and you never want to debate me. Uh is this a
real question? Yeah? You are that, you are there, You are
a good argument. You don't make a good argument. You repeat the same
argument for two years now. Every time you come on, you don't deal
with it, and you kick me off, and you because because I don't
want to because yeah, I'm scared of you. Yeah, I've had you
on infinite numbers of times because you have some mental obsession, Like why do
you even want to interact with me? If I don't want to interact with
you, why do you want to act with me? Just attention? Because
I try to get my point across and every time we do. Yeah,
but you just state the same You just state the same audience. You just
state the same thing over and over and over. Here he is, so
are you gonna interact with Are you gonna run away? Yeah? I'm scared
to be terrified, gonna run away. Okay, so go ahead and boot
wildly. Yeah, totally coward. I mean, I just like the delude,
Like, does anybody actually think that that is going to convince? Like
if I was that dude, and I'm sitting there thinking like, how am
I going to win people over to my position? How can I get people
following me on Twitter and getting some good traction to think that this mode,
this approach is the way to do it. I'm just gonna give you a
little bit of social media advice, bro, Like, just just strict social
media advice, like this isn't working to make a new profile and to come
with the same low tier droning on nonsense every time. It's just your way
and everybody's time. Dude, Like how much this is what your tenth profile
and you literally bring the lowest to an argument ever. So the this is
open for him if you'd like to come on, eve something, if Genie
Migachev star Russian Mexican that sounds scary. I'm sorry, I thought you weren't
going to come on. Just request to speak again, Yeah, so our
you didn't request to speak. So here's our neo platonist pagan woman saying I've
requested to speak. She has never requested to speak. She's not in the
she's not in the quay. She's never been in the quay. It's amazing
the Orthobro subculture. Now we got Cabarro talking shit. It's just unreal,
Like everybody, what happened with all the Romans? Did something happen in the
Roman Catholic world today that made everybody just go ferle and get mad. Let's
see what Let's see what old Ericabara is chewing on today. Something sweet.
I'm sure to be very clear, and you're not sympathize with the disgust.
Wait to be very clear, I truly do sympathize, and I've grown even
more. I've growth even more. I don't know if he's talking about his
weight or if he's talking about his emotions. That the disgust of such people
in the Orthobro subculture. The Orthobro subculture, let's just have our way and
agree and be happy. Let's nuance our way through the failures. Now,
wait a minute, you're the nuance bro. You and your carbohydrate companion over
there that ditched you, y'all were the ones always talking about those nuance boo
yo dog there's nuance bo I'm loft and bra and then you're over the joke,
Jake. Let's take this piece, buff piece, and in three months
I'll finish my argument because a talking point three speed right. I sympathize with
the Orthobros, but not their evil subculture. I think that's what he's saying.
We are trying to fix a two plus two equals three error. So
again, Eric, maybe Rome Catholicism is false. I'm sorry that you wrote
a giant fat copy paste paper book last year that nobody bought that you thought
would make you super apologists. But how come Loften ditched you? Does that
not vindicate all the stuff that we said about carbohydrate lofton. Here's Abara's whining
today. It's a garbled I don't know what he's responding to me about,
saying that all of the Roman Catholics on Twitter today that we're talking smack wouldn't
come and none of them did. And so his garbled sort of whatever he's
saying and what's he doing. He's whining and saying that I treat everything like
an MMA cage match. So again, it's just these people. Never ends
with these people, and we all know he's soft because he's physically soft,
right, I mean physiognomy test. Bro, you look like Bluto. So,
guys, if you want to come on debate, hit the request to
speak button. I will give you the I mean again, all of these,
all they've done is bitch and wine. Isn't this amazing? This is
always available? Here we are. How many years ago was the Barrow debate?
Five years? Six years? Lofton has thrown him under the bus.
He's not on there anymore. They had a falling out, as everyone who's
in associated with Lofton has a falling out. They get thrown under the bus
by him. They get thrown under the bus on the way to the buffet.
I take that back. You can't physically throw Abara under the bus.
You could throw Abara onto the bus and it would destroy the bus, but
you can't throw Eric under the bus. Candy Ibarra over there has done nothing
but wine and bitch for five years straight. So people are always like,
what do you mean to I'm not mean to Roman Catholics. Every time we
reach out and our civil and kind and nice, as for example with Tim
Gordon, we make jokes back and forth. Tim makes jokes I was joking
with Tim about having a lesbian haircut and my lesbian glasses. I don't care.
But what happens is that people like Abara. You can't joke with these
people. They're so fragile. They freak out, they melt down. Remember
whenever Erica Bara was crying that he said, quote, somebody memed him.
Do the internet memes everybody? Somebody memed Abara? And he said, the
Internet is making cartoon strips of me, cartoon strips. I don't even know
what a meme is. Dude, aren't you like, how old are you
not a boomer? Cartoon strips? What is this Dilbert cartoon strips they're making?
He said, they made Internet cartoon strips of me. And I'm embarrassed
because my sons will see it on the Internet. We'll welcome to the Internet.
I'm sorry that you got your feelings hurt. And this is nothing,
it's nothing but nothing but an excuse for so many years. And look this
is what five six years into this now and they're still using the excuse that
I mean, How come Tim Gordon can interact with me? Absolutely fine.
If the whole problem is that I'm mean and by the way, everybody's seen
that. As we said about Lofton, he's thrown all of the friends and
people that he had with him under the bus. That's doesn't that suggest that
maybe it wasn't my problem. Maybe I wasn't the problem in the Lofton situation.
Maybe a borrow wasn't the problem in the Lofton situation. But they're still
whining, still whining. Still, he's too mean to interact with. How
come Muslims and atheists can interact fine over here? How come I'm gonna have
a debate with Hikikachu. With Pikachu, you don't see Pikachu whining. Eric,
I'm gonna help you out here. Number one, put down the food.
I'm being serious. I'm not being mean to you. I'm being mean
to help you out. Get on the carnivore diet because you are healthy.
Being that large and unhealthy literally will affect your mind. So you're effeminate,
constantly getting upset and whining might have to do in part with your diet.
I'm being serious. And if you do that and you figure out that,
oh maybe that actually might help me, then you'll see that the jokes,
all of this, it's not ultimately from a mean spirit. We don't want
to be enemies with you or any of these people, but I'm sorry that
you can't take jokes. I'm sorry. I mean, I don't care if
Kim Gordon I made fund of Tim Gordon, he made fun of me and
then we talked and had a good time. You see how that works.
That's what guys do, right. A man who has to disagreement another man
can laugh about it, have a fight. You're fine. Maybe you can
even have a boxing match. That's a masculine way to settle least. That's
what men do. Crying and whining on the internet that somebody who's mean to
you and hurt your feelings is effeminate some others. Then you need a makeover.
No, I'm not a soy man. I don't do makeovers. So
you can take that over to the Roman Catholics and tell them to get a
makeover. That's not what I do. So if you want to come on
and chat, I'm going to give preference to people that disagree following Jazmine,
what's up, dude, I have no point to make, so I attack
the person. Really literally been over here for how many years critiquing Roman Catholicism
in probably hundreds of hours of video, hundreds of hours of video. And
you think that I don't have an argument only that's called making jokes, dummy,
That's called rhetoric. It's part of debate. Go watch the eight hour
response to Trent Horn. You don't go nothing but being mean? Dude,
How are you going to survive in the troubles and strife that will come in
the real world in your life. You're over here crying about mean on the
internet. Unbelievable. What's up, dude? Hey, Jake. So I've
grown up Protestant, and that's pretty much how I've raised my children, currently
attending a Baptist church, and just you know, out of ignorance, we
honestly just did not really understand the Orthodox Church growing up. Never really heard
much about it. You know, I have heard of different denominations conflicts,
obviously, but so we're really new to Orthodoxy and we've attended a couple of
liturgies, we've attended a few vespers and just trying to understand better and you
know, search out the truth. And one of the questions that both of
my kids have I call them kids, but they're both in college different colleges
is in regards to Second Thessalonians when it talks about like keeping away from brothers
who aren't following the tradition. So one of the issues that they have is
they're both very active in helping out the poor, in spreading the gospel,
obviously the way we've grown up teaching it not the Orthodox way, and they've
both made attempts to seek out Orthodox churches. One of them doesn't have an
Orthodox church really anywhere near their school. The other one does have an Orthodox
church. But the complaint I get is they don't really seem to be very
active in helping they don't seem very active in spreading their beliefs. But so
it's like, well, if I inquire about Orthodoxy, I know wouldn't be
a part of that, then would it be wrong for me to continue helping
the poor or preaching the gospel with our previous understanding. So it's like,
well, just find a good church. I mean if that church sucks that,
well, how do I continue to serve God? I want to do
things the right way. Well, yeah, so I would say I would
say, find a good Orthodox church and that might take a while, but
I would not say that you need to keep preaching Protestantism. Namana namana.
By the way, to the guys talking smack, Reba Chrisostom, why don't
you just come into the Twitter space and debate, dude instead of trying to
argue with me over one dollars super chats. Just come to bate, man.
That's what the whole purpose of this is that you can come into Twitter
space. And they're saying that you can come in Twitter spaces now from laptop
or PC, which you should used to not be able to do, which,
by the way, means that that woman was completely lying when she was
like, I'll tried to talk and you wouldn't let me talk. You didn't
try to talk, you never popped up in the request to speak. Just
completely ridiculous. Probably was actually being straight up wine mom. Right. I
think a lot of people are just drunk on Twitter, just talk just saying
nonsense. Right, we're straight up Twitter. A lot of Twitter is the
phronsia verse. Right, we're over here with some some Zimfidel. We're over
here with some moscato. Right, go ahead, dude, Oh my bad,
I thought you were on here. Go ahead, and the munge and
whatever you had your box wine this morning? Did you get a Virginia slam?
Did you put a Virginia slam in your mouth? Did you get divorce
today? I'm gonna get divorced. I'm gonna get a bag of bag of
Virginia slams at a box wine and I'm gonna go celebrate after a couple of
zing acts because I owned this mo follow on Twitter. That's what she's doing
right now. I owned this foleo on Twitter. I'm over here at the
dinner because I'm a dinner whiteress. You want some on tighter todds, y'all
need to come look at this mofoe I just owned on Twitter. He didn't
even reply. That's what we're dealing with. This is the people that want
to debate over here now. I mean, it's just total clown land.
We've entered into the clown verse. Bro. I'm adding you as a speaker,
But Joe box Wine da let out box Wine then ump ump before ninety
four talking smack in the Twitter, come to debate. I think the internet.
The Internet just produces like a giant world of cowards that just like sit
there saying nonsense and won't ever actually have their ideas challenge. Well, I'm
sorry, namund jum whatever, like you can't connect every time you try to
connect to another a wolf. Oh do wolves drink box wine? Box beer?
Nice, that's what I'm talking about, box beer baby. Yeah,
it's great to talk to you. I just wanted to debate a little bit
about protesism, about some stuff I like about it. The simplicity of the
Gospel. It's really unique where you know, you believe in your heart,
you confess with your tongue, and it seems like that that carries a lot
of weight. But yet at the same time, it doesn't seem like it
does over time. So what would you say about that? Well, I
mean, confessing with your mouth does not mean that that's all you do.
I mean you'll notice that you know the rest of the New Testament. For
example, you're told to be baptized, you're told to go to church to
pray, right, do not forsake the assembling, as Paul says, So
why would we think that you know? Because it says that. So here's
this guy saying this is what people do. Will you not ever cover Revolt
against the Water Modern World by Evela. I mean I've read evela, why
are you a monolingual smooth brain? Yeah, I just stopped. I'm not
going to answer you, dude. If you're not going to come have a
question, you're not here to actually debate. You're just trying to control.
So I will absolutely refund your super chats and i'll block you as well.
So good job, dude. Um yeah, So, I mean that's a
good question. But I would just say that, you know, you can't
reduce Christianity to these minimalistic one liners or the Romans road all this kind of
stuff. Um, It's it's obviously a lifestyle, right, That's why an
Orthodoxy you go through one to three years of catechumenet. It's not a thing
where you, um, you know, just confess one thing verbally like and
this is part of the problem with Protestantism. Sure, I think your spot
on with saying this a critique of this minimalist approach. Um. I would
add too, it is important task ourselves. What does it mean to believe
in and confess? Um? Typically a Protestant we'll just have that as the
worst. But believe in doesn't mean minimalistic, reductive. I believe Jesus is
the son of God? Is that it what a son of God mean?
And we we've talked about this too, and even my debate with Matt Slick
in an analogous way to epistemic holism. All these terms refer to other terms.
So who is who is Christ? What does it mean to believe?
And it's the entire system. You can't just simply pick and choose and then
say, well, I believe. And what you'll notice is if you ask
the Protestant, well, what's the minimum that I have to believe him of
Jesus is the son of God? What what does that mean? That he's
God? He's And then they start adding more and more stuff. You know,
what you'll find is that these are unjustified and arbitrary assumptions from from their
worldview. I mean, who determines how many of these things do you need?
Do you need five? The Mormons are out, Um they believe they
am Christ? No? Not in the same way. Um, well do
you have to believe us two natures? Do you have to believe that?
You see? All these things actually matter? So to say believe in isn't
to believe in the entirety of his revelation. I think that's an important point
to bring out. And also um scripture itself teaches against the persepcuity. Right,
So, Paul, many of these things are difficult to understand and those
twisted to their own destruction. So it also reveals to an unfounded, unjustified
assumption that God wanted to give us, that that's the way God was actually
required us to live, is to give us just a simple kind of instruction
set um, and you just read it and and that's all that's required.
Whereas Jay, you were pointing out, it's a life. It's an entire
life. You don't get the pick and choose. It's not a system,
um, and it's certainly not. Let's strip it down to the bare minimum
propositions and then I just descend to it and then I'm in, Yeah,
good points. All right, let's move on to uhnmanda. I'm sorry,
dude, you're you're not connecting. So hello, there we go. Can
you hear me? Yeah? Go ahead, I don't well, I do
want to and throw further, and then that's fine. If I am to
speak, I will. It's so well. I wanted to ask you,
Jay, a couple of questions. First, I spoke with some eighties materialist
dude. And I brought up in a way in my in my kind of
of understanding, something like tag and and when I explained it is a coherent
it is coherentism and that kind of position, he just replied, when anything
can anything can be set up in a coherent way. So he said,
a universe could explain itself as God. Well, now, first of all,
no, it's first of all, it's not true that anything can be
set up in a coherent way. Second, the argument is not just that
is true because there's coherence, because you could conceivably create a conceptual system that
is internally consistent and coherent but has no relation to the external world. So
it's a fundamental misunderstanding that the transit argument is not for an abstract conceptual consistent
system like some sort of big math problem. It's an argument for a worldview
very different. Yeah. Yeah, Bonjeur talks about this too. We first
of all, it's important to realize that our position isn't simply coherentism, right,
But when Bonjeur was talking about coherentism, he said, there's a misunderstanding.
It doesn't mean that the systems consistent. For example, you could have
propositions the tree is green and squares have four sides. There you know,
well, people misunderstand what coherentism is in the first place, and what Bonjeur
and his epistemology book said, what it doesn't mean is that things can be
consistent. For example, you could have the proposition the tree is green and
a square has four sides. That's not what actual coherentism is. The idea
is that there's actually logical inference. There's no logical inference to the truth from
the tree is green, that therefore squares have four sides. So first things
we need to get straight is what is even meant by coherentism is that all
the propositions not only are logically consistent, but coherence means that they can be
inferred from all the other propositions. Yeah, that eliminates a lot of stuff
right there. And as Jay said, even if you get to that,
if you can conceive, we construct something like that, you still have the
problem how does that system serve to be a justification? How does it even
map onto the world. There's further problems than just simply oh, I created
a coherent system in which every proposition of the system can be derived or inferred
from all the other propositions. So if I got you correctly, it needs
to have explainments every power also to the world or what what do you mean?
Yeah, just let read the russ Manion papers. So I'm not trying
to be read. But we're gonna have to rush through some of these because
they got a meeting. I have to go to here in a little bit.
Um. So, but we have another caller here, Daniel. I'll
go to Daniel BMX nineteen sixty six five dollars. Can you leave up your
intros longer? Um? I mean they're pretty long? And then every all
the boomers and people complain, who are your intros solo on? Because they
don't know what a live stream is theosi's Pilgrim ten dollars, Cope and seeth
afn Boomers, You can't. I think you mean ancient faith radio. You
guys can have patcha Mama Francis and we will keep Jay shout out to diet
So to light to Mathias three dollars. I know evil has no autological reality
as a privation, but how do we think of the devil? The devil's
nature is good, So I mean this is you know, standard Orthodox theology
can read the cabind oceans. The nature of the devil is good even still,
but he misuses his nature and continually sort of it's confirmed in the perpetual
willing of evil. Sounds like he is the embodiment of evil. No,
he is the angelic nature is even still good to see you have his free
will the source of evil. Um, you could say it's yeah, it's
it's the source, but it doesn't make evil real in the sense of having
ontological existence. Did God know what Satan would choose? Yes? God is
omniscient. Rigavitch five dollars. I love all the content in my block because
everybody's ignoring me in the chat um. I don't know, so I don't
usually moderate my chat because I don't have time on YouTube, so I don't
know if somebody booted you or muted you for some reason. Thank you for
your content, Chris. I'm hope to be half as knowledgeable on these topics
and how the world has run one day. God bless you and your family.
Chris from Ireland. Thank you so much, Chris. Really cool comment.
Eric Samuel twenty sixteen, Jay, I'm interested in orthodoxy makes some part
to your work. I'm going to be attending a couple of Orthodox churches in
the next week. So thank you for what you do. Hey, thank
you Samuel. Hopefully you find a good solid parish Canatic five dollars. I
get that ADS thinks that distinctions equate to division, but what is their reasoning?
Twofold? Most of the time they take it as a self evident principle
from natural philosophy or from just citing Aristotle or the Hellenic philosophers. Then they'll
say that it has to be this way for some scholastic rational reason, and
then they'll cite just Roman Catholic dogma and Aquinas or Peter Lombard's identity thesis.
Is it because potentiality and movement would imply final cause and therefore in completion.
Yeah, they think that if you introduce any potentiality at all, that it
means that God's changeable, has parts and as a creature. But if you
look at Bradshaw's work and the other thess PhD theses we've covered, like the
Cappadocians on simplicity thesis, and then it points out that originally when the debate
was happening with the Cappadocians, divine simplicity was not being argued from the vantage
point of reducing the attributes to the essence. It was primarily in first and
foremost a question of is God acted on or does he act upon? And
so ultimately God is simple, meaning that his essence is not acted upon,
It's not changed or affected by creatures. But even still, there is a
reality of God having a reciprocal relationship with men, and Bradshaw is a great
paper on that showing that the tomistic doctrine of God would basically make prayer pointless
because God doesn't have a direct relation. There's no reciprocity between when you pray
God acting according to your prayers. Right ads precludes that, as well as
things like the incarnation Stephen Harding ten dollars Thank you Jay, Thank you Stephen.
So did the guy that sent two super chats araba, Chrisolsom being a
douchebag calling me a monolingual smooth brain. How are you grasping Aristotle without knowing
Greek? So, first of all, I don't think that it's absolutely necessary
to understand the philosophers. To know every philosopher's native language, it would be
a great skill. I do think that Linguistics are a great tool and skill
to have, but it's kind of like the biblical texts. How many biblical
scholars know Biblical Greek and Hebrew and come to tarted conclusions and are idiots a
lot. So linguistics is a great skill, but it doesn't necessarily grant you
reading comprehension or depth of understanding and the nuance that you need to be able
to do metaphysics. Can you honestly say that you know Aristotle? I don't
claim to be an expert on Arisotle, so I don't know where you're getting
the idea that I never claimed to be an expert. I said the other
day that I would defer to Tim Gordon or father Deacon Ananias on Aristotle,
So I don't know where you get that. I think I'm an Aerosotle expert.
You think you're more intelligent than Aristotle? Do you really think that disagreeing
with somebody or critiquing somebody necessitates or means that you think that you're more intelligent
than them? I mean, that is almost so dumb of an argument I
don't even want to reply to it. Orthodox dude. One dollar is gender
a part of hypostasis? Or nature gender would be. I would say probably
both. I mean, I don't think we ever lose our I will never
cease to be a man in the escaton, and you will never cease to
be a Christ, never cease to be a man, or have his biological
or human nature changed. So I would say both. Does the gender issues
relate to a confusion of nature in person? It might have associations with that.
Some of the people who promote it from Fordom try to go to neo
platonic arguments that the fall into male and female was something that put us into
a lesser state of reality. And I think Maximus the Confessor is actually wrong
on this point because he does kind of repeat the neo platonic position. So
it may relate to that at times, But I don't think that the ultimate
root of today's transhumanous weirdos are thinking about confusing nature in person. I don't
even think they're those concepts are not even remotely in their mind. So God,
the guy asked me again, do you think you're smarter than air assault?
Again? This is the fact that I mean you would I could find
any person that's a renowned figure that you disagree with and would that mean that
you think you're smarter than them. I mean, it's just such a ridiculous
question. I usha ten dollars. Thank you so much, BMX ten dollars,
Thank you so much, BMX ninety six six again for ten dollars.
Hello, father Deacon and Ias bitescribe five. How do you harmonize works with
Grace and Ephesians? Precisely because both of those things are necessary? Paul?
Even Paul says, the very guy that wrote Ephesian says that the faith that
saves you is the one that works through love. Okay, so he's saying
the same thing that James says. It's a lot of times Protestants that presuppose,
oh Ephesians must mean that there's no willing, no acting, no working
at all involved in justification. Baptism is justification because it's generations regeneration and that's
a work. So, um, I'm gonna have to go pretty soon,
Daniel, what's up? I'm leaving the box one up there because she never
came with all of her smack talking day and then, um, what do
you think of a Saint Francis of assu pre less delusion? Crazy? Just
train it up crazy? Yeah, all right, um, so is that
do you disagree or what? Well? Okay, well I'm not trying to
be rere but today this this was Disagreements Day. So if you don't disagree,
then uh, I'm not trying to be read to you. Rhett Acardo,
who has worse hair? My hair is gorgeous, dude, it's going
full of McConaughey. It's gonna be all the way down my back. So
you can chew on that. Zachary who hates my hair, My hair is
hurt. By the way, you're a victor. You're abusing me in victim,
I'm a victim. I'm a victim. He's abusing me. He doesn't
like my hair. Please? Can I tattle on him? Can I tattle
him on him? To the Internet authorities? This man is abusing me.
He may put on my hair. I'm hurt. Signing to retire from the
internet, the toxic abusive bullying going on in the internet. Bro, are
you gonna talk or what? Rhett? I'm mute. We'll have a T
shirt that says I'm mute. Bro, I'm mute. Dude. All right,
he's not gonna answer. So and you'll notice that the woman never did
call in after all of her jibber driver. So here's what she said when
she never came up. Jadar is a controlling Christian know it all. Won't
even unmike, so she doesn't even know English, like half her what she
say doesn't even make sense, unmike, un mute. She never requested to
speak again, wine mom. Everybody, thank you for today if you would
subscribe. Also remember to go to chalk dot com. That is the show
sponsor, boost your testa ostroone with the ton Cat Elite. That's my favorite
user Probma called j fift to get fifty percent off to become a mean person
like me. It's so mean, so mean, So I just keep making
fun of the people that do this stuff because it's also ridiculous, right,
I mean, there's still I mean, they'll never stop whining, right Like
we'll be ten years down the road and the Roman Colilists are going to be
like, oh he's mean. So you see, I don't have to listen
because and like, what's actually mean? Oh you met a joke Aboudy Barrow
five years ago? Okay, Well then I guess if that's mean, I'll
just own up to and be mean so, I mean, this is ridiculous.
They're just cowards, man, They're cowards, and they won't interact with
people that will call them on the bs, just like that guy today who
talked crap all day about orthodox And by the way, the other guy wouldn't
debate either, so they all declined. And when they decline, they typically
say he's mean, pure soy, pure, soy. How come Tim Gordon
is gonna come to an in person debate and doesn't have any problem and doesn't
think I'm mean. Maybe he doesn't think I'm mean, but he doesn't bother
him mean. I'm starting to think I heard a whistleblower, a whistleblower from
Twitter saying that the Internet and social media is going to have to be shut
down and clamped down quote unquote because of bullying and people are mean. I'm
not joking, So I'm starting to think that mean is this is a new
buzzword that they're going to try to use to actually clamp down again, because
I'm seeing it everywhere and it's like mean and subjective. I mean, it
might, it might in some cases be extreme and not subjective, but I
mean a joke rhetoric laughing to an impression I mean, is that bullying and
mean and abusive. Now you understand, all of this is in the public
sphere, so a lot of these people think, well, I want to
say what I want. I don't want any repercussions for what I say.
And you'll notice that they'll say things about me all the time, and if
I reply, they say I'm bad for replying. Why are you attacking the
priests? Why are you attacking people? These people talk about me almost on
a daily basis, so I can reply to them. Everybody, have a
good night.