The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the bah Yo. Welcome everybody to your favorite open debate in sanity,
Feral Wye Mom Slam Poetry Virginia Slam podcast where we open it up to the
haters, to the tomatoes, to the wanna b debaters to come on and
offer their best challenge, their best argument, their best critique. As you
know, it always ends up being a very entertaining event. That's just an
added bonus from me in the midst of the lost art of debate that we
try to preserve, we try to try to promote, try to maintain,
keep afloat. We got some people popping in, got a few people requesting
to speak already. As you know, the topic is not conspiracies, Middle
East politics, it's not poetry, it's not your bars. You're not gonna
beat me in a rap battle, so just give up. But you are
allowed to call in and talk about your best arguments about the existence or the
non existence of God, the transcendental argument. What the logos is, the
logos logi distinction, the essence iner distinction, Roman Catholicism, a papacy,
the history of the church, the history of religion, metaphysics, all of
those are on the table. All of those are fair game. As they
say, if you call in and you talk about other topics or you make
non arguments, I will make jokes. You will get your feelings hurt,
you will cry, you will be butt hurt, you will make exposed videos
about me. So just I'm just prophesying and telling you what's going to happen
if you disobey the rules and only be to your own demise, to your
own dutchment. But you may do that if you so choose. No one
can stop the freedom train known as free will anyway, as you know the
way it works. You request to speak via Twitter spaces, I then let
you on. Your job is to then make an argument, make a challenge,
make a proposition, a claim, an assertion. Then you back it
up with theces, not feces. A lot of y'all spit theces out of
your mouth, thess that demonstrate or prove the initial claim or argument. It's
that simple, although hardly anybody in today's society seems able to actually do that.
So I want to give preference today to people that disagree. If you
have a Q and a question, that's fine. Keep that maybe towards the
end of the show. So I already see people chiming in who agree and
probably have questions, which is fine, but preference to those who disagree.
So maybe you are an atheist, Maybe you are an agnostic. Maybe you
are a Zoroastrian, a zor right Astrian. Maybe you are a I don't
know what else, what's the other options? A Muslimist. Maybe you are
a a Discordian. Maybe you are a ahnd dude, a him though you
was a he? Who a she? Do? Now you're a ham though.
Maybe you're a papist, a Roman Catholic and you're going to prove the
papacy to us. Maybe I don't know what's what's all the world religions?
Can you can we list them all? Do you do? Y'all remember them?
There's a Jim Jonesian. Maybe you're a Jim Jones follower. You're like
the last two or three Jim Jonesians, and you got you got issues because
you think you're the keeper of the truth. Flat Maybe the maybe the Jim
Jones had it all right, and we just misunderstood. He just misunderstood when
he when he cooliated out in people, you just misunderstood. Maybe you're an
orthodox redditor. We got some people in the YouTube chat talking smack. Maybe
you're a neo Gagan excuse me, a Pagan. Maybe you're a asked asked
a fire you can come on. Maybe you're a thirty third degree masonics person.
He wanted them masonics anyway. Maybe you're an ancient Carthaginian and you believe
in human sacrifice. Maybe you're an as tech you. Maybe you're a thug
ee remember the Thugies, some of that Temple of Doom action on Numbshiva numb
cheva, about to break my heart by ripping it out. If you're steal
a Thuggie out there calling on my thugies not thugs. We got a lot
of thug healers on TikTok that Tristan and I have been calling out. I
mean, we did a ball or ass stream yesterday about the history of rap
music, aka the history of my music, my background. Y'all know,
I'm the first greatest rapper in the world. Tristan Haggard is the second ratest
rapper in the world. Anyway, We're gonna open it up back to the
topic, because you know, I'll just sit here talking a bunch of now
damn nonsense about Thuggies all day long. Khima Khalimar shocked. That's the traditional
thuggee right liturgy. So maybe some of y'all were at the traditional Thuggie write
liturgy today. If so, let me know your best argument for why we
need to be Thuggies. Alexander calls in. Now, we had a gnostic
man. He said, I'm on it. He said, I'm there,
dude. Uh, I don't know where are you at, dude, let
me see if he's He's like, I'm ready to debate you. He says,
I figured out five thou and years of religious history. And he says,
I'm ready. Okay, dude, as you know, we give you
the floor, dog, so here you go. I would start making jokes,
but you know, people can't handle jokes to that. That's the other
thing people think, Oh when I come on there, he's mean. We've
always treated this in a very lighthearted manner, in a very humoristic way.
You know, we joke around. It's not a big deal. Hey,
a lot of people can't handle it. I made a serial killer joke.
One dude's it got mad said I was calling him a serial killer. It's
just, man, people don't understand jokes. They don't understand humor. That
It's just it's getting crazy. So anyway, I don't know where the Gnostic
Man is. Alexander's on the scene on mute. We've got a T shirt
made this I audible. Yes, sir, damn Professor Darer, thank you
for letting me speak. I really appreciate you for that. I'm not I'm
not a professor, but that's fine. Oh okay, anyways, I guess
i'll start it off. I'll just ask you a question and then and then
I guess if you can justify it, then you can prove God, if
God's real, I guess my question to you would be is why why does
he allow so many bad things and tragedies to happen? Right? So,
have you ever looked at responses to the problem of evil? Like who?
Meaning like the objection that you're giving is the problem of evil objection? So
I'm just wondering because it's kind of been basically because I'm because I'm saying that
I'm I'm like, I'm I was, I'm thinking, in the concept or
the extraction that there is evil, I'm conceding that there's good, and that
there must and that must come from like the divine, like God. Well,
I'm just asking if you've ever looked at any of the responses. And
there's a lot of different ways people approach the problem of evil objection, but
one objection that I tend to use is just simply that if God doesn't exist,
then we're going to need a basis for the standard by which we judge
good and evil. So there are correct implications for when we deny the real
metaphysical existence of the good. One of those implications would be that we no
longer have a standard by which to judge either good or evil, and that
standard came from God in the Christian worldview. Yeah, well then I guess
my next question outside of the Christian world no worldview, Yeah, yeah,
that worldview. Yeah, I mean, I apologize my first time on the
show, so I'm a bit jutery. So outside of that view, my
question is this is that then if that's not the case, then there there
can be no good and evil, and then one act doesn't mean anything.
So then how do we define anything. That's then then I'm then I'm just
like a little bit confused. How do how do how does anyone make sense
from right and wrong? Done? No, it's not saying that there is
no it's a hypothetical. You understand what that is, right, yes,
right, So it's it's just saying that the comparison is between two paradigms.
One paradigm has an account for good and evil as metaphysical things, or in
the case of evil, not a thing but a privation or a move of
the will against the good. The other worldview, which would be like the
atheist materialist paradigm, typically doesn't have any account for and is really premised on
denying metaphysics. So the problem is that when you deny metaphysics as a whole,
and that would be things like good, bad, the will, you
know, meaning even ethics ultimately would be part of metaphysics because we're talking about
value judgments, then there's not a basis to make an argument or even a
sentence at all. So before I will hear out the argument. But the
transcendental argument is an argument prior to predication, prior to making claims at all.
So you're gonna have to give an account for how you have values at
all, because to say that the Christian worldview is a violation of the paradigm
of good and evil, right, or that it's a violation of some ethical
norm that God violates by permitting free creatures to committeabal actions. We need a
basis for the standard by what you're saying it's evil or what is evil?
What's good and evil? If there's not a god? Basically, yeah,
And that's where it kind of gets gray because like one thing I was just
thinking of and then August, I'll mute, I is that basically when like
for example, and this is kind of like a side thought, but a
lot of times I notice or I observe, like a lot of atheists,
for example, they say, oh, I don't believe in God or this
or whatever. The you know, the reasoning is a lot of times I
notice they have like a lot of like heart trauma or something that's like not
right in their mind. And then it's like they hate something and I don't
even know if they know what they know what they hate, right, But
then they just that that internal like war, it's us out. Like a
lot of times I see it like maybe like kids, or like say,
yeah, kids or even young adults like teens out on their parents because maybe
maybe their parent was you know, they hold those beliefs and it's like,
oh, well, you know, it's like this whole confusing like a war
with God, and then that then now they're at war with everyone who doesn't
think just like them. Yeah. I think that a lot of times that's
the personal psychological motivation for atheism. Of course, they'll say, well,
that's that doesn't really disprove my position, and that's true. There's no there's
no psychological report that proves or disproves any position. So positions stand on their
own objectively, whether they're true or false based on the actual argumentation. But
yeah, I think you're right about that being a common psychological trait. But
what we're getting at here is just basically that in order to make the argument
about the problem of evil, to argue at all requires the requires giving an
account for something more fundamental. And that's what the transcendental argument is doing.
Is it's saying that the things that you're using to argue or make sentences at
all can only work in a worldview or a paradigm where God exists, there's
metaphysics, there's an external world, there's objective standards, there's universals, there's
laws of logic. All those things have to be the case for you to
even make a sentence. So that's what I'm saying is that the problem of
evil argument doesn't work because it's not addressing the transcendental argument and how the transcendental
argument points out that if there is no God or good, then there is
no basis for good or evil. Does that make sense or not? Really?
Yeah, Like, yeah, I just feel bad those people. I
don't know how. It's like they're just gripping for straws. There's one many
years ago. You probably didn't see this, but Michael Savage was on the
air with Alex Jones. Yeah I've seen those interviews, Okay, yeah,
and he just came out like he just got on side swacked by Ben because
he took over his show or whatever, and it was some like dirty dealing
going on and they're talking about it. But also he had a new book
come out. I forget the name of the book, but the book was
basically kind of him searching for God, and a lot of times it was
just kind of about I'm trying to remember, but it's like the whole point
of his many experiences in a life where he's just searching and searching and searching,
and it's like a lot of times, you know, I haven't really
heard any real actual proof or evidence for God. But it's like I'm in
I'm stuck in that same paradox of like, isn't in the clouds? Isn't
I have this child? Is it in this art? Is? You know?
But I'm I'm in this big universe. But just the fact that I'm
seeking for this but you know, like I don't hear anything back, and
I don't know if maybe this is kind of like Christian paradox or I don't
know how to preface it, but it's just like my last little like common
honor me. Okay, yeah, those are good, good questions. I
mean, I guess my answer to that about the way God speaks is through
first of all divine revelations, So that would be, you know, what's
contained in the Orthodox Bible and the teaching of the church. It would be
eventually more and more of a direct interaction and sense of God's presence. But
that's something that comes after I think, you know, a time of purification,
repentance, and so forth, and that's what we do as part of
our life in the church. So I'm not trying to avoid the question.
I'm just pointing out that the problem of evil issue is rather a consequence of
the reality of free will and the reality of secondary causes that creatures can engage
in. So why God chose to permit the world to be that way?
There's not any obligation on God's part to reveal to all of his finite creatures
all of the infinite variations of created causes as to why it's this way.
And if you read the Book of Job, the answer is more so,
we can't really in this life comprehend all of the different created causal chains and
how things work together for the good, as Paul says in Romans eight.
So there is an element of mystery there with you know, how does divine
sovereignty and providence and free will all work together? And one thing I would
say is that this is an expectation that no worldview can actually answer. And
Christianity is not a worldview that gives you every answer to every problem. It's
a worldview that gives you an account of knowledge ethics and metaphysics as possibilities to
even use or to engage in. That doesn't mean that every aspect or element
of the physical world or science or knowledge or metaphysics is immediately knowable or demonstrable.
So the transcendental argument is addressing the preconditions to knowledge, to making sentences,
to making meaning at all. And that's why I think it's the more.
I mean, it's really the best philosophical argument for God's existence. Right,
It's not the only reason that people come to believe in God. There's
many reasons why we to believe what we believe, but it's in terms of
the domain of logic and philosophy I think it's it's the best argument. But
anyway, thank you guys for those super chats, and those are good questions.
Now the guy who wanted to come and chat, Jeremy is in the
chat. So Jeremy, if you want to you can. I'll invite you
to speak, and you know, you can have the floor and make whatever
arguments you'd like about your specific your specific religious position. So did you want
to come on, Jeremy, You got to have your mike turned on or
whatever. They got to leave. No, there you are. Okay,
I'm going to give you the ability to speak, so you just got to
unmute yourself and then you can make whatever arguments you want. Hey, jam
thanks for having me. Sure have a quick question, and the question is
why do we call him God? I would say, in our position,
ultimately because of the characteristics of what he's revealed about himself. So you know,
God for us would mean the person of the Father and the attributes that
go along with him being omniscient, being, omni benevolent, being, you
know, omnipresent, omnipotent, et cetera. Okay, So what I'm getting
at is his name in the Old Testament is spelled right, So it's really
this is really more of an etymology question. In the English Bibles and throughout
the world, why do we use the name God instead of whatever however you
pronounce his name. That's where I'm going with this. Well, I think
the Greek term theos is usually what is used, and it's just the word
in the Greek that stands for Yahweh or the Lord or whatever. Okay,
so you're getting close. Theos is the Greek word, but it's also used
of the career of angels of demons and sometimes of men. Right the Hebrew.
The Hebrew equivalent is elokeein and is also used directly of the creator of
angels, of demons, and it's also use of men. That's correct,
So can I respond to them? Yeah, so I'm aware of that,
And that's that's because the term God is a generic term. It's not a
proper noun unless it picks out a specific person. And this is an argument
that we've made many many times to Muslims, for example. So I'm familiar
with what you're saying, but capital t theos for us is picking out the
person of the Father. But you're absolutely correct that elohem or God's in the
sense of when Jesus says I've said to your Gods, that could refer to
an angel, a demon, or a human. We agree, all right,
sweet, So with that being said, what we're translating is God is
either Theos or Elokeein. But you'd have is a different word. So whenever
we in the in the Tanakh or in the Old Testament, when we translate
jode bave yeloheme, we translate that as Lord God. So we're not even
using the term God for the Creator's name, we're using a title lord.
Well, I mean, in our view, God is again a term that
picks out either a divine person, the divine nature, or the divine energies
or operations in the Old and we're speaking here of God, the Triad,
the Trinity. So I believe in the Trinity as an Orthodox Christian. And
in our view, Jesus has called the face of Yahweh the Angel of Yahweh.
Then he's given the name of Yahweh throughout the Old Testament. So it
sounds like a what we call a word concept fallacy, where the idea is
that a word has a single reference. But in the case of theos or
Lord, it could refer to a created Lord, or it could refer to
the uncreated Lord or God. Okay, so I'm with you on all that.
So and and by the way, you know, Jesus died rose again
three days later in the right hand, and his father's name is you know,
Jode. So I'm with you on all that. You don't think that
Jesus is Yeahweh. Well, he's divine, but he is not the Father.
No, I think they're different aspects. Father know that Jesus doesn't know.
Well, are there degrees of divinity. Yes, well, in the
sense of the divine nature. There can't be degrees of it. Right,
So the divine nature, for example, is simple, it's uncomposite, it's
outside of time, it's impossible. Uh, it's not acted upon. These
are all classic ideas of what divine nature or the uncreated nature of God signifies.
So there couldn't be if Jesus is fully divine, there couldn't be degrees
of of that, a quarter, a half of the divine essence or something
like that. Right, But angel and demons are divine beings, Yes,
divine in a different sense, So there are different You just contradict yourself,
right, No, it's not the sense in the first sense. Okay,
So not in the sense of God's divinity. So when we call an angel
elohem or when they're called gods, it's picking out a created thing. We're
talking about uncreated nature. So you understand it's a word concept fallacy. It
might be, except every demon in the Bible that's listed, and I've got
every one of them up here. I can go through the whole list for
you, both in Greek and and Hebrew. They are all translated exactly as
they are transliterated, meaning they're all translated in our English Bibles exactly as they
sound in their original languages. Would you agree with that? Translated as they
sound? What do you mean? So I'm going to give you a few
for instances as an example. So bail is sounds like bail and the Hebrew
bail paris like baille parith. Hold on, Yeah, and we believe those
are fallen angels. Yes, Mary, doc is Meredoc, nebo is Nebo,
and drimalk and drimalk, so on and so forth. Right now,
there are two demons in Isaiah sixty five eleven that are not translated. Their
names are completely untranslated. Have you ever looked up that verse? Yeah?
I read Isaiah many, many times. All Right, in Isaiah's sixty five
eleven, there's two demons in there. They're either they are translated in the
King James or the Geneva Bibles as troop and number, but in every translation
post nineteen seventy they're translated as fortune and destiny with capital F and a capital
D. And the way that I found this was I was researching the origins
of hard determinism in Christianity, and so I chased that from Lorraine Baudner in
nineteen thirty six with his Tulip thesis, back to John Calvin, who got
all of his ideas from and Martin Luther. They got their ideas from Augustine
to Hippo. Augustine Hip got all his ideas. And I used to be
a Calvinist. I've studied at Calvinist seminary. I'm more that's good. So
in Isaiah sixty five eleven, you have two demons that are translated as fortune
and destiny. Do you happen to know what their names are? Well?
How is this going to prove your point? Because I mean, I agree
that they're demons. If these are demons in the text when I look at
Isaiah sixty five eleven, I mean you're saying that it's the quote modern translations,
But okay, I mean demons are created. So how is this How
does this preview point? Because their names are God and Many, they're spelled
gd Gimmel, Dalak and him and whym none yeode Okay, it looks like
and their names are tamingly pronounced God and money. You mean you think that
the English terminology of the meaning in English of a Hebrew word is the same.
No, what I'm telling you is in Hebrew. That is how you
pronounce that word gd God. This is a word concept fatasy. So you
think that the modern English term God is referencing that that that's predicting that we
worship quote God, but it's a demon. Is that what you think?
So that comes back to my first question is what is the etymology of English
word God? It just means theos. It just refers to It picks out
theos when we're talking about God, the Father, but it also refers to
other things. Yes, that's what that's that's how we define it. But
I'm talking about etymology. Where to come from? That's etymology. Now,
etymology is it came from this word and this language and this verdacular, and
that's how we all say it. Okay, isn't that way you're asking?
Well, so can you just say where? Can you just say what your
position is? You're asking all these questions and just what's the position that you're
arguing? For sure? So the hard determinism of christian and which is Calvinism,
comes from those two demons, God and manny, the demons of fortune
and the demons of Destiny. One's a male and one's a female, and
they just change their names every now and then. I e. God and
married. And what happened was the demon God Mary? Yeah, you just
changed You've changed many a little bit, and you get married. So what
happened with this is this is looney tunes. Man, I'm not trying me
mean to you, but all right, changing it, changing one letter,
yeah, it makes all the difference, right, right, So how do
you jump from that to Mary? Because the demons God and Manny are it's
the same charub in different civilizations. It's amen Ra in Egypt and Horus,
it's God and Manny and Babylon it's Jupiter and Pluto. And and you think
that's the verb. You think that's the virgin Mary. Well, I'm saying
that's the cherub that's presenting himself as Mary for the Catholics. How would you
ever come up with? Yeah? How would you? It's just this is
how would you come to that? Because I wrote a ninety three thousand word
book on it, and I researched it that that doesn't explain how you came
to the conclusion. That just tells me what you did. Well, what
rephrase your question, it's a non sequitor. So first of all, changing
one letter in many words gives very different conclusions and reference to as to who
the word is picking out. So the fact that you're saying that, well
I just changed one letter, it's really close to Mary. I mean,
that's this is like you don't see why that would be a problem. Well,
if you look up mem nun yode in Hebrew, none is a letter
that's used to change a name and to disguise the name. Okay, so
are you familiar with like the way let me give you an example of where
this would be a problem, like the way that Freemason's talk about Solomon.
Have you heard this argument where they say, well, look at the name
Solomon, it's soul, it's ome, and it's on. Soul is the
Latin for the sun and the sun god. Om is the uh you know
hint, the Buddhist Ohm right chant that they do on is the Egyptian deity
On. Now, the word Solomon is a English transliteration of Shalom, has
nothing to do with soul, om and on. Okay, So there's there's
a tendency and a lot of esoteric minded people or Masonic minded people various hermeticis
or whoever. I'm not accusing you of that. I don't fully know your
position, but I'm just stating that it's all kind of based on If you're
familiar with Jordan Maxwell, for example, the famous conspiracy dude, right,
he would always kind of come up with these creative switching of reference to show
that because the in one context the word means this, in another context the
word means something very very different, the word then is meaning both things or
can be identified with one reference. So do you do you know what I
when I'm saying that it's a version of word concept Ballacy, do you know
what I mean by that? I agree with you one hundred percent with the
spot on, But how would you agree with me if that's what I'm saying.
Is the move here that you're making that's a mistake because you can find
God in the text, in the Hebrew text, and it was covered up.
If you'll indulge me just for one more quick point before you can be
I'm listening, all right, So let us let's assume that God and Manny
are the demons of the Babylonian demons of luck or fortune and destiny or fate
and I stumbled upon them. You asked how I found this. Let me
answer that first, because you did ask that question. The way that I
found this was when I was researching the elect I wanted every time the word
the elect choose or chosen was used in the Bible, and I was gonna
put it in an Excel spray cheat so that I could show you that it
was just a mundane word where somebody was choosing something. There's two hundred and
twenty four instances of that. And the way that I found Isaiah sixty five
eleven is because the Creator chose Israel for destruction, because it's something they did.
That's how I found Isaiah sixty five eleven. It was just by doing
my homework. So let's assume that God and money are the demons of luck
and fate in Luke. Whenever Jesus is telling them that you cannot serve both
God and money, assume my proposition is true. The reason that he's telling
him that you can't serve them both is because you either live your life as
if everything is chance or luck, or you live your life as if everything
is fate or destiny. That's why you can't serve those two masters. I
mean again, there's nothing to do with the Virgin Mary. Where do you
this is? I can't. I just don't understand. How do you conclude
that that's Mary Mary? A tertiary item anyway? Yeah, but it demonstrates
the wildness of this. You don't see why this would be a problem.
It is. It is absolutely wild. I agree. Okay, So what
is the true religion? Like, what is it to you? The Way?
And that is what? Well, so, and here's my opinion that
you're not going to hear anywhere else. I think the Way, which was
home groups meeting in their homes, your pastor, your evangelist, your apostle.
Those were all functions that people did. They were not titles that were
given to them by professionally credentialed organizations. The Gnostics eventually infiltrated the Way and
eventually turned it via Augustine of Hippo and Jerome and others, and eventually turned
it into what we call the Roman Catholic Church. And then they used half
of the Gnostics beliefs to do that. In the fifteen hundreds, the Protestants
used the other half of the Gnostic beliefs to consolidate power away from the pope.
And what you call church right now is the Great Harlet of Babylon,
because all churches worship God, and his proper name is the Babylonia demon of
fortune. Again, your entire thesis is built on a word concept fallacy.
Are you from a Protestant background, both Catholic and Protestant? Right, So
the word God can pick out different things, right, And your argument rests
on the word God having the single reference of this demon. And the way
that you got to that was the creative interpretation of Isaiah sixty five? Is
it creative? You just said you had to change a letter to get married.
No, that is what you said to get married with proposition that did
you not say that to change a letter you get married because it's close?
Yes? Okay, So again, why do you think that that is baudid
or a coherent move to do? From what standpoint? It's not talking about
Mary and you admitted it by saying that I have to change a letter to
make it be close to Mary. Yes, and that's the middle letter of
Manny's name him And why Fanny has nothing to do with Mary? Where do
you conclude that that's Mary? Because the demons can change their names. That's
what he does. Yeah, that doesn't improve that the reference is Mary.
You're just assuming the position and saying, yeah, but it is because it's
a demon changing his name. How do you know that it's a demon that
change that? You don't think? I mean, do you know what Ephesis
taught for example? On what on the on Mary? Kill me? Well,
are you familiar with church history at all? You talked about Augustine.
You're correct about his background a little bit, yes, okay, so,
but well, wait a minute. Wouldn't want to know about what the first
four centuries of Christianity taught. If you're going to put this position forward,
sure, go for it. Now I'm asking you what do you think they
taught in those first four centuries up to Ephesus about whom? About Christ and
Mary? I don't know off the top my head. Okay, so you
don't know about this topic. I thought you wrote a giant ninety thousand word
book or something ninety three thousand. Yes, okay, So but you don't
know about the topic. Well, the book doesn't cover the encompassing of everything
in Christianity. Yeah, but Mary is very important at Ephesus and she's given
a certain name at Ephesus, and so this would be very important to your
thesis if you think that she's a god, a goddess, or a demon.
I didn't say that Mary was a god or a demon. Marie.
Our name was Maria. Okay, yeah, all right, we're gonna move
on. I appreciate your arguments. Interesting thesis, but it's a word concept
fallacy. It's open for him. If you want to present your arguments,
you can. I will hear them out Anikatsuki. We're giving preference to people
who disagree today. Hey man, what's going on? Yo? How's it
going? I already sent a couple of super chats in, but I was
just going to ask my questions this way. If that was okay? I
did. I didn't know that I could do this, all right. So
I'm newly orthodox, my wife and I and we've been taking our six months
old and I was wondering, what do you think would be the best argument
towards my Protestant friends and family who equate icons with the with what it says
in the Second Commandment about not making images of what's in heaven and on earth
and in the sea below and all that Yeah, I have an essay on
that. That's a very simply simple sort of response on I just got to
my website and type in icons and you'll get it. Okay. My second
question, if I may, I've got The Orthodoxy and the Religion of the
Future by Seraph from Rose. I've got against Heresies, I've got on Holy
Images, and I've got the Orthodox Generation of Mary the Mother of God by
Saint John Maximovich. Yeah. Are there any other starter books that you recommend
for Orthodox theology in general? Yeah, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by
Lasky is a good place to start. Orthodox Church by Myandorf is a good
place to start. Byzantine Theology by Myandorf after you've read those, Okay.
Now, the article that I wrote is called Biblical Defense of Icons. It's
just a basic going through the text of the Bible, and I've got that
linked in the chat Okay, and you can also just find it on my
website. Awesome, I appreciate it. Jack Hey. Trying to add one
thing real quick, So when we're reading Exodus in the command to you know,
not have any graven images of anything on earth or in heavens obviously,
it's in the it's in the context of such that you would worship it as
if it were gone, because think about how silly it would be. It
would mean if it says no graven image, which is a typically means a
three dimensional image, it would mean that we couldn't have any statute, I
mean outside of religious contexts, that you couldn't have any statues or any three
dimensional art or anything like this, which you'll see that even like I think
the Amish even kind of take it that way or something like that. So
you have to say, well, the verse, the verses can't actually mean
that, So what are they saying. They're saying within the context of worship
such that you would worship it as if it were God. And I think
this is a typical move that Protestants struggle with. First the word concept fallacy,
and number two that there's a general, overall kind of context of what's
going on. So it a Protestant might often think, well, you just
read the verse, and the verse says what it means, and means what
it says and says what I mean, and we see that's not the case.
Yeah, that's usually where my argument goes whenever I speak to my protest
the friends and family is, well, let's get down to what what what
an idol was, and let's get down to what the word graven means.
And usually usually that's that's the limit that their brain can handle, and they
just should down and just refuse to hear any of them. Yeah, because
you could ask, well, why would that be wrong? Why would God
say not to make graven images? They won't give an answer. Oh,
because God said so. Yeah, so they've got some type of weird kind
of divine command theory that God's dictates are arbitrary and whatever he says, that's
just what it says. You've got to do what which is a terrible god
to follow? Right? All right, appreciate that question, Matt. I'm
guessing that you're the guy that said the super chats. Appreciate that. I'll
read those super chats here in a second. Let's see Thomas Thomas Guzman.
We're looking for giving precedents to people who disagree. Today, got an unmute
man, Go ahead, you're run muted. You gotta turn your mic onto
I don't know if you Sometimes you have to go in your settings and turn
on the mic. If you haven't done this before. Are you there,
Thomas, We'll move on until you get that. Sometimes you have to come
out, come back in. So Thomas, if you come out, come
back in, I'll put you back to the head of line. Hilarian,
what's up, dude, Yo yo yo. No one can say I was
mean. I just said the position made no sense, and it was based
on a word concept fallacy. And of course what was happening at Ephesus is
the term day of Tokos is what I was looking for. So people that
aren't aware of that, I'm not gonna listen to them telling me about the
secret history of Mary. Hilarian, you got on mute or not moving on?
Moving? Own up? Move and own up, David Reid on move
arm move, Hey Ja, what's up? Hey? I was just I
just had a quick question on'm orthodox by the way I called it. Before
I was listening to the iconic Vegan debate with you, Tristan, and to
ask yourself, dude, at Vegan gains, you know the train wreck,
and you at one point brought up a point that he was saying something about
something being abstract or it was not tangible, so we couldn't investigate it.
Something along those lines. You don' kind of ignore me empiricism, and you
said nothing was purely abstract, and you said you could read Heidegger in to
basically realize what that means. And I was wondering what you meant by that
that nothing's abstract, that is, nothing's purely abstract. Yeah, Heideger makes
the point that so Hussarl wanted to bracket reality and come up with these neutral
ways to read objects. And the famously Husserl took his class outside and they
studied a mailbox for an entire semester. And the reason they studied the mailbox
was because, for example, you can't you can never a single person's vantage
point is always limited to their side of the object. So this is called
in mariology the horizon of objects, so you can never see the other side
of the object. And Hussarl basically had them focused on doing this for like
a whole semester, and Hidger made the joke that this wild attempt at trying
to find into this purely neutral starting point to read objects is that landish mainly
because it operates as if we read objects as pure abstractions and not through life,
being not through the entire history of objects that we bring to the interpretive
experience. So I'm never going to have a purely neutral interpretation of the mailbox,
because anytime I come to the mailbox, I'm bringing with me my whole
history of all my life, all my interpretive interpretation of objects, including all
my past history of interpreting and experiencing mailboxes. So it's an unrealistic it's not
the life being way that we interact with objects, is what I was getting
it. I got you, okay. It was a way for me to
combat and refute the idea that there's such a thing as non theory ladd interpretations
of reality. Got you, okay? And then can I ask them allow
question? Sure? So the this is because some I don't know if it
might be somewhat related. You were talking in previously with another detractor about divine
conceptualism, uh huh, and you were saying that the Orthodox conception is different
from the Roman Catholics. Yeah, they have a platonic move and we make
them energies, not the divine essence. Okay, So universals are created things
in the Orthodox view. Maximus makes this argument very clear multiple times in the
Ambiguity Roman Catholics don't typically make this clear. So you might find a Roman
Caldic who reads Maximus and comes the conclusion of that. But really this is
because, for example, Aquinas identifies the divine ideas with the divine essence.
So that would make if you say that universals are divine ideas and they're the
divine essence, then now universals are the divine essence. So that's a Platonic
view. Got you. Okay, interesting, I look at that. And
so it was there a particular Heidegger book that I could pick up. I'm
not actually, I'm not. No, I'm not even I'm not a Highigger
scholar. I just had one class on Heidigger in uh grad school and it
was really contrasting Hidegren. Host Earl was that whole class. So, uh,
Father Deacon at Nice would be a lot better for that topic. Dermot
Moron was my professor. That's one of the world's leading Hiderger scholars, so
he has some books on that. Also, Hubert Dreyfus, I believe he's
out of Berkeley. We used der Mount Moran and Dreyfuss in my in that
class. So yeah, they're like the two leading scholars probably off the top
of my head goods because he has kind of uh he was a book called
Phenomenology that's really good that covers kind of all that stuff that's going on with
Userl and Heidegger. I mean, just some books that are kind of a
more general approach. A lot of scholars will pick some specific aspect out of
Hiderger to write about. So that's why I recommended h Dermot Morn or Hubert
Drive was just kind of a good overview of Heidiger. And then just go
ahead, go ahead, finely, go ahead. It's just what we will
lose, all the all the listeners will lead. I'm not I'm not mad
at you enough fuss think it's just that nobody knows about and right, this
is totally unrelated to that. In the Eric you Bara debate from a while
ago, you had on with Mike on Michael Watkins, you know, so
you were he was kind of saying basically that he was building kind of a
case for the papacy from like the ground up, right, and you were
saying, basically the problem with that was that it's ignoring all the constituent doctrines
that come with it. You can't just argue from the ground up. Was
that the issue correct because he seemed to be saying that, like, look,
let's just take this one piece at a time. Yeah, he has
an evidentialist pile up the papal quote's approach, and then eventually, if he
piles up enough quotes, it'll tilt the scales over and it'll maybe even make
the papacy true. Right, right, So what's what's the problem with isolating
one aspect and being like, Okay, let's just deeld because he is already
because he already said elsewhere that if you could show one dogmatic contradiction, the
system would be nullified. Oh and so the whole point of my argument in
that whole debate was that Vatican two's teaching post Vatican two contradicts previous Catholic dogma.
And Eric says in the debate, we'll have that debate another time.
I don't want to go there. Let's just work through. The evidence is
piece by piece. And it's not that I'm against evidences, but those guys
are Tomas, and they're evidentialists by virtue of being Roman Catholic. I mean,
nint nine nine percent of all of them are that, And so that
whole approach is flawed and it's self referencing and arbitrary, which is ironic because
because they would say, well, but you think tag is self referencing in
arbitrary. Yeah, but that's why I'm not a classical foundationalist like you are.
Right, So it's always an internal critique when you're making those arguments pretty
much against them. When I'm when I'm making that argument, it's an internal
critique. But not every argument is an internal critique that I make. Now,
I make arguments all the time, like you know, here's a quote
from Maximus that you know does makes sense with Vatican one, right, but
again, so you know, yeah, that's the point is that the reason
that debate is so odd, I guess is that he wanted to do one
thing. I wanted to do a different thing, and so there never it
wasn't it was never what I was arguing. He never addressed and can't address
it because he would have to give up his whole paradigm in order to Ultimately
what would happened is that it would become an epistemology debate and he have to
he'd have to argue that there's self evident truths basically, and that's if you
and if you want to see that debate, that's the debate with Trent Horn
right right. And it kind of it seemed like, I'll be honest,
it's kind of seemed like that went over Trent's head. I hate to say
it. Of course, of Trent's pretty sharp, which was pretty surprising,
you know, honestly, But but yeah, they kind of bring that the
debate up a lot, the Roman Catholics. I talked to the one with
you, you know, the kind of like, oh, well he got
school you know. I mean, that's what Roman caviolc say to Cope about
that debate. I didn't get schooled. Eric never addressed the argument that h
and by the way, you'll notice everything that I said too about him and
Lofton like that's all come to fruition because they don't they don't like each other
anymore. But no, it's a it's a very simple argument that the papacy
has a structure and a system by which it doesn't allow any dogmatic contradictions.
And Abara admits that so the argument was just simply, let's address the Vatican
two teachings that contradict pre Vatican two teaching, and he said, we'll have
that debate some other time. I don't want to do that right now.
So there you go. And again, am I not vindicated with Fiducia's supplicans
or whatever Francis's skittles and cyclical is? I mean, come on, right,
so great question. Appreciate it all right. Everybody is noting that I
seem to be in a chill mood today. Thank you. I feel like
I'm in a chill I didn't get mad at anybody, or I'm not even
typically mad in a heated debate. But I just now understood that my suspicion
is correct, right, because the text says, for that other guy,
those that forsake the Lord, forget my Holy Mountain, prepare, prepare a
table for God and many. And in the Orthodox Study Bible, right,
that's translated as pagan gods like fortune. Okay, but God does not equate
to the English terminology and usage of God. I mean, this is That's
why it's a word concept fallacy. This reminds me of the guy, the
dude that came up to you when we're in California. Remember, yes,
by the way, I wanted to point out first of all, etymology is
not the be all end all of meaning. It can give us insights.
Words change, words don't have a single reference. And two, the fact
that you can spin a story with absolutely no evidence, And what did he
say? If it's true, wouldn't this kind of make sense of That's that's
not evidence, that's not justification for your position. And I find it bizarre
too that So God's going to keep all of this hidden and until one man
two thousand years later writes a big book and does some fancy stuff with etymology
and switches some words and stuff like that, and then discovers the real truth.
And God's going to allow that everybody's just been deceived and it's all been
hidden and nobody had the truth that we had to wait for this one man
to all right, yeah, exactly, let's go to Scott. Scott Grace
gotta unmute when you come on, Scott. Yeah. I don't. I
don't think that he did understand the point about word word concept fallacy, because
that's really that's the point here. It's the same move that Muslims make where
they say that God can only pick out the you know, single tawheed,
the word God can pick out different things. Scott, you gotta unmute man?
Hey, how's it going day? What with you? Nothing much?
So I was interested in discussing perseverance of the saints with you. Okay,
well why are you giggling? You? Are you gonnatroll me? No,
I'm just I'm just so excited. But yeah, I was thinking about it
a lot. And the Orthodox physician is obviously anti per experience of the Saints
from my understanding, but maybe are there any Orthodox people that take that belief?
No, Orthodox theology teachers that you can participate in grace and lose your
salvation. Gotcha? Gotcha? Yeah? I guess what I struggle with with
that idea. And obviously I think that there's Christians that can fall away from
the faith. I mean, the Bible is pretty explicit about that, but
when we talk about like believers that have genuine faith, I guess some roadblocks
that I have with that idea is that, you know, obviously, you
understand that God has foregn knowledge of who will be saved before you know,
we even come into existence. So you know, for example, like if
God knows that the apostle Paul is going to be saved, or that Peter
is going to be saved. It seems that we can kind of say that
they are going to persevere to the end, like that is something that written.
But that doesn't make God the cause of all of the events or the
sole determinate cause of their salvation. So God creates a world where there's secondary
causes and those people can participate and synergize in the process of deification. So
the fact that God has foreknowledge is not equivalent to the doctrine of the perseverance
of the Saints, which is that God infallibly ensures that the predetermined elect are
saved. And this is all because Calvinism and the predestinarian view of even Augustine
places soteriology before Christology. If you look at Paul's Epistles and Ephesians, for
example, the letter is not written to the fixed number of the elect.
The letter is written to a visible church in Ephesus who has apostolic succession.
So that fact alone really undercuts this entire model in paradigm. Do you think
in this is really matters whether or not like Christ has made it so that
they'll persevere, Like, don't you think the fact that God would have foreign
knowledge of their actions that they do to earn salvation. That by default,
it's almost like they are predestined to live in a certain way that will lead
them to salvation. No, because God is not the direct cause of all
events. I say, I guess I struggle with does God have to be
the direct cause of all events? Well, if he made them that way
so that they would become saved and persevere, then yes he has to be.
That's why Calvinism typically ends up saying that the divine decree is the real
basis for salvation in the divine In the divine decree doctrine, it would mean
that God is the direct immediate cause of all events and there's not proximate in
secondary causes. Well, you would agree that God obviously made us the way
that we are in general, So like, how would you explain how people
reach salvation then, because like couldn't you just say, like, well,
God made someone in a certain way where it's like they do enough repentance and
they do the proper things to be saved. Anyway, Again, it hinges
on the doctrine of anthropology that we have, where there's a distinction between nature
and person. So human nature is not determined. It has its own proper
willing and energy that never goes away. Even after the fall. Human nature
retains its will and energy, and we know this from Christology because Christ assumes
our nature and heals it. So at no point does divine grace supplant,
destroy, or replace the human will and energy. So the paradigm of Christology
is the same as the paradigm of steriology. So another thing too with that
is I believe that you could come to the conclusion of perseverance of the saints,
or like perseverance of the believer without necessarily having to completely forego free will.
I don't know if. I mean, yeah, I understand that all
Calvinists verbally free will, but they don't consistently confirm and affirm the idea that
human beings are their own causal agents. So that's the problem here, and
the way that we can nail that down really quick is to talk about Christology,
because both Augustine and Calvin are inconsistent on their Christology. And I can
ask you the same questions as well. I mean, do you think Jesus
was predestined? No? Because he's always existed? Wow? No? No,
no, predestined to when he becomes incarnate. Is that is he a
predestined man? It's a term that Augustine uses. I would say, no,
why is he not a predestined man? If you're a Calvinist or an
Augustinian. Well, I don't consider myself a Calvinist or Augustinian, so I
don't really know like what their response would be. Okay, well, I
thought you were arguing the Calvinist positions. I'm misunderstood again. So maybe you
don't understand what secondary causes are. Do you know what that means? So
explain that to me. Yeah, so primary cause God, Like, are
you familiar with Islam and all? A little bit right? So Sunni Muslims,
for example, like, they have this idea that there's no created causal
agents in the world. And the reason that you can't say that, they
think, is because it would detract from God's sovereignty if there were other beings
that could be causal agents. And so this becomes the term. The term
is called occasionalism. And this is the idea, This is the idea that
at every second, every nanosecond, God is destroying and recreating the world.
Now, some Calvinists also adopted this position, like Jonathan Edwards because they thought
it was more consistent with the idea of God's determining decree. So if we
say that there are secondary causes, that means that agents that God creates in
the world have a real ability to be their own causal determinants. So God
is not the direct determining cause of all those events. So if that's all
right, if that's admitted, that would preclude what you're arguing about foreknowledge entailing
perseverance of the saints. I would agree with that. I would agree with
that. I think that obviously. I think that you can reach something like
an idea that someone will persevere to the end without the fact that God knows.
That does not make God the cause of every one of those then doesn't
entail perseverance. Why are you laughing? I'm not laughing. I'm like breathing.
If God knows that something is going to happen, then I'm not saying
that he necessarily for ordained it, but just the someone right right, Yeah,
I see, I think you can come to that conclusion without calvinism.
Like, for example, I think I forget what verse it is, but
it's talking about the characteristics of Yeah. But again, so God foreknowing the
events of Paul persevering to the end does not mean that God is the direct
immediate cause of every action in Paul's life. Oh yeah, I completely agree,
because maybe you're misunderstanding then what we mean by participating in grace, because
there's a lot of people in the New Testament, for example, in Hebrew
six who are said to be washed with the with the baptism, they partake
of the heavenly gift and they fall away. Jesus talks about seeds that fall
on stones, they spring up to new life, and they wither away and
die. So those are people who really experience grace and do not persevere until
the end. Yeah, for sure. And I would say this like I
think you can come to that conclusion from like a free will perspective. Like
when it's talking about faith, one of the things that it says is that
it involves love and love always perseveres. So like I believe that if someone
truly loves God, and it is the biblical definition of love, that that
love and faith in God will always persevere if it is truly loved. Well,
I mean this is just redefining terms to make uh, you know,
once they'd always say be the case, I mean the texture. Okay,
well that's the position, and then you just admitted it wrong. Well for
sure, I mean I argue that per experience of the scenes could be can
be derived from something other than like a very like five point Calvinism type view,
Like I think you could have that view and not be a Calvinist,
like for example, like mullanis believe in that for example. Yeah, but
again, like what what does any of this have to do with like Christology
or the arguments that you know, Like so if you if you're redefining truly
loving God to just mean I mean, at that point, then it's just
you're still not escaping the issue because don't you think most of those people who
fell away, for example in the texts that are mentioned, don't you think
if you'd them before they fell away, do you truly love God? They
probably would have said yeah, and and like you know, maybe maybe they
even believed it right, And I would say my argument is they might have
like loved God, but I don't think that they loved God enough like you
need to truly love someone like for example, like if you're in a relationship
with your wife and I say to you like, you know, you love
your wife. But if I say, like, I'm not trying to understand,
I'm not trying to be rude. But if you're just redefining all the
terms to fit your position, then then what is the position? Well,
what terms would you say that I've redefined? I mean, you just said
that, now, what it means to persevere is to quote truly love God.
So it sounds like just a way to Oh yeah, let me explain
that. I'm sorry if I wasn't super explicit there. So what I mean
to say is I believe you're justified by faith. And so I was describing
the characteristics of what faith is because faith, salvation and involved in faith is
more than just knowledge about God. You have to trust and believe and love
God. And the definition of love is that love always perseveres. So if
you attach that to what it means to be a truth again, so you're
redefining all of the terms to make your position work, because that's not what
these terms mean in the New Testament or in Patristic theology. So you have
a presupposition about what perseverance of the saints means. And once they'd always saved
and any objection that I bring up, that everything is redefined to make that
view still work. And the point is that where are you getting these ideas
about what that truly means? It sounds like this is just your position.
So I think there's several verses in the Bible you could pull up that describe
what faith is. I mean, wouldn't you agree faith? No? No,
no, no? About the fact that when I bring up text that
talk about really apostatizing, you redefine that to mean that, yeah, and
that just means that they didn't true love God? Well, how else could
you explain it? Because how could they have finished by what I said?
How else? What? How could they be? How could they have been
a true believer if they walked away? By everything that I've been arguing to
you, it says that they taste of the heavenly gift. It says that
new life sprang up in them, and that withered away and died. Right,
And you're saying that it doesn't mean that it means that they never were
really alive. Is essentially what you're saying. I'm saying that you could receive
gifts and not experience. It doesn't say just received gift It says received new
life and they died. It says that they apostatize from the Covenant they tasted
of the heavenly gift. So I guess the point would be, if you
taste of the heavenly gift, you have new life. The question is can
you give that up? Can you have new life? Obviously, because that's
what the passages are saying, right, So I guess I would struggle with
the verses that says love always perseveres because then you run into roadblocks like that,
or the fact that certain people. It's not a roadblock because if you
truly love God, you won't fall away, meaning that you will continue to
work out your salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul says, correct,
and none of that is once saved, always saved, or is the perseverance
of the saints and August. None of that is that. Oh yeah,
And I think that you can well leave in that idea without being haughty and
saying like, oh, I'm persevered, so therefore I don't have to live
in fear and try. But if you're admitting, oh yeah, then that's
not the position that you took a minute ago. Well, I never said
that I apply on. So this is not going anywhere, all right,
Ethan Bracken, what's up? So people who want to debate the topics listed
today can come into the chat. Of course, you can lose love exactly.
Go ahead, Ethan. All right. So it's a lot of linguistic
misunderstandings. It seems like as a recurring pattern. Do you want to come
back, Scott, I'm not trying to be mean to you. I'm not.
I'm trying to be patient. I'm trying to lose my patience. You
can come back, make a point. Go ahead, Scott, go ahead.
I made you a speaker. You can come back if you want or
not. Don't speak. Thank you guys for the super chats. Appreciate that.
Thomas Guzman is trying again with his microphone. What's up? Thomas?
Got it? I'm you man, Can you hear me now? Yep?
All right. I've noticed there's been a lot of movement with the whole neo
pagan crew over on x uh huh. Now. I'm an Orthodox Christian.
I've been Orthodox for three years now. I've repented of this, but I
had been involved in the occult, deeply involved in the occult for years in
neopagan circles. I was a theosophist, like the real deal. And one
thing that I consistently noticed with neopagan's boots when I was involved in this highly
sinful lifestyle and now is there's like really a totally complete lack of anythingology basically.
Sure, So like as an example, you know, usually Neopaganism,
like if you look at some of the classic works of let's say Wika,
so like the Witch's Bible or anything by Scott Cunningham like today, because they
basically set up a theology which is Hindu light. Right, if you go
to a neopagan circle and you want to talk about pagan theology, it'll immediately
just stop and someone will say, well, I don't agree with that.
So like literally there's there's no real theological basis within the cultural paganism. What
it kind of reminds me of is, you know fandom, Like if you
go to a convention like a Star Wars convention, like you're just part You're
just part of the community. That's basically what neopaganism is. Like real.
I did a video from Florida in twenty eighteen making this very critique. So
yeah, I agree. Yeah. Now, within neopaganism, it's usually a
lefty movement and they now they police themselves really hard there quote unquote right wing
neopagans like the ascid true neopagans. But like what these people failed to realize
is like the Vikings, like they weren't Nazis, you know, like and
they didn't attack Christians or monasteries because they were doing it for Odin. They
were just doing it to steal stuff. That's why that's a great point.
By the way, they they were released the especially the right, the right
wing as you called it, neo pagans were released in attacking me all week.
And one thing that they're all part of, Rabbi Adam Green is I
call them. But what's really interesting they have very thorough modern ideas that are
not paid like biological determinism, Darwinian kind of. So I just I wanted
to comment on that because it's actually true. Yeah, well what we find
out is it really is. Yeah, it's just another way to be an
atheist with different costumes. So remember remember we are on YouTube as well,
so we're going to keep it to you know, let's not get too sassy
with what we talked about Did you have any other issues you wanted to get
to Thomas before we move on. Yeah. One thing I want to say
about right wing Neopagans or a lot of neo Pagans in general, is I
I view them as nonpracticing atheists. That's how I yeh, that's exactly right.
Yeah, absolutely, it's got the same spirits. They've got the same
arguments. Yeah, spot on, yep, yeah, yeah. And I'm
not trying to be rude or know it all or like, but if you
go watch my twenty eighteen video critiquing paganism where I'm wearing a wig and I
have a sword and I'm singing pagan songs, the original one, not the
skid I did a year ago. Yeah, I was. I was making
that same critique now. The reason for that is that I was arguing with
an act interacting with the Pagans even back then at that time. And no,
those arguments are never going to change or get any more sophisticated. Yaru,
what's up? Yeah, there is no like pagan tradition to go join.
And you know, remember the Boglord Debate Dave debate, Right, we
did the Boglord Dave Debate back in twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, and what
we noticed from that debate was it's just sort of atheist arguments relativism, subjectivism,
and materialism, but maybe a little bit of mythology, you know,
basically the same type of mythological view of Jordan Peterson. Basically, so yeah,
there's there's no there there so to speak, Yaru was up, Hey
he yep, So I think I have a problem with tag. I'm wondering
how exactly God could play a justifictory role to epistemic norms because I thought the
only thing that played just victory rules were epistemic standards norms. Yeah, but
this is talking about the preconditions themselves. How are they justified or how are
they made coherent? So raise the bar to one higher level of meta justification.
And that's why it's God, because it's not just any old God,
but specifically the metaphysics of Christianity and the epistemology that Christianity offers is that is
the justification. So why exactly is God a preconditioned for logic because all of
the transcendental categories have to in the words of for example, Thomas or excuse
me, doctor ed faser. They have to be housed or interrelated in some
way or in some place. And so that's the function that the divine mind
place for us, which is to string all of this, all these golden
string the pearls together, so to speak, on a single string. Does
that make sense? Words? In other words, the categories don't like function
on their own as independent, discrete things. So universals ties into logic,
logic ties into ethics and metaphysics, you know, all these things kind of
hanging together as a specific type of worldview. And the only worldview that has
the solution to those problems is the Christian paradigm. Yeah, why can't it
be just the good? What? There's no account for just what the good
is? So to say that it's something that's sort of impersonal or abstracted like
that doesn't work because you need to excuse me intentionality. In other words,
for example, to have te lose or to have a universe that's purposive,
you need an intentional being. So it can't just be some abstracted platonic idea
like the good. Uh? Why does it need to be intentional to have
purposiveness and to have telos? Uh? And think about it this way.
If it's non intentional, it's accidental, in which pays everything is distantly love
yes, and everything is meaningless. It's an oxymoron. The the accidental laws
of logic, the accidental laws of physics, accidental meaning. So in a
world like that, there are no argumentes, there's no meaning, there's no
semantics or anything like that, because it ultimately is accidental. That's why,
by impossibility the contrary, it has to be purposeful and intentional. Okay,
yeah, I think that's good. I might want to go back because I
think the skeptic could maybe say something earlier. They might want to say that,
Oh no, all these things like logic, the soul, objective,
morality, or whatnot, those things are actually all disjointed and they all just
exist on their own. But notice what he's saying. He's making a statement
about Yeah, in a world in which statements are impossible, Yeah, So
how are statements possible in his worldview? How are statements possible? Yeah,
sentences are only possible in a certain type of world, namely the world that
we are arguing for. So when he makes sentences, he's using preconditions and
categories that don't make sense in his worldview, and so he's unjustified in using
them. So he can't even argue or make sentences. So yeah, that
might be right. What does he just say something like, oh, a
monkey is able to communicate to other monkeys in the same way that we are
again saying, he's making statements about a monkey in which statements are not possible.
So okay, he can't even get off the ground. Yeah, that's
so's right, all right, appreciate it. Yeah, good questions, Yeah,
really good questions. Let's see, so we're giving precedents today to people
who disagree. Uh, let's see Pakistani Psycho. That's an awesome selling name.
We gotta go to that guy. Thank you, guys for the support.
Our support the show via super chats. You can call in via the
Twitter link that is linked in the show description and in the chat it's the
excell link that you see there. Everybody always asking the link that we share
and tell you about literally one hundred times throughout the chat. Uh. And
then you can also support the stream via stream Labs super chats, and that
is this link right here. Did you want to talk, dude? I
don't understand that people request to speak and then they sit there silent for they
won't talk. I don't know. Open eye Institution. What's up, dude,
shout out to the chat what's up you guys? Thanks to the mods
keeping it real. What's up, Paul, what's up? Bell sprout?
What's up? Greedy? Speedy? Go ahead? Yeah, Well, you
gotta understand, religion is made by civilization that thinks they could set all the
rules that they are the authority of God. But the original, uh the
name of God was these aliens coming down on spaceships and we called them the
gods. Okay, uh, but did you read did you watch that on
the History Channel? Been watching the History Cheneral? I'm the one that sees
I'm a psycho. I'm a scientist and stuff, and I do field research
out there in the field. But what what's what's what field of science do
you study? Uh? In physical dimensions, arabology, Arabology. Yeah,
I'm the number one scientist of the paranormal thing. It's kind of like I
believe, you know, because of the scientists of Yeah, I mean,
this guy studies you guys, so he's trumped you. Yeah. Well,
let me explain to you, uh, the profits and the gurus that fly
y'all flying so high, right, but then you find out you're flying so
low because I'm seeing y'all flying really low and y'all wreckon into the mountains and
telephone poles and ship like that. That's wild. Dog, Hey, listen,
I appreciate it. You're you're the number one paramental paranormal scien man on
the Internet. So I will concede that you win the debate. I concede
to you. Dog. Let's see Houston, who hoo? What's up?
Who hoot? Number one science man on the in, and that I started
the shack ofsphere like like Rush Cole, I'm you, bro, Houston,
Houston, we have lyftoff. Where you at? Bro? Where you at?
Dog? He's trying to connect. He gotta he's got a kind of
a a little bit of a borrow look going on to him. You know
what I'm saying. He got a little bit of a barrow face, Houston.
Where you at, Dude, try coming out and coming back in because
you're not You're not gonna man, Just try coming out and come back in.
You gotta eat borrow a face. I'm ready to bring you on,
man, punk giver, Punk giver, mhm, I said, oops,
up side your head. I said, oops, upside your head. I
said oops up side your head. I said, oop upside your head?
Unmute? Man picking buglers? I put a bugger on the basketball and I
passed it to him. Tristan didn't even know who biz Marky was. Can
you believe Tristan didn't know who biz Marky was. I'm like, what,
that's awful? How do you not know? Oh? Baby, you you
got what I need? Will you say? You just a friend? Anyway?
Uh? Biz Marky has the song picking burgers that was on the first
tape I ever bought as a kid, had biz Marky picking burgers on it.
You gotta unmute, dude, punk unmute. Hey, how's it going,
Jay? Can you hear me? Yes? Sir? Hey, Well,
I've got one question. I'm a feist and I've got a question in
regards to Quran. I watch a lot of politic debates, poetic debates,
and I found one argument by myself. I've never seen it anyone anywhere else,
and I would like you to rate it and check its validating. What
do you think? Can I go for? Well? Hey? I mean
sure, I mean I'm not an expert in Islam. So you know,
for example, you know Rid Vaughan, he found that really good argument against
Daniel Hikikachu about the name Yahweh. So yeah, it's it's always possible to
find a new argument, all right, all right, so let me try.
Okay, I'm going to talk about a Sura eighteen, which is the
sura so called Cave. Yeah. It talks about a narrative where Jews from
Medina try to understand know whether the Muhammad is really a prophet, right,
so they instruct some people from the Courage tribe asking three questions. The first
question was about a group of young men of ancient times with an extraordinary story.
By the way, I'm reading a commentary from the study Quran, page
seven. The second question was about a man who had journeyed until he reached
the east and west of the earth, who was supposedly to be so called
dull Kornaine yeah meaning two horned one in Arabic translated. And the third one
was about the spirit. Well the question in regards to the first question,
they're known in Christianity as the sleepers of the Cave, supposed supposedly venerated saints
who slept Yeah, I brought this up in the debate with Daniel gets you
because it's in the It's in the Gabriel sied Reynolds book. Yeah, yeah,
yeah, that's it. Well, well, it was a trick question,
right, Jews do not believe this at all. It was a question
whether they wanted to know whether they Mohammad aligns more with Christian narratives or their
narratives. And they asked him this trick question. Okay, that's the first
one. The Jews couldn't accept this answer because Mohammad basically affirmed those sleepers.
Right. The second question, which is more interesting, is about du Cornane.
As I said, it means literally two horned one right. And my
assumption, the first assumption is when Jews asked this question. When Jews asked
this question, they they must have known about this tol Karnane, right,
that's my assumption. Well, which which versus this? I'm gonna tell you
right now, give me a sec surah or cough eighteen eighty three, Qurana
eighteen eighty three, straw eighteen verse eighty three, right, go ahead.
So they asked him about this dull cour name, Well, no one know
that name is in the battle, right, Oh is there? Well,
let's step out of this question for a second and let's ask ourselves. Right,
if you were a prophet of God or God himself, for example,
and a Christian wanted to know, you would ask him who would you wanted
to know about? Right? Who wouldn't average Christian wanted to know about more
more than he already knows. Let's say Jesus, I mean exactly, Yeah,
who wouldn't average Muslim wanted to know about Muhammad? Yes? And Jews,
as my assumption goes, wanted to know about Moses. Well, yeah,
that's it. Well, the thing is sorry about that. The thing
is that there were Latin and Hebrew manuscript Latin translation of Hebrew manuscript that had
a copist error found in Exodus thirty four, twenty nine to thirty five,
where Moses steps down out of the Mount Sinai, right, the horns and
the yeah yeah, yeah, exactly, and the original Hebrew words in exibus
U described the radiance as you said, as horns. But it was a
translation error, right, right, So from that point onward, a lot
of Roman Catholic art and like with Mickeylang exactly exactly. And then Muhammad basically
proceeded with some bogus story about dolkor Nain when the Jews wanted to know about
Moses from the start. And that's basically it. That's basically I've never really
heard about no Christian apology to talk about this, and I wanted to know
what do you think about this argument overall? So you're arguing that the Koran
is therefore not very perceptive because if it was from God, they would have
known that this was a mistranslation. So exactly the Muhammad and and Allah would
know what she was mean by that b karmng. But yeah, yeah,
that's it. That's basically yeah. I think that's a good point. It
fits very well with uh. I think Gabriel side Reynolds in his book he
lists about ten discrepancies like this. I don't remember him mentioning this one.
So yeah, I think that would be a good one to throw into the
the pile there. But there's quite a few. There's quite a few of
these, you know, weird versions of things in the Quran that that make
no sense in terms of the Biblical story, or they've mixed up the details,
or they've got it reversed, or it contradicts so yeah, thank you,
thank you for this review. Absolutely, yeah, I'm trying to think
of how how Muslims would Uh, They're probably just gonna say, you know,
Moses really, what this whatever really is a two horned person or something?
Who knows. They'll just say, oh, the Bible is full of
errors. So they roll out the Bibles full of errors, until you know,
they realize that giant portions of their religion are built on the Bible,
right, and then their religion says also that the Bible didn't have errors.
So storage file. Yeah, I'm mute, hell sir, what's on your
mind? Oh? Just uh, just wondering about you know, like this
the sacrifice or the horns or whatever. Did you al say that Moses had
to warns no horns? Who had horns? Or what? The Quran is
using the mistranslated text that thinks that Moses had horns is the mistranslation of a
word, So the Qoran wasn't aware of a mistranslation. It's similar to the
argument I make about the papacy. How come the papacy didn't know about the
forgeries that they based themselves on. I would think that if they were a
divinely guided institution, they would have been able to know and spot forgeries,
but no they didn't. So I'm just interested in the like, yeah,
like the Orthodox Church, and like how like you know the cop Into like
the Coptic Church, and how like the Coptic people. How the was it
Marked that went and founded the Coptic Church. Uh, well, Saint Mark
went to Alexandria. But what's nowadays called Coptic, we would say is a
schismatic church. And that's like Middle like they use like a Rabi, they
use like a rape or like something like that. Well eventually they use Coptic,
but Greek and then now Coptic. But thank you for those questions.
Are going to move on to people who disagree. So remember today's discussion is
primarily if you take issue with my approach or arguments for God's existence, Protestantism,
Roman Catholicism, the papacy, Vatican one, Church history, Vatican two,
Islam, et cetera. It is open forums, so feel free to
come on hop on. But if you agree today is not for you,
guys, you're welcome to hop on and ask questions later on another stream or
via the discord or whatever. People can ask questions to people in the discord.
I'm not usually in the discord, but sometimes there's people. Sometimes I'm
in there maybe once every few months. Thomas, I was gonna go back,
Tyrone Baggins, what's up, Tyrone? Does anybody have any arguments or
disagreements today? Is we're giving preference to people who disagree Tyrone. I see
that one guy left and never came back Houston. He probably got his feelings
hurt because I was making a joke. I'm just saying, you have you
kind of look like a bar. I'm not saying I'm not being meaned,
you man, It's just people can't even lose their mind if you make a
joke. Aiden, what's up? Aiden? Alexander's Oldeniessen sends five dollars and
he said, what do you think about Nicola Tesla? I think he's pretty
cool. He definitely had some insights. I think he went from Orthodox though,
and kind of got into theosophy or theosophic type ideas. So I know
that the Serbian priest read a book about him. I've heard of this,
but I've also heard that later on in life he kind of went into theosophy.
But it seems like a very cool science esoteric science, metaphysic metaphysics.
Man Aiden, what's up? Dog? You gott im? Mute? Man
Aiden? Do you want to talk? You came on? It? Just
unmute dude, Cody, what's up? Cody's coming on? Cody's the next
up. So remember, guys, if you try to come on and it
has an issue connecting, maybe weird cell connection or whatever, just come out
and come back in is the way to do that. And then hit request
to speak again. So it looks like Cody's having a hard time connecting,
and go ahead on mute Cody. Hey, hey, good to talk to
you, sir. What's on your moum? Yeah? I was just interested.
I read. You know, I'm a Bible believing Christian and I believe
the Bible was tampered with, like apparently like there was different books in the
Bible, like the Book of Enoch, which was taken out of the Bible.
But it was in the Bible for over five hundred years and it was
taken out. It's quoting in Jude chapter of Revelation. Say it was in
certain can you mute when it was in certain churches in their copies? But
yes, there's not one Bible until about the further or sixth century, probably
not anymore. Yeah, no, I'm saying that there is. You said
that it was taken out of the Bible. It wasn't taken out of the
Bible. Well, I believe like in the Council of I see it in
the Catholic Church take certain books out of the Bible. No, they did
not, and I see it to not determine the book of the Bible.
Well do you know who did? Yeah, it's the Council of Tlo,
which is many centuries later, and that's affirmed of the sixth and seven dicumentical
councils. Do you uh, do you believe like the Book of Enoch was
ever in the Bible? It was in certain traditions. Sorry, man,
it's there's too much feedback. We gotta we gotta go, so punished something.
What's up, dude? And then they drop off interesting. Joseph al
Kouri, Joseph Alchemy, what's up, Joseph? I'm mute. Uh,
Joseph, do you want to talk? Yes? Yes, hi, j
yes, sir, yes, Joseph Kouri. That's it's an Arabic name.
It's I was making a joke, right, So obviously AlCH is not alchemy.
It was a joke. No, that's that's fine. I jointed late.
I'm not sure whether my question is going to be irrelevant. I'm wondering
about the Daniel seven where where you have you can say, let's say,
is speaking broadly as as it you have two divine hypostases. You have someone
called it the what about it? Yes, and the Son of Man.
I'm wondering, uh I, I agree with the with your approach that all
the divine manifestations of the Old Testament are that of the pre incarrent hypostasis of
the Sun and the Stune here is manifesting himself, and usually broadly speaking,
it's because im correctly, if I'm wrong, is it that because the Father
will not manifest himself and only the Son takes that kind of role. And
if that is the case, is there going to be some sort of tension
with Daniel seven if we take that approach as somehow axiomatic, because you have
Ancient of days and the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of days and standing
before him. Yeah. So this is why in the Orthodox iconography of this
event, the image of Christ looks like an old Christ and that's because in
Ezekiel one in ten and in Revelation one and two, the description of Christ
is having white hair and a radiant appearance, same as the Ancient of Days.
So what that means is that, as Jesus says, is the only
image and icon of the Father is the Son. So there's two hypostasies there,
but we don't have an image of the hypostasis of the Father because he
has no image other than the Son. So that's why the icronography of the
Ancient of Days pictures him that way. Okay, So in this case,
the figure of son of Man is gonna be a What is the identity of
that figure in this case Jesus. It's the ascension. Jesus is ascending,
and this is called the session where he comes to the throne of God and
is given authority over every tribe, tongue in nation. It's what's described in
the Book of Revelation when he comes before I mean, it's the same description
in the Book of Revelation as well after the ascension. So it's it's the
son of Man. Who else would be the son of Man? So in
this case, in Dan seven, both hypostats belonged to the hypoesis of the
Son. Now there's no image of the Father there. It's the Father speaking,
just like when the Father speaks, this is my beloved son. There's
no image of the hypostasis. An old man didn't appear to baptize Jesus.
A voice is heard, right, and so that in our theology, just
like we never see the hypostasi as the Holy Spirit, we see an energetic
manifestation proper to that person. So there's an energetic manifestation of the Father granting
to the Son all authority, power and dominion. There's an energetic manifestation of
the Holy Spirit as a dove and as tongues of fire. But those are
not the persons of the Holy Spirit or the Father, because we never have
a direct hypostatic image of either of those persons or energetic manifestations of them,
just like the voice. So there's two hypostases present. Doesn't mean there's an
image or a visible form of the Father m So it's it's more of an
as it's a physical description, but in essence it's more of an audible manifestation.
Is that's like a more of a that's what we see in the baptism
of Christ. Right, nobody sees an old man in the sky, right,
they hear a voice. Right. And you notice Jesus says there was
no No one has seen the Father at any time. Right. And when
Moses talks about Mount Sinai, he says, you saw in a form,
but you heard the voice. Jesus is the visible manifestation. He is the
voice. Yes, my, my, my, My thinking is when we
take that back in the Old Testament, the figure of the insane of this
in this case the physical description is therefore is it going to be for literary
purposes, But the essence of the manifestation is more of an audible and tandem
with the with the scene of the transfiguration and the baptism in this case,
let me let me pull it up here. Yeah, so again like,
let me find an image of you have to we have to find a Yeah,
hopefully that's not like a weird heterodox So the way that's describing the ancient
of days here, right, his hair was a garment white of snow,
right, fiery flame of fire. Right. That image is the way that
Christ is described in Revelation one and two, and also and also in Ezekiel
uh. And that's depicting the hypostasis of the son as the icon of the
Father. Right, it's not it's it's the Father in verses nine and ten,
right, giving the dominion and the power to the son of Man right
when he ascends. But in our theology, the only image of the ancient
of days is the son of Man. Does that make sense? I understand
which which you're saying. But but in this case, by the way,
bro, I'm an orphoist like you. But this this text is one of
the one of the one of the texts that that's still in a sense I'm
I'm still trying to innocence, come up, come with terms with it,
because because when when I read the text, it seems that you have uh.
Like as as we both agree, there's two divine manifestations, two divine
figures. But in this case, yeah, but that first, that first
divine figure is the image of Christ. So it's not to Christ. It's
the Father as the image of Christ speaking to the son of man Christ.
Does that make sense? It's not two persons, it's not to Jesus.
Is it's the only legitimate image of Jesus. It's a it's a in other
words, it's what you said originally, Yes, it's it's a figurative description
outside of time and space. That is, the person of the Father as
the image of the Son speaking to one like the Son of Man Christ.
Does that make sense? Oh so yeah, yeah, so so the okay,
it's not too Jesus is it's the Ancient of Days, the Father,
but he's only accurately described through the imagery of the Son, right, Okay,
I need, I need, I need to think more about what you
say. So this is if you want the explanation of this. The Icon
Council, the Moscow Icon Council, deals with this issue and it's a it's
called the Ancient of Days dispute. There's a big dispute at the council over
who the Ancient of Days is right. And there were some people who said,
well, the Ancient of Days has to be Jesus and the Son of
Man somebody else. But then the passage where it says one like the Son
of Man comes to the Ancient of Days and is given dominion. That's mirrored
in the Book of Revelation, where it's clearly Christ being given dominion over all
the tribe songs and nations. So the the identity of the Ancient of Days
is the Father. And I think Saint Nicodemus or somebody points this out and
notes that it's it's the only accurate descriptions of the Father are the images of
the Son. But that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that it's not the Father
in the first description. Does that make sense? It's the Father? So
okay, I'm black, I'm confused again. So the Ancient of Days in
Dan sivin, if we take say the try to come with, it's the
Father. So verse nine and ten is the Father. Okay, Now that
same listen, the descriptions of the Father in that passage are all descriptors elsewhere
in the Bible and Ezekiel and Revelation that are referencing the Son. Okay.
So what that means is not that there's two Jesuses. It means that the
description of Ancient of Days has similar deified transfigured imagery of Jesus, because Jesus
is the only icon of the Father in this case, the Son of Man
is going to be like the prophetic vision about the incarnation in this case that
it's the ascension, the ascension the Okay. So listen. In the Book
of Revelation. Revelation is describing after Jesus has ascended and he's in heaven incarnate.
Yes, yeah, that's the Son of Man, and it says that
he is given dominion over all tribes on nations. That's the very thing that
Daniel seven is describing. Okay. So Daniel seven verses thirteen and fourteen,
I behold one like the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven,
and he came to the Ancient of Days. He brought him and was
given to him glory, dominion, and a kingdom. His king will not
pass away. This is the same text in the Book of Revelation describing Jesus's
ascension. Hmm, okay, gotcha. So it's Jesus coming to the Ancient
of days, the Father in heaven after his ascension. But the imagery of
the Father is only going to use Christic imagery because there's no other legitimate icon
of the Father but the son. So it's not too Jesus'. It's the
Father with Christic imagery and symbolism, presenting and granting the kingdom to the son.
It's not to Jesus'. It's just using symbols and imagery that John and
Ezekiel see about the resurrect the glorified Christ. Does that make sense or not?
You're still confused? Yeah? Yeah, partially, I would say to
be to be in complete transparency with you. What what's confused? Well,
hold on, let's slow down. What's confusing? Yeah, because I'm still
if if and I agree with you the the descriptions that we have in the
issue of the Ancient of Days and down seven are applied in the New Testament
of on Jesus. But but I'm still if if so, as you said
in down seven versus the verse nine, when when the first appearance it's the
father Daniel nine, Daniel seven nine is the father, Yes, that's that's
that's the father. And when when when the son of Man is presented before
the issue of Days, that's that's gonna be. That's that's a reference to
the ascension of Jesus Christ to the to the highest seven. Yeah, because
it's in the when he's so so. But but but my, my,
my, in my mind, and still in this case, I still have
to listen the symbol and imagery of Jesus as the white hair glorified being that's
applied to the Father does not mean there's too Jesuses. No, I agree
with you, like I'm ruling this out. I'm ruling the two Jesus is
uh, let's say, right, so what so what's unclear? My my,
my, my, my? My issue is still if in verse nine
we have the engine of days and in this case the angine of days here
strictly with verse nine, is that a reference not physically the physical description,
but the figure himself is a reference to the hyposis of the Father. And
directly through the image of the Sun. Is that is that? Yes?
And yeah? Correct? And indirectly there is There is a good way to
put it, because sometimes in the nuances of the icon dispute, the question
arises, well, if it's not the person of the Father, what's being
signified, what's being signified as the idea of the Father, or it's the
energetic manifestation that points to the Father. So there's never a direct incarnation or
manifestation of the person of the Father or of the person the Holy Spirit,
then what is it? It's the energetic manifestation proper to the person of the
Father. Now I know the energies signify nature, but they come and they
appear hypostatically, in hypostatic, so in the mode of the persons that have
them. So it's the person of the Father manifesting the energy is proper to
him to signify him, to point to him. But it's not his hypostasis
that's being incarnated or imaged here. It's indirect, as you said, it's
a good way to put it. So that's why he uses the imagery of
the Son to point to the Father. That's why Jesus says, if you've
seen me, you've seen the Father. No man has seen the Father at
any time. Jesus says, yeah, yeah, yeah, thanks for that,
appreciate it. So there's not two ancient of days. There's not two,
Jesus says. There's one ancient of days here that is the Father,
as Saint Nicodemus says. But the imagery that's used to signify and point out
the idea of the Father is imagery that is appropriate to the glorified Christ.
Because in Ezekiel one and Ezekiel ten, the form of God and the glory
of God that appears is one like the son of Man and one that rides
the chariot. He is the image of the Father, the image of the
Invisible God. Yeah, yeah, and he said which council goes more into
details about this. You see the Moscow Icon Council goes super deep into this.
Read the Lasky Aspensky book, Volume two, Theology of the Icon Volume
two goes into great detail about just this. Questions counciliate that, Yeah,
those are really good questions. And I'm not trying to be a you know,
impatient with you. It's it's good. It's a it's good questions.
It's a little confusing. First, Houston is back. What's up, Houston.
Let's see try hitting a mute Matt Belcher says, five dollars. What's
the best argument for proudinance process about the second Commandment? Yeah? I link
the icon article, Matt Belcher, How do I call in? If you
guys want to call in, it's through the ex Twitter link there in the
chat in the show description, go ahead of Houston. What's up? Yes,
sir? Yeah, I can hear you. Man. What's up,
Dimitri? What's up? Demetros Heay? What's up? Yes, sir?
How's it going, Buddy good? What's on your mind? All right?
Phillyokuay? Ready So if we go to Ephesians two, and Ephesians two says
grayce and peace be onto you from the Father of our God and the son
Jesus Christ. Passages like this can be used to say, look the Holy
where the grays in peace is the Holy Spirit. People that are not on
the Orthodox side of the Philioka argument to point to this and say, you
know here it is. Now that being said, my ultimate question is has
this theological argument ultimately become irrelevant? And no, and this passage has nothing
to do with the philo. So well, here's the second thing that and
then I want to hear your thoughts. Okay, another argument will has been
made, like there was a misunderstanding at the Council of Florence, for example,
they would say the Orthodox were thinking about the structure of the god Head
as far as as Philly, sure, and the Catholics were thinking too.
As how it translates down to the man in the street, which this passage
could again be used to support that your thoughts okay, So what you're describing
is called economia. So the first confusion about if the Ephesian's passage is about
the economia, so nobody, nobody denies Orthodox or Roman Catholic that Jesus sends
the Spirit into time and space through being incarnate. Okay, clearly he says,
I will send you the Holy Spirit as the comforter he breathes on them.
The Spirit comes at Pentecost and so forth. The question is the hypostatic
origin of the person of the Holy Spirit, And the Council of Florence clearly
does designates that, citing the counts of Lions and citing Saint Augustine before him,
that them that there's a double eternal personal procession from the Father and the
Son is from a single principle. So that's what the Orthodox disagree with,
because the only single principle in the Godhead is the person of the Father and
by extension, the single divine nature that he communicates. Gotcha. So that
way, you can't say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from this from the son,
because the hypostatus already exists in the son. Well, if the Father
generates a son whole and entire, then the Father must also aspirate the Spirit
whole and entire, because there's nothing there's no splitting, there's no parts,
so there's nothing that the son could contribute to the procession of the Spirit that
the Father doesn't do right, So it's whole and entire. There can't be
a composite procession here. So, and there's no principle of unity that two
persons share as a father son principle of the spirit that would then degrade the
divine nature that the Holy Spirit has. So there's no property of causation that
father and son have that the spirit lacks. Causation is precisely the hypocidic property
of the father. So now if you give the father's hypersached property to the
son, you have a father son, which is a diead as Saint Photia
says. All right, I'm gonna have to go dict this a little bit
more, but I appreciate it. Yeah, we have really we have a
three hour talk on the Phillyoak away from the Sashchensky book. Houston, you
want to try again? Hey, Hey, what's up? Hey? I
had a question about Orthodox theology. So I'm a Protestant from the My background
is the Church of Christ. If you're familiar with them, I am.
Yeah, So I'm coming out of the Church of Christ, and you know,
I've been listening to you for a while but okay, they are Credo
Baptist, you know, and so they you know, they don't baptize babies,
and but they also believe in baptismal regeneration, although they wouldn't they wouldn't
use that term. I don't think. So infant baptism makes sense to me,
and baptism or regeneration makes sense to me. But also with Orthodox teaching,
would you say it's accurate? My understanding is that infants are born without
the guilt of that. So my understanding was like for Catholics, I always
thought, well, they baptized babies because they want to get rid of original
sin. And so with Orthodox theology, you know, you don't have original
sin like Catholics do. So what's the reasoning for baptizing infants with an Orthodoxy?
Because infants have the effects of original sin, not the guilt of original
sin. So they still are deprived of grace. So the nature that they
have is good, but they're not lack They're lacking the uncreated grace and so
that's the status of all of us. So that's why we baptize, is
to bring them into the kingdom. It doesn't mean that they are guilty of
actual sins. This is why both Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology distinguishes what's called
original sin from actual sin. Actual sin sin strictly speaking, is only something
that you can commit as an individual choice by will. So there's no state
of sin, there's no state of guilt. It's an action of the will.
Even according to James, James says that the desires that we have themselves
are not sin. He says, but desire when it's given birth. Desire
when it's consentative, gives birth to sin. So when you go against God's
law is the sin. It's an action of will, it's not a state
of being. So Roman Catholic theology has over many centuries tempered its view,
tempered its Augustinianism, to where nowadays in the Roman Catholic Church you don't even
have to believe in infant limbo. You can discard it or believe it if
you want to. It's made optional via the Holy Office. A few years
ago when I think Rath Singer or somebody put out that document saying that you
don't have to believe in limbo. So that's the key thing is to just
distinguish original guilt from original sin. Most Roman Catholics agree with Orthodox on that
specific point, but I think that a lot of times Roman Catholics still think
of it in the terms of original guilt because they talk about it like it's
a stain. I mean, a stain is something has substantial existence, and
something that's a deprivation of grace is not a stain. So it's bad and
analogies that they use. Right, So the argument that you know, my
Church of Christ friends will use is infants do not commit sin. You know,
they're not guilty of sin, and therefore they don't need baptism, they
don't need to experience. Yeah, but baptism is not salvation, and baptism
are not just a situation like all Protestants think of. Yeah, changing your
status of legal status, right, Okay, that's the mistakes an ongoing process,
that's why. Yeah, well it's not just an ongoing process. It's
also regaining the Holy Spirit. So the ongoing process has as its goal the
attaining of the life of the Holy Spirit, uncreated life, and no Protestant
teaches that true. Yeah, well they'll say we teach the No, you
don't teach the Orthodox view of participating in uncreated grace. Almost every Protestant teaches
the form of creative grace. Yeah, what's uh, I'm not really looked
into the I've heard you talk about the you know, uncreated grace versus created
grace, and a lot of it's going over my head, I'll be honest.
So what what should I read to better understand that? Well, I
mean, as you get into Orthodox theology, you know, if you read,
uh, Lasky has a great book, it's the It's not a mystical
theology, it's the other one. I think it's a vision of God.
There's multiple chapters on grace being uncreated in that that are good. But uh,
you know, really it's just the the sentergy distinction. It's it's the
same they read the debate between Polla, Moss and Barley might dollog between Orthodox
and Barley Mighte because the whole debate, the debate shifts away from essence inergy
distinction into what do we participate in? So either we participate in another creature,
which is the Roman Catholic position still to this day, or we participate
in an uncreated reality distinct from God's essence, which means there has to be
an essenceniory distinction. So yeah, all right, yeah, good questions.
And uh, I was joking when I said that, I just saw a
little face with a beard, so you don't literally look like a barrow,
So don't take that personal. It's just being silly. Flame. Two.
What's up? By the way, a lot of people in the chat shout
out to you guys. We got up to nine hundred, almost one thousand,
and then of course every time I get every time I get close to
a thousand, it suddenly YouTube has an error that there's not enough data and
it drops down to seven hundred. But that's okay. If you guys want
to you hop on. The link to call in is in the show description
there. It's the ex link Twitter link you hop on when you request to
speak, you will be muted. Unmute yourself. Hello, Hey, what's
up? So I've quite I kind of learned a lot from our last conversation,
and I was thinking, like, what what was our last conversation?
Though it was a lot of morality and figuring out what the good was and
things like that, and what I was wondering is how can we truly figuring
out what's true? Because I thought about this for a long time, and
I thought that, like, we can't figure things out like what comes of
spirituality. We can't figure things out empirically because let's say somebody had a vision
and they saw an angel. Let's say they can't know if that was their
mind making it up or if it was a demon or whatever. So we'll
start with divine revelation. So what's the problem there? Well, okay,
with the Bible, how do you know it was from God? Well,
there's a lot of different ways that I might go about that. I could
take a philosophical approach and consider the transcendental argument and the type of theism that's
presented in the Bible, and what's unique about that theism. Or I could
look at say Messianic prophecies dozens of them in the Old Testament, and how
they're fulfilled as an attestation to divine inspiration. Those are some of the ways.
Yeah, but even in relation to prophecies, how do you know it
wasn't How do you know it wasn't some hyper dimensional beings or humans from the
future, Like, how do you know it was actually God? Hyperdimension Why
would hyperdimensional beings from the future teach that Christ is that they might I mean
I don't know. No, you're misunderstanding. So reading those prophecies gives you
specific dates about a certain type of religion and a certain type of Messiah,
a certain type of Jesus born point at this time, and the religion that
he founds as part of those prophecies. So, in other words, the
church is also included in the prophecies. So why would why would the church
teach the theology that I'm talking about if ultimately, secretly it was interdimensional being
there's no reason to believe in inter dimensional beings from that, There isn't,
But there's no way to prove that it was actually from God. Why wouldn't
the fulfilled prophecies be an attestation to the veracity of the Bible. Well,
because it's ultimately still guessing, isn't it. Why would it be guessing and
it would still be guesssing because you're still inferring from something. So, for
example, in your world view, don't you think it's impossible that aliens would
exist? Right, it's not logically impossible, But I've not seen any evidence
or the reason to believe in aliens. So if an alien appeared to you
and you're able to touch it, basically, like Thomas, you would believe
it exists. Are you equating Jesus's resurrection to aliens? Do you understand that
there's an entire thousands of pages of books describing the meaning of the arrival of
the Messiah has nothing to do with aliens soul? It would be absolutely nonsensical
to bring in aliens when you've got you know, if you thout two thousand
years of prophetic literature and revelation describing the specifics of the arrival of the Messiah
and then to say, well, maybe it's aliens, there's no there's no
reason to conclude aliens. Okay, but even in like relation to these prophecies.
So, I mean, just for one quick example, it'll be the
strongest example of these prophecies. Well, I mean there's just descriptions of when
and where Jesus would be born and what he would do in his lifetime,
like Genesis forty nine or Daniel nine, or Psalm one ten or Psalm twenty
three or Isaiah six through eleven. I mean, there's there's literally probably hundreds
of prophecies if you want to be specific about it. Well, the location
of Jesus' birth was, like I mean, it was talking about a tribe
Bethlehem, Afria. I don't even I don't think you're even familiar with any
of these prophecies of the Bible at all. So how are you compliment How
are you qualified to speak on what it's talking about. It wasn't best time.
A tribe would not be bethlehemmer is not a tribe. Do you know
anything about what you're critiquing? I mean, if you want to make a
critique, you should know about it. Have you read the Bible? Yeah?
Really? Yeah, you've read the Bible and you think Bethlehem is a
tribe. Well, Bethlehem Ashrata is mentioned in the Old Testament. I believe
that was was it one of the tribes of true though? I believe Bethlehem
is not a tribe. So you don't know what you're talking about. You're
not familiar with any Messianic prophecies even though you read the Bible, I don't
familiar. It was okay, like what name one? Well, it was
said that the Messiah would common save the world like us. Yeah, so
you're not exactly. So again, people that come on and they don't they're
not familiar with this stuff, but claim that they are claim that they know
this stuff. So again, if you if you don't want to go the
route of knowing or looking at biblical prophecies, then I would say the transcendental
argument for God would be the next philosophy. If you want to go into
the domain of skepticism, which is what it sounded like. Yeah, okay,
then let's talk about the transcendental argument and refuting skepticism philosophically. Layman,
what's that? Laymen? So I don't know anything about the Bible, but
I'm gonna I'm gonna say, well, maybe it's aliens. Okay, but
if you had read the Bible, there would be, you know, no
reason to think that it's sitting to do with aliens. What's up? Man?
Call me from Pakistani toilets? What's up? Dude? Are you on
a child's playphone? Like? What are you calling me? On? I
can't hear anything you're saying. I can literally can't hear anything. Let's see,
Bob. What's up, Bob? Yeah, elon. That's why I
always tell people to unmute at the beginning. You're supposed to know to unmute.
Okay, So Bob can't connect? Come out and come back in when
when it does this, I don't know why it does this. So if
you can't connect, come out and come back in. Fresh tap? What's
up? Fresh tap? Guys, guys want to remind you too to head
on over to chalk dot com. That is the show sponsor. I've got
a nice sexy adam gonna show you here in a minute about chalk dot com
and boosting your testosterone through supplementation. What's up man, Fresh Tap Pop Pop?
Are you there? You're on? John Q? Taxpayer? What's up
man? We set it straight, lay down the law and set a straight
John Q. Taxpayer. Unmute yourself. Hey, how's it going? Hey?
What's up? Hey? I wanted to ask you a question. I've
been just watching a little bit more of a guy on YouTube, Michael Heiser.
He had an interesting view when it comes to I don't know if you've
ever heard of divine council theology. I was wondering if I could get your
opinion on it, if you've heard of vote or not? Yeah? I
mean he before he passed away, he was a subscriber to my website.
I read his materials twenty years ago. Yeah, from the Psalms, so
anyway, thank you for that. I appreciate that question. Uh fresh,
tat do you want to talk or not? I guess not remove you?
Ricky, do you have a question? I'm excuse me. Do you have
a disagreement? Because today we're taking people who disagree, so I'll bring you
on, but today it's disagreeers. Got im mute? All right? TANGI
tangy t A n j I. What's up, Tangy? We'll set it
straight. Hello, Hey, what's up? So? I'm like a Southern
Baptist kind of I don't actually align theologically. Well, I'm trying to look
into Orthodox. You know, I have a few questions. Okay, I
know you've been getting a lot of non into three years today, but I
didn't know one else that could ask so, is that alright? If I
asked questions about what? So? Do you think that non Orthodox Christians go
to help? I mean, we don't make personal judgments on people's destiny because
we're not told that. But we do tell people that they need to become
Orthodox, because that's what we're told to tell people. Okay, and then
what exactly is the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin that everybody who descends from Adam
has the consequences of his sin, namely the death and the inheritance of the
passions, but the consequences are not themselves the sin. Sin is defined as
an action of the will against the good, and so there is an age
of accountability by which we do begin to sin in terms of personal actual sin,
but that it's not the same thing as original sin, and that's not
original guilt. So that's what we reject. Okay, do you in the
orthodol church? Is confession and necessary thing like confession to a priest? Absolutely?
How does that work? Exactly? Because Jesus says that whoever when he
breathes on the apostles, he says, whoever sends you, they're remitted.
Whoever sends you retain, they retained. Okay, I like you. Yeah,
good questions, Yes, sir. So dude in the chat bro thinks
he's the voice of regent. Do you want to come on? And you're
welcome to make your arguments. I don't know if you're talking about me or
somebody else that was debating, but you're welcome to come on and make your
arguments there. What was his name, far Han? Do you want to
come on far Han, You're welcome to make your case, your argument.
So we got Laura, Laura, what's up? Laura? Just I mute?
Are you talking about it about me? Just I'm muting? So I
just want to honor you, mister Dyer. I'm not a disenter, so
I may be inappropriate for requesting a mic. But with the previous person's question
is not so simple as where it says in Genesis chapter five, when is
talking about the genealogy of Adam, that that that that Adam lived one hundred
So chapter five or three and Adam lives. Do you have an objection or
do you have an objection or disagreement or topic you want to get into,
Yes, sir, I just want to say that that is a common thread
that people say that we are created in God's image, But that was Adam
specifically that was creating God's image, and so in all human beings are created
in God's Image's right. But if we go to Genesis chapter five, we're
just talking about the genealogy of Adam. It says specifically that in verse four,
in the days of Adam, after he hadn't gotten set were eight hundred
years and maybe got sons and daughters, and and okay, wait, no,
sorry, so verse three and Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and
begat a son in his un likeness, And that was after he had sinned
in the garden. So therefore with he begat a son in his unviteness,
after his image and called his things said, would that not perpetuate the that
we are no longer creating God's image but in the image underneath original sin?
No original sin is a deprivation, not an image. In many texts describe
the fact that we made the image of God even after the fall. So
again, thank you for that. Not sure to be mean, that's the
the spirit of Phronsie have spoken, freezing, what's up freezing? We're taking
disagreeers today. Appreciate your comments. Pop pop got an unmute freezing. Hey,
how's it going, sir? Hey? I just had a quick question.
So, like at these ecumenical councils set the side doctrine and refute heresy
and stuff like counts it on? See how did they just side? Like
like what's chris? Is it all based on scripture or like oral tradition or
like where are they mostly going on? Well, I mean they explain in
the councils the sources, and typically the sources are kind of laid out in
a structure of the scriptures and divine revelation through tradition and the arguments from the
church fathers that preceded them and the councils that preceded them, and arguments from
reason. So that's typically the structure they use. Okay, sweet, So
it's not just it's not just mostly based on scripture. It's oral tradition and
other stuff as well. The first most important tier is scripture and oral tradition,
and those things are linked. They go together. They can't. You
can't separate the two because you can't know what the scriptures are apart from tradition.
Sweet. All right, thank you for that. I appreciate it.
Yeah. So a lot of times prodises one's set up an either or like,
oh, it's easy, either you follow the Bible or you follow the
traditions of man. So it's a both and right. Ryan Harvey is in
the chat. He's got pictures of him running and sprinting, so I hope
he doesn't run me down. I will uh oh go for it. Set
me straight, my phys I says, of what nature are you taking in
the Christ? The uncreated energies? As Cyril says, Okay, so yeah,
they would they would say though, like like we're taking of Christ?
So how is the uncreated energies Christ? Because every energy is in hypostatic,
It comes to us from the person that has those that nature from which the
energy proceeds. Gotta run, Yelifornio, El California, he see what you
go for? Me? Bro, you better hurry. There's a lot of
arguments being made. April. You barely you could barely get on, Bro,
what kind of argument you got? You gotta mute? El California.
I'm you man on you Bro, El Muto, L California, I'm you
mock California, California. Hey, what's up? Jay? What's going on?
Bro? Hey? Bro? I left my wallet in Elsa, Gonda.
What's up? Okay? What's up? Man? Y'all? I wanted
to tell you Roman Catholics got valence sacraments. What do you think about that?
Oh, Indie, Bro? Time for me to go home. SmackDown?
What does it mean? I mean quite valid? What does that mean?
Does that mean that the church, the ortho, our church can decide
to accept the Roman Catholic priests and through vesting. Okay, I don't have
a problem with that. Does that mean that does that mean that the sacraments
themselves are graceful outside of the church? How do you get that? Well?
I guess what I'm saying is like, let's say you have confession in
the Roman Catholic Church, if your sins are truly forgiven, Well, they're
forgiving on earth as they are in heaven, and as you know, as
far as I'm so, it's not a question of valid it's a question of
whether they're efficacious in terms of the grace. So you're trading on confusing the
words valid and gracious. Okay, But if it's validated, it's gracious because
it hasn't. No, it's not. That's that's the point I'm making.
How do you know it is? Okay? How do you know it is?
How do you know that the Orthodox sacraments are too coque? What about
them? That's fallacy? All right? Well, okay, what about the
Eucharist? Barely do you think do you think they got a real true blood
and blood of your Christ when they offer it. I'm not talking about the
normous ordal obviously, not, but like, maybe wait a minute, obviously
weld on obviously not the novisorder. But what defines valid sacramentology in Rome is
communion with the papacy. Well, I don't know. I think a lot
of people in the SSPX and some of the Easter rights who speaks for Roman
Catholics the papacy or the SSPX, because valid juris so having the keys and
having jurisdiction and having illicit celebration of the sacrament. In Roman Catholic theology also
depends on being in communion with the pope, so they might have illicit celebration.
But you're saying valid, Well, it's valid in the sense in the
Roman Catholic theology of that. Well, let me let me phrase that.
Technically, you're correct that in the Roman Catholic system, the SSPX have a
valid sacrament, but they don't have jurisdiction, is what I was trying to
say. So let me let me set that straight. But the orthodoxy of
Sacraments is different from the Roman Catholic or the SSPX position. But regardless,
it's not the SSPX that speaks for Roman Catholicism. It's the papacy That's what
Vatican one says. Yeah, that's what Vatican one says. But I mean
pre Vatican one, I think you pretty much had the formulas written in stone.
I believe in like nineteen forty eight two they had like the Vatican had
a document it was like sacramentous or so what Like all this stuff's a big
contradiction. It's a big bundle of contradictions. So why who even cares what
Roman SSPX says. I don't care. Well, I think we should care
because I think the most of the Western world is Roman Catholics. We want
the yes, the world to come back to normality before you know, the
fall of Vatican two. Well, I don't think the normality is Vatican one
Catholicism. I think normality is the Orthodox Church, and we don't have the
same sacramentology. So there you go. I think I do lean more toward
the Orthodox position too. But you know what about the Orientals? Do the
Orientals have valid sacraments? As far as you're confusing, You're confusing this acceptance
of the valid celebration of a ritual and the Church then saying that we don't
have to repeat the ritual because now the impediment of the grace has been removed.
You can be received by vestiments or something like that. That's not the
same thing as saying that they have the grace within the sacrament outside of the
church. Two different things. And the argument always hinges on confusing people with
the question of valid It's not a question of valid because that's the Latin idea
of how you interpret the sacraments. Is it valid or not the sospx are
valid. It doesn't matter in the Orthodox view because in the Orthodox view,
if you're in schism, you can doesn't the legal status of the sacraments doesn't
even matter because you're outside the faith. Roman Catholicism says that you can have
the celebration of the sacraments and the grace without the faith. The Orthodox view
is that you can't have the sacraments with the grace of the sacraments outside of
the faith. If you surrender the faith, the grace is gone. That's
the Orthodox view. That's not the traditional Roman Catholic view Allah of the Late
Middle Ages. Yeah, yeah, you know, I guess the problem here
is the Roman Catholics kind of keep changing, like the requirements for validity,
and yes, I'm going off the Latin terms as far as like, so
the orthodoxy is not the same. So if they have jurisdiction or not,
you know, I guess in some Latin sacraments, jurisdiction is a requisite validity,
which is does it actually take effect exactly? That was my point about
the question of jurisdiction, because for example, I'm going for memory because I
don't remember everything about Roman Catholic canon law and I don't even care. But
so there's something about in order for for example, a schismatic bishop, like
does he have the office of the keys? And the question is no,
because if you're it doesn't matter about how valid enlisted your ordination was. If
you're not in communion with the Roman see, you no longer have jurisdiction,
and that's different. So that would mean that a schismatic SSPX bishop in the
Roman Catholic perspective of the papacy does not have jurisdiction. That means that his
exercise of the keys is also not really the exercise of the keys. So
do you see what I'm saying, Like, so if he hears your confession,
is your sins really forgiven? Well, I mean, if he's lost
jurisdiction, I don't know that he can exercise the function of forgiving your sins
because he no longer has jurisdiction, and forgiving sins is one of the elements
of having jurisdiction. But I mean, all this stuff is inane and ridiculous,
like this is like splitting hairs over stuff, when the papacy is like
out here pushing like butt stuff, like this doesn't even matter. Man,
they're pushing butt stuff. Obviously that's not the true church. You know.
I guess I guess what I'm saying is. I know, I agree with
you all of your position, but I guess what I'm saying is like,
look, I don't agree with the butt stuff. I don't agree with a
lot of the weird old things. Okay, well, the papacy pushes it,
so it's over. It's over. The papacy pushes it, it's over.
But I guess what I'm saying, as long as there's some type of
validity, some type of grace, like hidden away in the eastern rights from
the SSPX like maybe, bro, it's not hidden away. It's not hidden
away when the church is built on Rome. The Roman Gallic church is not
built on eastern rights. That's just one, and that's kind that's what you're
grasping a straws, dude, like you can't pick and choose which ones you
want. I am Orthodox, by the way, I'm just arguing against you.
Why are you arguing Roman Catholic positions of your Orthodox doesn't make any sense.
I used to be a Roman Catholic, and I guess so you haven't
gotten rid of all the Roman Catholic stuff. Is the issue? Then?
Look, I guess what I want to say is this like when the Spaniards
showed the Aztecs and the Native Americans in two continents how to become Christians,
how to become Catholics. So I'm the priesthood, the sacraments and all that.
Yeah, again, we don't have to make personal judgments. Listen,
we don't have to make personal judgments. And all those people you listen to
me, are you listening to me? I'm answering your question. We don't
have to make personal judgments on the determinations of their eternal destiny. We can
commend them to God. We don't know that. But none of that makes
Roman Catholic sacraments suddenly gracious. Well, if it converted the Aztec Empire to
Christianity. I think there's some grace in there. I never denied that there's
again I didn't. I don't know. No one could come to the Orthodox
Church if there wasn't grace outside the church. That doesn't mean that they're the
church, you see, because the Orthodox view is that if you separate yourself
from the church, you lose that membership in the church. You're no longer
the body. I definitely think that the Roman Catholic Church is definitely schismatic.
Oh so the mistake here is thinking that like Roman Catholics think Allah the Augustinian
sacramentologist. By the way, it's not even consistently Augustinian, because Augustine thought
that if you commit the sin of herrising schism, you no longer are in
the church. Even though so the sacrament can be quote valid, but you're
not benefiting from it because you're outside the church. So he believes in note
salvation outside the church. The qualification here, though, that's different, and
I'm trying to tell you what the specific point of departure is is that the
Roman Catholic position thinks that you can have the celebration of the sacrament. It's
the grace of that sacrament outside of the faith, and that's the key point
of departure. The Orthodox says, no, if you leave the faith,
Athanasius says in its festal letters, you no longer have the celebration of the
Eucharist or whatever. It's not the Eucharist. And father deacon, you could
comment on this in regard to the way that the Orthodox Church treats priests in
terms of canon law. Are you there, Yeah, I'm right here,
No, father Deacon, Father deacon, bro you sound like you're new to
Orthodoxy. Maybe you should just relax and learn this stuff before you start just
freaking out. Listen to a clergy tell you this. Oh yeah, sure,
So what was the question? Sorry, why don't Roman Catholics also have
the grace of the sacrament? Because people have really converted to Jesus And I'm
saying you often make a really good point about Orthodox canon law and the permission
to have the sacrament. Yeah, so why should those outside the faith?
How how more blessings and a greater privilege than those in the Orthodox case.
So, if you go to the Orthodox liturgy, the intimates, those are
what's under the Gospel. And then when the Gospel's taken off and set to
the back of the altar. When the consecration on there is the authorized signature
by the bishop. So the priest can't actually perform the sacraments. Nothing would
be efficacious because the church is where the bishop is is sandang Natius says,
So what's happened in Orthodoxy before is a bishop can suspend a priest and he
takes his intimates, meaning the priest can try to consecrate the Eucharist all he
wants, he has no power apart from the bishop. So if that's true,
then why is it that those outside of the faith have a inter prerogative
like, oh, but they can do it. Do you understand that argument?
They're not even connected to a valid biship. He left, so I
bring you on and he leaves, so I don't know, maybe his connection
dropped, but I mean, he's not even listening to what And I like
the way that you put it too. So what this means is the church
and the faith doesn't matter. Yeah, this is what leads the Roman Catholic
Church to say that if you're a Satanist, you can be ordained a Roman
Catholic priest. That very night, become a Satanist, and for the rest
of your life you can consecrate the Eucharist. This is what leads the Roman
Catholics to say that an atheist and a Muslim can baptize you. This is
ridiculous. Serve you because that's where the view leads. Now people, when
we bring this up, Okay, he dropped off, so I'm bringing him
back. Go ahead. Did you hear the argument? Now he's let's see
what he says. Are you there and canio? Oh? I see him?
Go ahead. Just I'muel California. Did you hear the Did you hear
father Deacon's explanation from Orthodox kenilall? Yeah? Hi, hello, Yeah,
I heard some of it, but I got disconnected for a one. So
basically, I'll make it really quick, look really quick. It's very simple
argument. If an Orthodox priest has to get the permission of a bishop to
even have the Eucharist the antimin the permission, then why would people outside the
church have a greater privilege than an Orthodox priest? Makes no sense? Yeah,
yeah, yeah, I guess. I guess I'll just argument from the
Roman Catholic Catholic point of view of like you know, so relearn. You
need to relearn. You got to relearn your sacramentology. You can't map on
Roman Catholic SSBIX sacramentology onto Orthodox do so it makes sense. Yeah, it's
hard. Man. I live in Spain and I go to a Russian Orthodox
church and the priest has only been in the country for two years. He
doesn't speak Spanish, he doesn't speak English. It's like purely Russian. So
it's like I'm going to the church, but it's like I'm really an Internet
Orthodox, and there's like the Spaniards all Roman Catholics. So I understand a
lot of good for a lot of people internationally, you know, Thank you.
I appreciate that. Yeah, I'm not being mean to be mean with
you. I just thought you were. I thought you were I didn't realize
you're Orthodox for us out I thought you were a Romancaolic. Getting getting salty,
But that's okay, no, no, no, But you know,
I don't know. I like to think that more people are saved. I
like to think like half of the world isn't doomed, you know, especially,
we don't have to judge people's that we don't know. We don't have
to judge people's destiny. We don't know their destiny. God can unite them
in his own ways to the mystical body of Christ. And I mean he
does this with the thief on the cross. So God has his own ways
that he can unite people to the mystical body outside the norm but the normative
way is through the Orthodox you know, sacramentology and theology. So yeah,
I definitely definitely agree with you. I've been Orthodox for about three years now,
so so yeah, it's been it's been an interesting experience, and yeah,
learning a lot of like especially about like theosis, things Roman Catholics won't
talk about. Yeah, I've noticed like how they put the divinity of like
Mary everywhere, and then you go to Roman Catholic Church and Jesus always getting
like beat up and whipped and like like half dying. You know, It's
like you go to Orthodox Church, Jesus was always like God and resurrect yes,
exactly resurrected. And Mary's like more humble, like a regular ladies.
She's not like crowned, like flying through the sky. You know. It's
like, yeah, I think that those are those are realizing that, right,
Yeah, those are kind of like uh, you know, patterns of
exaggeration that we see in Roman Catholic theology exactly. I totally agree. Yeah,
thank you for that. Hopefully that we didn't get too salt there.
Layman wanted to come back. Did you come back? Or you forgot what
you were talking about a minute ago? Maybe we couldn't connect. What's up,
Layman? I'm mute hi him, Sorry about that. Yeah. So,
so I'm a watcher of like the Diamond Brothers like that in Catholic dot
com. I I know that may be like a bad thing, but they
brought up a point about Saint Lead the Great talking about uh like the the
light of the transfiguration coming off of like Christ's face, and and the light
being basically from his like specific to his human nature. I was wondering,
like, does that contradict the uh the idea that it's uncreated if it's specific
to his human nature. Well, it's specific to his human nature, because
everything that Christ does, he does in the two natures that he possesses.
So this is the Kyrelene idea of the communication of idioms or the communicatio idiom
autum. So whatever is predicated of either nature, whether it's walking on water,
whether it's the uncreated light that shines through him. It's also appropriate to
say that it occurs in the one incarnated hypostatic Christ. So it's one Christ
acting, and he acts, as Cyril says, in both natures and by
both natures. But that doesn't mean that his person is reduced to the nature.
So there's nothing wrong with saying that the uncreated light proceeds from and through
his human nature, because that's what it is. But first, the end
of Paul's letter to Timothy identifies God as the uncreated light. So do you
think that God is a creature? No, No, I was just thinking
more about like his body. Okay, do you think the why would the
I mean the light? There is a it's called the transfiguration because a famous
passage showing his deity. So if it's a created human light, why would
that testify to his deity? Well? Yeah, I mean I don't know
for sure. I mean the only thing I can think of is maybe it's
like his humanity kind of being brought up, brought up. What do you
mean, like like, well, I don't know, maybe being givinized in
a sense maybe, Like okay, But so John one, the light of
Christ is identified as the uncreated light, contrasted with the light of Genesis one,
which is created light. One Timothy six Paul says that Christ is potentate,
king of King's, Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality, dwelling
in unapproachable light. So the light is it's always used in the New Testament.
Where is there ever any suggestion or reference to God's light being a creature?
Yeah, yeah, I mean it's not a creature. So a quote
where uh it's talking about I'm assuming I have the quote in front of me.
But the quote where it's talking about the eminence or the emanation of the
light or the radiance of the light from his human nature, does not mean
that it's a created light. Because the uncreated light comes to us. We
participated in it through the human nature of Christ, just like the Eucharists saying,
if you look at Cyril Cyril and Ephesus describes what you eat in the
Eucharist, right, do you think you eat created grace in the Eucharist?
Or do you do you? Or do you eat as Cyril says, the
uncreated immortality and energy of the God man, I think the uncreated energies.
Yeah, So it's over for Roman Catholicism, because they teach that what you
partake of is a supernatural creation. Do you want me to cite Ought for
that? Uh? I mean I could look at up. Yeah, I
mean, no, I appreciate it. Yeah, I mean is there any
other energy passages or anything you'd like me to address? No, I was
more it was really just as it. Ok, thank you though, Sure
A good question. Yeah. So, m I've lost my note in Aught
where I've got to know my letter? So that or excuse me, and
my h that's the procession of the spirit. That's not the grace here we
go, where's my note on grace? Here? It is so little we
got bono mials of Catholic theology sanctifying grace is a created, supernatural gift really
distinct from God. And because Roman Catholicism, as Aught explains in the first
few chapters, defines God as identical to his essence. His attributes are identical
to his essence. He's defined as an absolutely simple monad essence. The cause
is unique. To show me the existence is identical to the essence, I
should say, act as purists. This leads them to then conclude about grace
that grace cannot be anything identical to God. It must be a created,
supernatural accident in the soul. And that's explicit in what we just saw in
Ought. So that means that what you partake of is not an uncreated reality,
it's a created reality. Freezings back. Uh, what's up, dude?
Set my straight? Yeah, yes, sir, I mean, man,
hey, hey, thanks for letting me back on. Okay. So,
I was reading a bit of of the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church
by Lawsky, and I think it's a bit above my reading level. So,
and I'm kind of from like a Protestant background. So what would be
like some books you recommend together? I would start with Clark Carlton or something
like that, like Clark Carlton's trilogy or Orthodox Church by Myndorf. Stanis what's
up? Stannus? Hey? There? I was inquiring into Orthodoxy and I
was wondering, what is the Orthodox view about I suppose consuming media like K
pop. I mean, I don't think there is an orthodox view on K
pop, but I think that any media that you know, significantly promotes degeneracy
is something that we should probably avoid. Uh, let's see who's next.
Bart or no bat Salo. I thought, I said bart bat solo.
Brett Sale says, I just finished reading St. Cyril of Alexander and the
Christological Controversy. Incredible book. Thanks for the recommendation. It's been a game
changer. Thank you Brett Sales for that ten bucks. Yeah, that is
a really good book. Unfortunately the author kind of went off the rails,
but the book is still a good classic treatment of Cyril. What's up that,
salo? Uh? Yeah? Hello. So I've been watching a lot
of your videos recently and I love your debates of the atheists. I think
atheism is total nonsense. I was baptism in the Orthodox Church as a child,
but I kind of left because I live in Scotland. Atheist, but
I'm heading back into it, I know. I'm just curious. In your
debates you always say that Orthodoxy is the only is the only world. You
gives a proper account for all the things like logic and all the trans and
dental categories. Can you go into a bit in depth as to how that
is? Because I don't really get that part. You always lose me there.
Why is it orthodoxy specifically? Yeah, giving an account means justification like
in an epistemic sense. So, as we talked about earlier in this discussion
a couple hours ago, when we had an atheist or a former atheists asking
that question, Christianity presents a certain specific metaphysic, a certain specific epistemology,
and a certain specific ethic. That metaphysic, for example, gives an account
for how all of the transcendental categories, which are the preconditions of knowledge,
how they work together, how they in here and interrelate with one another,
and where they're located, namely in the created world and its structure patterned on
the divine mind. So that's what I mean, Okay. And one second
thing, how do I talk to atheists who try and like science me like
they like they say things like like the Bible says that the Earth was created
in seven days and stuff like that. How do I refute them? Well?
I would start studying, you know, critiques of evolutionary philosophy and evolutionary
paradigm. I would start with stuff from like doctor Sarfatti. I would read
Sara from Rose's book Genesis Creation Early Man. I would read the Titus Bruckhart's
essays that critique evolutionary philosophy from a philosophical perspective, because the problem with going
to the science papers and all that, like, you'll never get anywhere with
all of that, And really science is built on philosophy. Even the modern
science people don't know this or recognize this. If you can go to philosophy,
you can actually cut to the chase a lot quicker, especially when you
can explain to people that science isn't neutral. It works on certain presubpositions,
preconditions, and paradigms. So the questions that we're talking about in terms of
philosophy and metaphysics are actually prior to the doing of any science. So science
is not bad or not a problem, but the interpretation of the data and
the various theories of science can never get you to explaining or justifying the metaphysics
and the epistemology that undergird science itself. You say, so that's the route
that I would go, But specifically, how would I answer claims about science
that directly like go against say the teachings of the Church or the Bible.
With what I just said, Okay, okay, thank you, thank you.
Yeah. By that, I mean that the debate would kind of go
back to questions of epistemology, justification, what it means to know a thing?
What can science actually prove or demonstrate? Because a lot of times,
again, the people that we're talking about, the people are dealing with,
they don't know anything about philosophy. They think that it's kind of like what
weird theater people do, sitting around speculating because they can't do science, and
they don't even recognize that science is actually based on all kinds of philosophical presuppositions.
And that's why every time we have debates with atheists and scientism, soy
men, they absolutely crumble because they have no idea about these topics. So,
master Blue, what's up? Look for the bare necessities? What's up?
Blue? Mother Nature's recipes for good? About your worries and your style?
What's up? Yep? Right? Just set a question. What's your
interpretation of a book of relation fourteen fourteen? Let's see? Do you think
like is Jesus himself? Or is it like one like a son of mine?
And I'll do the fine. How do you see the sickle in his
hand? Is it the reaper? Do you imagine him being the reaper?
Did you imagine him? Ideas about it's the same son of Man always in
the Bible as Jesus, Yes, and writing on a white cloud. Right,
that's the same descriptions of Ezekiel Revelation one and two. Yes, as
Jesus. The sickle just signifies that he is prepared to exact the death penalty
on the enemies here Earlier, it says in the text that he has the
keys of death and hades, so he has the right to decide life and
death. Are you there, Ballou? Are you there? Bro? Hello?
Uh? Lost? You can't hear you, dude, Nope, this
guy is ready to they it just say nope, what's up? Nope?
Hey, So I hear you talking all about this tradition and stuff. And
you know what the Holy Father say about having a long beard. Where's the
beard at? Bro? Talking about all the traditions and stuff. What are
you talking about having a beard? Where's your beard? You said? I
talk about all the traditions and stuff, bro, Yeah, like the tradition
of having a beard. Yeah, you think that that's what makes an orthodox
person? Is canon law about having a beard? No? I just think
it makes somebody super based in trad if they have a long beard. You
want to think parish like those will come in with a big long beard and
we'll have like a prayer rope and they're doing the Jesus prayer and they're just
like, man, yeah, I'm right. Well I'm not piassed and I
don't have a long beard, so I guess I'm not really orthodox, so
I can I can see your point. Okay, fair? So what else?
What other arguments you've got for me? Nope? Uh that's it man.
I just think you should throw the beard out. Uh why is that?
I just think it would make you look. You know, Augustine himself,
the father of the Western Church, says, you know that that's that's
what you call someone when they're a man. They they're they're a bearded man.
Okay, do you have a beard? I do? Okay, so
you're more of a man than me. You got me. Well, you're
conceding a lot, and this is crazy. This is my first time calling
in, this is my first debate with DJ Dyer, and and I'm winning.
Do you think it's you think this is a debate? Uh No,
I don't. It's definitely a joke. But I do appreciate you conceding the
points. Well, how did I conceive the points. If you know that
I'm not being serious. Oh so you're not being serious either. Well it's
been fun and I'll let you go on the more serious topics. Yeah,
tongue to block man, he left the frock of blocking. Yeah. I
don't have any patience for the piety signals. Look for the bear necessities.
The bar necessity's talking about my bare face, my shaven face, because I'm
not a fool man, because I got a bear, a baby bear face,
not a real man. Atheism United, Uh, it's getting real now.
Oh damn, what am I gonna do? What's up, dude?
You there, hello, Atheism United. Little h I had a question,
this is a question. Yesterday we were trying to explain to ourselves what the
Holy Trinity was, and we we looked at the mind map of what the
person that the three persons are like the Holy Spirit. The mind map not
a mind map, but like an illustration. What it's depicted as persons and
as energies. And I had a question for you. Okay, So,
from from the Father to the Holy Spirit, there is procession. Correct,
the Father precedes the Spirit. Correct, all right? From the Father to
the Son there is generation. Correct? So if you look at the procession
and there is eternal manifestation, what is the difference between precision and eternal manifestation.
It's the movement of the persons in the trinity versus the origin of the
person's in the trinity. So, in other words, one uh talks about
the persons, the other one talks about the energies. Right now, the
movement of the persons versus the origin, and by extension, the energies also
have the same movement. That's true. That's what so manifestation is referring to
both the persons and their energy is how they move in the triad. M
So the difference is origin versus movement. Yeah, can you elaborate more on
the movement twice? It's important because God is revealed as a triad generating and
proceeding. M hm okay, I understand. So the procession itself, it's
a vehicle, correct, I don't think no, it's it's the way,
it's the mode in which, well, the procession of the spirit is his
hypostatic origin. I don't know what you mean by vehicle. I will give
you the Google definition of it. I know what the word vehicle means I'm
just I don't understand your usage of it. A vehicle meaning that it's so
curate says relating to the person of the Trinity. A vehicle meaning that it's
connects. It is like an arrow which passes from something to something else in
that way, A vehicle. I mean, if that that's the sense in
what you mean, and that's what I mean by movement. Okay, okay,
all right, that was my question. I watch your show and I
agree with a lot of the points you're making. It's pleasure of being on
the show. Yeah, thank you, appreciate it. Now to the guy
in the chat again, mod's if these people take over the chat, just
boot them, dude. If the guy won't come on, there is no
debate. If you mute me, you're stoning me. Okay, well come
on and debate. I don't know what you're talking about. Muting you is
not stoning you. That's it's not the same thing. So, uh,
where are you in the chat? So if CW doesn't come on, just
spoot this person. Yeah I'm aggrevating. I'm inviting you on. So you're
saying that I'm scared of the truth and all this stuff. So I mean
You've been given the link many times. So if you're not gonna come on,
you're just gonna get booted. So last chance. If I don't see
what's his name? Christ wins, thank you, Chase, just beat that
guy because he's not gonna come on. Let's see n A D what's up?
Nod? Yes, sir, it's not me. It's just what I
think. I think you got the wrong guy. But anyways, I just
he's not in here, So I'm going to your next that guy's not show
up. Okay, sure, so I'm orthodox. I just I don't have
any like hard or like questions. But well, today is about disagreement,
So do you have an area of disagreement. I don't have a disagreement,
but I have like some some like argumental questions about like it's not it's more,
but I need to more something. So it's about so this. There's
dischismatics. And there's also the like some churches or something this churches that aren't
agreed upon in some patriarchates, like like some churches don't agree to oc A
is a church. Some do agree it's a church. Because you've got you
got questions of canon law, like I don't do canon law. That's not
mine. That's why, So go ask the priests or something about the sacraments.
There's no nobody thinks that the sacraments are not valid. So anyway,
I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't do canon law stuff.
Maddie Ice, what's up, Maddy Ice? So it's open for him.
You can request to speak. Today is for just people that disagree. I
don't do candilalal questions and all that kind of stuff. Not being mean to
you, just it's just not my my dumbain people in the chat. You're
not going to come on debate, go ahead. Yeah, uh so I'm
just pull the school you're on, uh Roman Catholic inquiry the Eastern North anyway,
But I guess my first point that I wanted to bring up is in
terms of Eastern Orthodox. Yeah. Lost, you dude, don't have any
audio. Sorry, try coming out and coming back in Cody's back. Go
ahead. You gotta unmute yourself. Are you got on mute Cody or what?
Oh? Sorry man? Hello? Yeah yeah yeah it was you know,
and then I was Genesis six, like I don't know if the Catholics
believe in like you know what the fallen Angels came into the Daughters of manner
of like about the Sons of Seth theory? Do you do you know any
more about that? Thank you for taking my call again. Yeah, I
know all about it. I do I know all that. What do you
want to know? Yeah? I thought the Catholics believe in the Sons of
Seth theory more like the Falling Name. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but
Roman Catholics don't have a set theory on Genesis six. There's no dogmatic statement
on Gesis six. It's pretty interesting, like Genesis six, very like,
that's one of the most fascinating parts in the Bible for me. It's just
you know what's in the Bible. Yeah, thank you, it's very like
interesting, it is interesting, Yes, sir, appreciate it. Dude,
Abby, what's up? Abby Good? I'm mute, Abbey, uh uh,
I'm you? Abby, I'm you? Or don't Novus now? Novus
always? So I'm gonna go to Ethan because it's for disagree ors tonight,
guys, people that disagree. So it's not the FA's. There's plenty of
places people you can find the faus. Go ahead, Ethan, Hey can
you hear me? So I'm a Protestant and I've been a Protestant pretty much
my whole life. Probably about a year ago I would have been full on
solo scriptura stuff like that. But late last year I kind of started getting
the Orthodox stuff. I watched some of like father tread and stuff some of
your stuff. Right now, I'm in a class at the university I go
to. It's a Church of Christ university I go to, and it's interpreting
the Bible class, and we started talking about soul scriptura. And one of
the arguments that my professor brought up was that because solo scripture, like because
scripture is inspired, because it's inspired, that necessitates sol scriptura. And I
never really heard that argument before. But how would you answer that, Well,
it necessitates that scripture is authoritative. It does not necessitate or prove that
scripture is the only final authority and also doesn't tell us which books make up
the scripture, right, right, And that's kind of what I was thinking.
And like I understand how tradition works and how like Orthodox is the Orthodox
conception of tradition and everything, But like, even in talking with my parents,
parents who are staunchly Protestant, they will be like, well, okay,
you can rely on oral tradition, that's fine, but you don't know
what the world tradition is because it's not written down. So how would you
respond to that? First of all? Sometimes hold on, so, first
of all, sometimes the world tradition is written down. So we do have
a text in the Orthodox Church that are written down, and those are things
like liturgy. So first of all, some of the world traditions are written.
Not everything has it's not. But if the idea is that you can't
know it unless it's written, then that would actually undercut Abraham. No.
Uh, I mean, we don't have any record of any of that revelation
being written. So I guess they didn't know God because it was all oral,
right, Yeah, And I think a lot of that comes from at
least from what I see, Like I'm still Protestant. I'm kind of in
a position where I can't become Orthodox yet because I still live with them,
understand. But yeah, like from what I see, like at least for
Church of Christ, because they're very exclusive, they're like, we don't believe
in any of the denominations. Were the one future, right kind of yaird
to me, but I think it comes from like they look at history and
this is what I've done too, So I'm still kind of struggling with this
is like looking back at history and being like, well it doesn't fit my
conception of my interpretation of scripture. So yeah, so it's a blackout,
right, There's a blackout until Alexander Campbell and the cambelights. Right. Then
one last question, another thing that my professor mentioned, and I wanted to
challenge him on this because I've been reading that formulation of the Christian Biblical canon
that she recommended. But I brought up, how well, like the canon
wasn't decided until later centuries, right, that seems to be a historical fact,
And he was like, oh well no, it was like it was
agreed upon, and that's an argument. I hear a lot from positive okay,
by whom and where? I mean just saying that it's not an argument,
it's a social right. Like, but that's something I still hear is
like, well it was already like agreed upon, but the council just confirmed
it. And again like, well they have to demonstrate that, so demonstrate
there where from whom? What's the proof of this. That's just an assertion,
right. And then finally, if I was to join an Orthodox church
kind of where I'm looking to live in the future, there's there's an Orthodox
Church that's in the kind of like the Russian jurisdiction, like ro corpor whatever
it's called. And then then there's a American Orthodox Church. Would you say
that, like, what would you say? Which one should I join?
Like, I don't know what American Orthodox Church is O C A yeah,
what was the other options? The it was like the Russian Orthodox Church outside
of Russia. I'm not sure if there's like A yeah, I would say
typically, I would say typically, probably definitely go for the real Court Church.
Let's see. Moving on to Aiden. What's up Aiden? So again
tonight if you disagree, it's for you, bring on your disagreements, your
challenges, your arguments for Roman Catholicism, Papacy, Protestantism, Islam, Atheism,
Hinduism, Muslimism. Jim Jones is hello, yes, sir, Oh
finally, Jesus, I'm sorry for last time. Basically, I just have
a ton of questions after reading uh some of Manly p Hall's where it's not
okay, but what there's an argument or what. Uh, Basically, Christianity
is like super dogmatic against other religions, and I don't think it takes it
into account what they're really trying to teach. I learned that in one of
in the Secret Teachings of All Ages, Uh, they say that the polytheistic
religions like Paganism are actually meant to express elementals of the One God. So
it is mono theism essentially. Well, that's called thesm. That's not monotheism.
Hmm. Yeah, I don't. I don't deeply research all of it.
But if you have multiple elements representing one God as you do, like
angels working for the same God, isn't that essentially the same? Now that's
what it's called henotheism and not monotheism. Hmm okay. Also, why would
you think Manley P. Hall is a viable source on this? Why why
would you think that he's who we would go to? Uh? Basically I
looked into how certain sacred teachings were taken in hidden like like in the Masonic
lodges and stuff. He is. Yeah, but you know that Mason's lie,
right, you know that's in morals endogma, Right, People lie.
Okay, but I'm specifically talking about Masonic teaching that they delude the public and
the lower ranks. Do you think that's what Manley P. Hall was doing?
Absolutely? Read if you read Secret Destiny of America, it's a lot
of bullshit. It's made up nonsense. It's Gibbs Secret Destiny. Okay,
But there were some things that caught my eye. He said that Jesus said
that he told his followers to be wise as serpents, and that serpents were
just a symbol of knowledge, which I have seen many people agree with,
and that the serpent giving the fruit of knowledge to Adam is a word concept
fallacy. Do you know what that is? I heard you guys. Are
you talking to basically make mistranslation? No? Okay, what do you mean?
So the word serpent in that context, there's a trait that that snakes
have, which is to be cunning. So Jesus is saying not to be
stupid and foolish, but to have wisdom and to have some cunning to operate
in this world. He's not telling you to be like the fallen angel in
Genesis. That's even worse than being wise, to be cunning, telling your
followers to be cunning. Well, there's nothing there's nothing inherently wrong with being
wise and cunning in the way that you deal in this world. That's what
I think. I think that we have all of these symbols that we perverted
and turned into like some crazy Let's just cut it. Let's just cut to
the chase. Let's just cut to the chase. Freemasonry is bullshit. So
you're just arguing about the bullshit. How do I know? Because what it
teaches is lies and deception and it doesn't even have a coherent Ultimately, it's
atheistic, but it's really not, though, because it teaches you how to
center yourself and connect. What does that even mean? What does that even
mean? What's the divine? Basically God? I mean basically because there's a
million different ideas about what that is? What's the God? And Masonry ultimately
ends up it ends up ultimately, it ends up being worshiping yourself. So
it's just a stupid delusion. And that's why they tell you. Yeah,
that's why they tell that to me. That's why in Morals and Dogma,
which is the bible of Freemasonry, it says to delude and deceit it is,
it says, to delude and deceive the lower ranks. So how do
you how do you know you're not being deluded to deceive. I just believe
that Manly Hall himself wasn't out to cause harm in the way that someone like
Alistair Crowley was like talking about all. Well, that's just you don't think
people can be one side of the coin like as opposed to everyone is evil.
Everyone in Freemasonry is evil the teachings of Freemason. I don't care what
mainly Pall's personal life was. I'm saying the teachings of the philosophy and the
teachings of Masonry are objectively false and easy to refute. M I mean as
anyone could say that about anything, though people know I'm ready to. I'm
ready to. I'm ready to dem sky Daddy that reincarnated as a as a
as a man, but he's also the spirit the moment. So there,
you don't even know what Christian theology teaches, so showing that you're confused,
so you have no idea what we even believe. So you have no idea
what you're talking about. Here's the thing. I don't discredit any of that.
I think that every religion has some piece that is true. So let's
talk about that. Okay, how do you know that that proposition or there
is true? Because, and here's the thing, there's actually starting to be
physical evidence of these giant megaliths that no one knew how was How does megaliths
tell you that that proposition is true? You don't even understand what I'm asking.
You don't even know what I'm talking about. No clue what I'm talking
about the proposition that there's truth in all the religions. I said, how
do you know that proposition is true? Let's go to that. Let's start
with that's your star. Do you understand that? Your answers your answers,
no, because your answers are not explaining how that proposition is true. You're
not letting me get to it though, because it's not an answer. There
are ancient, sophisticated pyramids on that doesn't answer the You don't even understand the
argument. I'm gonna boot you until you demonstrate to me that you understand the
argument I'm making. Okay, you made a claim that all the world religions
have truth in them. That's your that's your starting point, right, I
want to know how you, as an individual know that that is true when
you start going to the ancient world religions, that's your interpretation of the ancient
world religion. That doesn't tell me that that proposition is true. I want
to know how you know thattations all of our interpretations is not. That's not
true. That's false. It is not all of our interpretations. All of
the human beings do not interpret that to be true. So that's not a
thing that you can appeal to. Right, many humans believe this is wrong.
So that is nothing. So that's a fallacy. That's fallacy how because
it doesn't You could watch the laws in America, a Christian country, changed
overnight, I mean one century. Don't you don't even know what we're talking
about? You literally, you're just talking. You're just talking. Do you
know what I'm You don't even understand what I'm asking for. I want epistemic
justification for the claim. Do you know what that means? I'm not a
big word guy, bro, I'm just so these aren't good arguments. It's
not about the words, it's about bad arguments. Do you understand that?
I feel like you're blocking it out a little bit, bro. I mean,
there's there's there's evidence of ancient sophisticated technology all around the world. No
one knows who did an none of that. Even if that's true, you
don't understand. You don't understand. Even if that's true, it doesn't prove
the first proposition. How does you could look at the evidence? It's like
an eighty ton stone lifted into it a complexity. You don't even understand the
argument, why did they do this? And and those religions are going all
the way back to both the Atlantean priest king all that stuff. This is
all gibberish, and it doesn't prove they were talking about solar worship through Christianity,
which is a pagan thing. It's a pagan thing. And you guys
are like, oh, where's all the pagan You're not even you're not even
You're not even at that level one of understanding what the argument even is.
You have no clue what you're talking about. And so I ask you basic
questions and you fly off into these claims about megaliths that has nothing to do
with justifying the claim on the planet. It's right there on the planet.
Do you understand that that's do you understand that that is a bunch of Jewish
people with ropes dragging things around it? Do you understand that that's not an
You don't even under what do you think an argument is? Do you think
it's just spouting out megalith stuff that's an argument for? Do you understand that
that doesn't justify the claim? No, but I'm going back to these teachings
that go that none of that you're not addressed. It's not an argument.
Do you understand it's a fallacy? All the things that you're saying in logic
or fallacious moves? What do you mean exactly? So? If you're gonna
make these arguments, you need to learn those things first. What do I
mean you don't even know? Do you know you have things written? Dude?
If you don't know what a fallacy is, what's on your paper is
not going to do anything for it. Like a vocab guy, what are
you doing? It's like I'm giving you an action, a vo cab guy,
and you're going you don't know this word. You're an idiot. That's
not that's not a debate either. You're an empathetical epiological fallacy. It doesn't
make any sense. I mean, I have all these questions. You're just
making an idiot of yourself. Man, I'm sorry, you're making an idiot
of yourself. Empathetical. That's not even a you're making. It's not even
a word, empathetical fallacy. No, that's why I'm I'm I'm I'm making
an impression of you. Yeah, but you're just making yourself look silly,
and you're making yourself look silly. I'm giving you some real ship. But
I listen, can you tell me what a fallacy is? Like the teaching
of duality? Can you tell me what a fallacy is? Because you don't
know the basics of philosophy and that if you're gonna make arguments, you need
to know this thing. I'm giving you my stance and you're going, you
don't know this vocab. It's not the voc you don't know the vocab or
what the vocab meaning. Books. You've read like a million books. I'm
trying to get some knowledge and you're going, you don't know this word.
What the hell? Bro, you're trying to make an argument. You're too
dumb to even know what we're talking about. You're trying to make an argument.
This is the thing you Christians? Oh, you guys are so dumb.
You guys are so dumb. Thousands of religions before you, guys,
before you guys got all So you're spurging out. Do you know? Do
you know what a fallacy is? You can't even tell me what a fallacy
is? What is it? Bro, I'm not a book nerd. So
you just made a complete this is so, this is what? This is
what masonry gets you. This is what masonry gets you. Is this it's
a complete good grief? Oh my gosh. So you notice how people just
like spurg Out, They keep you keep asking them the same questions. He
doesn't even understand what a non sequitary is, and then he gets his feelings
hurt because he thinks I'm using bad big words to like insult him or something.
If you're gonna make arguments, you have to abide by the rules of
argumentation. Those aren't arbitrary, They're not fancy words that people just made up
to sound smart. It's just like playing chess. There's rules to chess,
so likewise, an argumentation, there's rules to argumentation. And he doesn't even
know that. He doesn't even know what a fallacy is. Just complete nonsense.
What's up? Daygire. Oh, hello, m I just had a
question about the about churches in my area. That's not the topic today,
man, But what's your what? I got a question, and that's an
argumentative question. Uh huh, what's that? Yeah? What is it?
He leaves. So, so we see by this example that freemasonry and the
philosophy of freemasonry and reading Manley P. Hall, who, by the way,
is a complete goof is if you read, if you listen to his
lectures on astrology. He ends the whole lecture course by saying that, by
the way, the purpose of this whole lecture course is to get you to
believe in socialism in the United Nations. So so we're opening up to people
who disagree if you have an argument, and an argument is not arguing,
it's not machine gunning out idiocy about megalithic marvels which have nothing to do with
whether the proposition that you started your arguing with is true. See, maybe
there are aliens and megalithic marbles and all this stuff, but that doesn't mean
that the first proposition that all the world religions have truth in them. I
just want to know how you know that that's true. Maybe it is true.
How do you know it's true? Well, mogaalithic marvels. That doesn't
prove that proposition. I mean, it's like, let's take a let's take
on a pistemology one on one class. Quit bitching about big words. I
mean, come on, dude, you're an adult. If you want to
be an adult and be treated like an adult, don't come bitching about me
using big words. Learn the big words. It's ridiculous. So we got
three people who've already been on asking questions, and I'm asking them. I'm
looking for people who disagree. So you guys just want to come on,
But who are the people who disagree? So, I mean you people that
spurg out like you can't even walk them through an argument. They just they
just they're like just you know, there's like, I don't know, a
blender. They're like they're like Taz, right, like more like spinning in
a circle like Taz. You know, the freaking Hannah Barbara whatever character.
What's up, Novus? Yeah, I just had a question about canonical jurisdictions,
because that's not what we're talking about tonight. I'm not turning to me
into you. The topic is not canons and jurisdictions. I've already said that
like challenge, it will be a challenge to Orthodoxy. So they belong to
the World Council of Courages. They don't all belong to the World Council of
Churches. It's not true. There's multiple jurisdictions that don't. So what are
you talking about? Do the Big five of Russians do? Right? I
don't remember exactly what. I don't think Rokor does. There might be some
jurisdictions that do. But what the Russians are listed and and so we're like
the top five of them, Mark. So my question is for this,
we an Orthodoxy go around defending Orthodoxy against all these type of what we call
heresies, which they are. But we belong to an organization that promotes diversity,
equity, inclusion, which the Georgian Church left because they were promoting homosexuality
and women priests about thirty years ago. So how do we reconcile that?
I don't I don't think anybody should be a member of that, but membership
probably means that they go and they present papers at conferences. It's like it's
like the IOTA conference that FDA goes to like membership in That does not mean
that FDA supports everything that IOTA does. But I agree that there's there's not
really any point in being involved in that. They also contribute financially to which
is the issue? Which is what? Which is the issue? Because they're
supporting it. It's following a United Nations Agenda twenty thirty. Well, hold
on, how do you know that? How do you know that the Russian
Church gives money to the World Council churches? Because when you look up who
supports the World Council as well support it, it's the members of the Council.
How do you know that that means that there's monetary donations? I mean,
if there is, I disagree with it. But does that Well,
that's what I looked at. Financially, who supports it? And that's what
at least it's said. It's stating that I should say, Uh, yeah,
I've said that that's not a good idea. All right, all right,
that's all I have appreciate it. H Now, I'm curious, Novous,
because a lot of your posts talk about Coptic Christianity. No I was
arguing with the topic recently and Oriental Okay, Well, I did if you,
you know, if you don't want what we talked about over here,
it's fine, uh, pink, it's probably because I don't have a beard,
because really the only way to be Orthodox is like how long your beard
is, Like the length of the beard is literally like the test of the
orthodoxy. Pink, shirpa, what's up here? You're a character? Yeah,
no you are. You're cracking me up. So I have a question.
It's interesting because like I literally just I went to like I'm Roman Catholic,
and I went to like a Catechism class after a Mass today while my
kid was that religious ed and and we actually were going over this section of
the Catechism regarding ordination and then you know, when a priest is something heinous,
you know, their capability of still performing like you know, the substantiation
and all that grow. But I that's not what I wanted to ask you.
I had a question that was actually something I was going to ask in
my class today. But I realized that pertains not only to Roman Catholicism,
but also possibly Orthodox Christianity, and that is like, okay, so it
is hard for me articulate. But recently I was reading through and I don't
remember which part of the Bible it's in, but it's when Jesus rebukes the
rabbis in the temple as like a pretty big event, right, and chastises
them for million a million things. But when I read that, I hear
a message that is pretty much eternal, that in all of your rituals you
can still be completely defunct, and and that at that point in history.
I want to speak about today, but at that point in history, they
just lost all meaning behind all of the rituals that they were performing. And
you know it, yeah, I mean many of the prophets say this,
Isaiah says this, Jeremiah says this. You approach me with you know?
So my question is then, and I was going to pose this in in
my in the class today, but it's we didn't get to it. We
got stuck on another topic. But is you know, how do we walk
that line? Because I feel like sometimes we lose perspective when we do these
kinds of debates, which I I believe me, I believe in our rights.
I sense that you have some hostility to the Catholic Church. I personally
would like to see us reunified at some point in history. I mean,
I will probably won't live to see that day, but I would like to
see you know, the churches UH unified against I don't. I don't have
any hostilities at all towards Eastern Orthodox, any of the Eastern Right churches.
Okay, but the problem is that the reunification requires us to join into a
spiritual communion with Pope Francis and the rest of the goblins in Rome. And
that's the problem. Okay, Well, you don't need to insult me.
How was I insulting you by saying the goblins in Rome? Because you're calling
the people that I care about very much, you're calling them goblins. And
whether or not you I mean, have you read producio supplicants? I mean,
they're promoting schedule. You haven't even answered my question. And see this
is this, I mean, you're I'm not mad at you. I'm just
asking you a question. Bro, if you if you want to, you
know, keep it that you know above. Look, I'm not mad at
you. I'm just I'm asking you. Look you're the one. Hey,
Look, I'm not mad. I'm just asking you a question about But you
just you're just curtailed insults at me. I mean, I always going to
ask you an honest question, the question, are you a goblin in Rome?
You're not. You're not a cardinal. That's where you lose your credibility
is because you can't just come and have like an interreligious dialogue. It boils
down to a dispute over richal you took personal. It's not a dispute over
rituals you took personally. The question why don't you why don't you calm down?
You're you're the one that's upset. You're you're gapping. Listen, calm
down for a second, just chill. No. I know you want to
control your show, but you do need to let me speak. If if
I mean I'm explaining something, I'm explaining something to you. I'm not stopping
you from speaking. You can try and explain something to me. I'm not.
I'm not stopping you from speaking. I'm explaining that if I criticize the
goblins in Rome, that's not you shouldn't take that personal. I'm talking about
corrupt people in Rome. That's not you personally. Okay, but that doesn't
answer my question. And you're kind of begging the question when you courtail insults
instead of trying to have an interview. That's that's called rhetoric. Are you
familiar with rhetoric. It's where you joke in the midst of making an argument.
One, I'm a lawyer, and two I majored in philosophy and I
went to Catholic schools for sixteen years and I have a law degree, So
I really know what well you can tell your career, right, So joking
as part of rhetoric. If you're mature enough, I would like to hear
your your perspective on that very thoroughly tailored question which you don't want to address.
I'm happy to address any of your arguments, and I do it all
the time every day. First of all, religious listen, I know that
you're used to spouting out, but this is not your show, So chill
out. Chill out for a second, just stop yapping for a second.
And I'm happy to answer your question well, because I'm trying to restate my
question that I would like you to answer. And in all can I point
out that there's a thing I disagree with. I disagree with the way you
worded it, that it's a disagreement of rituals. It's not a disagreement of
rituals. It's a disagreement of the theology. That's the first point. So
it's not just rituals. Okay, keep talking. It sounds like you're on
the right track. You're actually trying to answer the question. Now. Yeah,
I've always been answering the question. But I like to make jokes when
I answer the question because that's part of rhetoric. You should know that you're
a lawyer. You have degrees, right, Sorry, are you trying to
curtail insults again? You're a lawyer. You started touting your credentials. You
said you know rhetoric. Doesn't rhetoric include jokes and jabs. Supposed to be
theologian? I mean you should be and how to be respectful in a debate.
I know I don't claim to be a theologian. I've debated the top
people in the world. So you want to talk about credentials. I'm one
of the top debaters out there. Okay, I mean that, is that
true or false? You're a real funny character. You're a character? Is
it true or false? Do you are you aware of that? I'm not
answering your questions, I'm asking you the question, So go on and talk
about it. I mean, it's a legitimate question. I'm interested in hearing
your perfect minus the insults. Again, you can do that if you're mature
enough, if you can listen. So you can't. So if I make
a joke about listen, if you said that my patriarch was a corrupt goblin,
I wouldn't take that personally. I would agree with you. Do you
see the difference there that you took personal something that wasn't about you. I'm
not answering your questions. I'd like you to answer. I mean, I
think in your mind you think this is a law court. It's not.
It's a open form discussion. So what's your question? What's your question?
What's your question? Are you gonna unmute and ask your question? You've complained
about me making a joke. What's your question? So you're not gonna stay
your question? Hello, you're still here. I'm mute. What's your question?
This is? This is I'm not enjoying. This is actually fun.
Pink Sherpa, are you there? What is your question? So the point
is that the papacy promotes today skittles topics, which is a complete contradiction to
previous people teaching. So That's why I have such a disdain for the papacy
is that I think it's an organized crime institution, and you took personal something
that wasn't personally about you. Are you gonna come back on? Are you
just gonna sit here muted? All right, We're gonna go on, move
on from that? Seven seven seven, I'm mute? All right? Are
gonna minute to say something quick? Do you have an argument that you like
to present about the topics listed? Yeah, I was gonna bring a different
kind of idea to the It's all related. So the Bible says that sixty
sixty six is the number of a man, and we have six protrons,
six neutrons, six electrons in our carbon items, in our melanin and DNA.
It looks like there's nothing to do with any of that. No,
but six is it looks like seven's and Hebrew and Arabic and like ancient languages
and like that six letters, but looks like a seven backwards and then Jesus
schizo stuff. No, goodbye, roy R. What's up? I am
not a theologian. I list myself as a comedian, and I'm happy.
I'm happy to transition. I'm gonna transition into being today's stand up. Okay.
There's a lot of people out there trying to say that they as a
religious lead. That's not me. Okay, I am now officially calling myself
a comedian. Do y'all hear that? I am the king of comedy and
Tristan Haggard and all of these players out here, all of these haters,
they are nothing to me. Okay, you heard it here. First twenty
twenty four is the year that truth comes to light. Royard, what's up?
That's my cat Williams. By the way, that's Kat Williams. That's
called a joke for those that don't understand. Yeah. Uh. In terms
of open god debate, you mean like like debating on God? Right?
Yeah? Correct, yes, sir correct? Good soup? Why are you
there? Hello? Did you want to make an argument about the God or
whatever? Dude, we lost him. Try to come back in if you
want to overlooked pictures. It's getting wild tonight. It's wow, it's a
wild gnostic night. Go ahead, you got an un mute dude. I'm
about to just start getting ridiculous or wordculous. I'm about to start breaking out
the box wine, the Phransia. I'm about to start being a wine mom
for y'all. I'm I'm gonna fill up a big god full of Phronsie wine
mom wine, and I'm all bust out Virginius lambs in between each of these
fangers, and I'm gonna puff them all until they burn down to my fingers
overload picks. Do you want to come on? I'm you. I was
waiting for the invite. I was enjoying your your bit there. But thank
you, mister Dina. I'm not sure how serious I've just dropped in,
not how serious the debate is really going, but I do want to try
and serious things up a little bit. When it comes to the the thought
process of what some say, let's just bracket into the type who believes and
the type who does not believe for whatever reason, when it comes to the
question of revelation through a world that's created and the role of faith when when
it comes to to an atheist is used. An atheist the extreme example,
not an agnostic for someone who actively disbelieves. When it comes to that sort
of mind mindset of thinking. If if we posit the idea of a creator
who for whatever reason requires something more than just mirror observation, something that a
machine could do, you know, to register its environment. This kind of
thing, this idea of having faith beyond appearances, seems to be seems to
be critical when it comes to an atheist way of thinking. If they were
to come up with a cosmology where there is a creator who in some sense
is obvious that is also hidden, there is some active step, some leap
of faith literally required to cross that barrier. What what other way, well
can we imagine such a such a sort of a cosmology occurring that there seems
to be, you know, if we are full, free willed agents who
in some way resemble something divine, but not entirely you know, we have
we have certain capacities, but also have certain limits. From an atheist mindset,
what other game could be played by a creator who doesn't want servile mechanistic,
necessarily believing sub agents. I don't know if this I'm sure, I'm
sure this thought has occurred to you before, but it just occurred to me.
How would one how would one as an atheist begin to presume such a
world? You know that there is some sort of hidden order that is in
a sense of waiting to be discovered and that is part of perhaps the game.
Does that make sense? I feel I've covered a lot of a lot
of angles simultaneously, which has been confusing. I realized, Yeah, I'm
not. I didn't volue there. I just I mean, if you're asking
what the logical philosophical argument is as to why I would believe in God,
it's the transcendental argument. So this is like a medieval sense of the original.
Is this a Thomas or is it a tas Artes or a type of
who we? Who are you referring to? You mean that specific? I
mean there have been plenty of people making transcendental arguments, from you know,
ancient philosophers like Aristotle to im Manual Kant. But the specific transcendent argument for
God is people like Bonds and van Til and some people in the Orthodox world.
I'm not sally with them. Is it possible to quickly not show that
just to be in the room. Yeah, I mean. The idea is
that only the God that we argue for, the specific type of deity that
is triune and creates the world with structure, and that metaphysical structure which underlies
reality is itself sort of the grounding and the foundation for the possibility of knowledge.
So transcendental categories are held together, function together, interrelate with one another
because they're grounded ultimately in the patterns and structures in the divine mind. So
an omniscient God in the created order, with the regularity that he puts into
it, is the basis for how we can have knowledge, ethics, and
metaphysics at all. Okay, So the fact that the will that we encounter
is structured and we is structured, not only implies but necessitates. No,
I didn't make the theeleological argument. I made the transcendental argument. I said
that the preconditions of knowledge, all of those that presuppose some kind of order,
some kind of mind, some kind of personal God to give us intentionality,
to give us all of the categories, is only fulfilled and justified in
the Christian conception of God. Well, thank you very much. I've got
to put some new people look up. You mentioned I think, I think
an ancient thinker that I hadn't come across before about half a minute ago.
Could you recall you mentioned it wasn't it wasn't Thomas, and it wasn't besides
aristotom you mentioned someone else that sounds like a German name. I said,
Kant makes transcendent arguments before that, but I'll go check out, thanks very
much. Yeah, I mean I have many, many talks, good questions
there. Appreciate that many talks on transcendental argument for God. So you could
also look to those where I reference a lot of the people and a lot
of the the literature and whatnot. Let's see row yard did you you were
here? And then I lost you? You fell out? Hello? Can
you hear me? Okay? Finally, sorry it cut out last time.
So in terms of the trinity, uh the world in debate that I assume,
Yeah, sure you want to okay. So is that is that pure
monotheism? Well, monotheism is a late term, and theism in the Christian
tradition refers to the person of the Father and by extension, the Son and
the Spirit. Okay, So that would mean that would make the son God
also correct or no, correct, because God is a generic term that can
pick out different things. Okay, then Jesus, Jesus, it would be
correct to say that you think Jesus is God? Right, yeah, okay,
And by God, we're in understanding that God is all powerful and all
the characters that God would be right, right, The word God picks out
different things. It doesn't have one reference. Yeah, I'm aware, I'm
aware. We'll like you could stop me if I were like, God is
all knowing, God is all powerful, God's not lacking in anything, correct,
Like we're gonna agree on that? Well, yeah, but God can
refer to different things, So it depends on the word God picks out different
things. It doesn't have one reference. Like what does I mean? Like
God, like the Creator and God we believe, can pick out the divine
person, the divine nature, and the divine energies. It can also pick
out an angel and dealon and a human, so God doesn't have a team
can be God and a demon can be God. The word God has different
reference. That does not mean that you're always talking about the word. I
mean the being I'm talking about. I know, But I'm saying that the
word picks out different things. Even in God like it can mean different things.
Yes, I understand that. Then in God it picks out different things
person, nature, essence, and operation. Uh sure, okay, So
God all powerful, all knowing, right, we can agree on that A
very basic thing unless I'm wrong. Yeah, but God can reference the Father,
the Son, and the Spirit, and Father, Son and Spirit are
all three all knowing, okay, so they're all all three of them are
all knowing. Correct, Okay. Then out of curiosity, why didn't Jesus
know the hour? Yeah, if you read letter two thirty five and of
Basil, he explains why that that's a misinterpretation of the text. It's a
use of rhetoric because elsewhere Jesus says none is good but God letter two thirty
six of Basil. I'm just saying that. That's where he gives the explanation
to this old Aryan argument that Jesus didn't have omniscients, because you know what
I'm saying, there's other passages to talk about Jesus having omniscients, right,
So it's a use of rhetoric, like when Jesus says there's no one good
letter Basil, it's either two thirty five or two thirty six, and I'm
explaining it Saint Basil, Letter two thirty five, two thirty six. He
gives an explanations right around in there of why and how we show that it
can't mean that Jesus lacks knowledge in the Bible. Letter two thirty six of
Saint Basil is a theological writing about what I'm talking just referencing that the essay
that talks about what I'm talking about, and it gives a lot of the
explanations that I'm giving you, namely that the words when it says that he
doesn't know are rhetoric because in other places you have similar uses of that rhetoric,
like there's no one good but the Father. Does that literally mean that
nobody is good? Because other passages say that the Son is also good and
the Spirit is also good. So it's a simple use of rhetoric. Mm.
Okay, So do you believe that the Bible is the word of God
in a sense? But ultimately no, the Word of God is a person.
It's a divine person identified with the second person of the Godhead in John
One. Mm hmm, So the Bible is not the word of God.
Okay, did you You didn't so you didn't hear what I said. I
just answered your question question. No, it's not. That's a false psychotomy.
I didn't say in between simple question. That's a false No. It's
called a fallacy of either or do you know what the fallacy of either word
is? Yes, it's either an apple or an orange, a little bit
in between. No, I didn't say. I never used the word in
between. Don't put words in my mouth. What I said was, I
didn't say in between. You're putting words in the name. I'm your like
synonyms, man, go ahead, go ahead, explain. No. I
said very clearly that there's a sense in which the written texts are the word
of God. And then I said that ultimately that's not correct though, because
the Word of God is a divine person, the second person of God had
identified in John one being. So you don't understand basic turn So you're giggling,
all right, you're not. You are giggling. You don't. You
have no clue what you're You don't know what you're talking about. So again
it's just people with no education, no knowledge. They can't do basic grammar.
When we talk about a word concept fallacy. You see that. You
see the silliness of this. So well, words have different reference. You're
not coming back on, dude, We're done, goodbye. A word can
have two different reference. This is called hermeneutics, right, This is how
we interpret this, the science of interpreting a text, and every heresy of
Saint Basil says, trades on ambiguity and heretics, thinking that words have one
meaning. Not every heresy is based on that, but it's a characteristic of
many errors and heresies to think that a word only has one meaning. And
people get tripped up on Jesus using a figure of speech. Jesus uses figures
of speech all the time, right, like, cut your hand off if
it makes you sin. Do Jesus trying to tell me those so forth?
Dude, it's called rhetoric. We utilize, excuse me, it's called a
figure of speech. We utilize hyperbole in literature all the time. Okay,
when you go to read Dosiewsky, when you go to read Shakespeare. Okay,
if you're an edge educated person, not a random goober who doesn't know
anything about how to read, you don't automatically take every text literally. That's
why it takes time to learn texts and how to interpret them, to learn
exte Jesus, to learn hermeneutics. And one thing you learn is that you
don't go to a passage or a text, isolate that text and think that
that's the one text by which all the other texts are interpreted. Every aryan
every aryan heretic. Does this Jesus lacks knowledge? Dough it says, right,
did these Jesus lacks knowledge? Do? Don't use the big words on
me, do. It's the use of rhetoric, exaggeration, hyperbole. Just
like when he says cut your hand off if because you dissent, He's not
literally telling you cut your hand off. It's hyperbole, just like when he
says there's none good but God. This is a grammatical thing. It's a
ter. It's a usage in literature to be will not know the hyperbole metaphor
is used in literature. Okay, so this, I'll bring you back on
if you'll slow down. If you spurg out and spit out a bunch of
mega liiths which doesn't back up the claim, then I'm not gonna I'm not
gonna bring you back on. Can you calm down and have a conversation?
H go ahead? Aiden? Are you there? You're on muted, daid
make your Masonic argument? What's up? Can't hear you? Dude? Don't
hear anything? So I don't know what what's up? H? You want
to try again? Are you there? Aiden? Okay? I don't hear
anything, dude, So I don't know what's going on. Pope Francis is
calling in. What's up Pope Francis tonight? It's if you disagree, you're
welcome to come on. Remember that disagreeing means that you're gonna present an argument.
You're gonna present a case. You can question me, you can interrogate
me. I don't mind, but we're gonna learn to debate. So part
of what we do in these exercises, in these live streams is we're not
just learning the facts and all that's good, we're also learning to debate,
hopefully, and so sometimes it requires pointing out that, like, you don't
know what you're talking about, and I'm gonna keep pulling you back to the
point so that you learn what we're trying to say and what real argumentation is.
There's rules to debate. It doesn't mean you just spout out whatever you
want. That's not what an argument. There are laws to thought and critical
thinking. That's what we're trying to elucidate here, and Pope France is going
to help us do that. What's up, Pope Francis? You get an
unmute man, Hello, what's up, your holiness? How you doing?
What's happening in Rome tonight. Did the did the Skittles orgies? Did they
just complete? Complete? Are they done? Is it over now? Well?
I actually do have something to say it It is an opinion and an
argument at the same time, and neither of them. So I'm just going
to share it and it'll take a moment, Okay, So momentarily I will
be donating five dollars to Jade Meyer. There are seven hundred viewers here.
I'm talking to you all. If you all that is you all donated a
few dollars, would make five dollars is equivalent to the price that be hot
and ready pizza. I encourage all of you to take a small step in
good faith to promote this high level no bullshit dialogically. I don't know what
all that was about. Johann sig what's up? I'm having fun or I
wouldn't keep doing this is tonight has been wild? I mean it's like,
Johan, hey, did you yeah? Yeah, yeah? How's it going?
So? I believe in God, but I wanted to just mention a
passing remark reaches that like in the world of power, he says, somewhere
I was hesitant to call in because I don't have my books. But in
the Wild of Power he says that like Paul was basically just experiencing epilepsy.
And if you sort of take this remark and dovetail it with some remarks of
Robert Sapolski's about like the resemblance between sorry Hindu cleaning rituals and also cleaning rituals
and Judaism, and he has many other examples and they really resemble OCD behavior.
So like the argument, like I said, I happen to believe in
modern modern Judaism Allah, rabbinical Judaism is not the same thing as what was
going on at the time of Christ. That's why Christ reduced that stuff and
Paul left Judaism. So how does this relate to Paul being ac The argument
is more so that all this phenomena is a just a mental it's just mental
stuff. It's just mental illness. It's something that's results the result of human
beings on the spectrum of mental illness. Like that's the argument. Like this
these remarks of niches in Uh and also bring that together with these remarks of
Robert sapolskis, I don't want to give a long speech to explain the whole
thing because Christianity and religion as mental illness. Okay, is that? But
how is that interesting that Nietzsche ended up dying of going insane mentally ill?
But yeah, I know, right, So, but how does that that's
a that's a claim. How does that demonstrate the claim to be the case?
Well, I'll tell you this Tag. Perhaps this is just a criticism
of TAG. Like I said, I respect the argument, I'm not necessarily
arguing against it, but it does sort of lack a volitional push into belief
because like actual belief, because at the at the core, it does seem
like you're saying God exists because we are able to have this debate right now.
But the fact that we were able to have this debate right now is
so plainly, dully real and obvious. There's an immense gulf between the psychic
image of belief in God, which is supposed to be an impressive something or
other, and the plain, dull realization that we're just having a debate.
And you're using a lot of rhetoric and prose to call it plain and dull.
But the question is, actually, what's the logical and metaphysical structure that
makes language and meaning possible. So your subjective idea is large question. Well,
that's what tag is. So that's how TAG moved. That's the movement
of that argument. So whether you call it, I mean, sure it
is prosaic, I suppose, but I don't think that that actually removes It's
you're using a lot of prose and using a lot of rhetoric that doesn't address
or deal with the actual argument itself. That's like saying that math is boring.
So math is boring. So math is boring. So hold on,
that's not what I'm saying that I didn't say, that's what you're saying,
Chill, I said, that's I said. It's like that that's an analogy.
Okay, So it's not. You're not saying math is. It's to
say that the conversation is boring. It has nothing to do with the questions
of preconditions. So the you know, tag tag hinges on the status the
status of preconditions give an account for them. Like, well, I don't
want to keep repeating this. I happen to believe in God, so I
feel sort of like insincere at the moment. But it just seems that this
issue that I just like, I'm trying to dovetail this with the picture of
what's happening that Nietzsche and the Robert Seppolski remarks like, if you know,
Tag just sort of fails to push one into belief and for that reason,
and part of the reason is it seems required the education you have, Jay
to understand fully, that's none of that has anything to do with whether the
arguments true or false. So those are it remains a flaw. It means
it like limits Tag's ability I suppose to push any went into Like I mean,
at a certain a lot of people have converted hold on looking for proof,
Okay, to keep looking for that. I don't think you understand what
you say. That a lot. I don't think you understand. I mean,
I do have a master's degree, but I maybe I'm also a little
stoned right now though, So I'm at a weakness's and strengths and I'm not
at my house my books, so anyway, can't continue. I'm listening.
That's up. I can't hear anything moving on the four hundred m Hey,
Jay, can you hear me? Okay, Hey, I was calling about
I just wanted to ask a question I'm working at a women's shelter right now,
so I don't have a ton of time. I was wondering when,
like during the week we're able to do like more of these. I'm just
connecting with some of your work recently, and I've got some questions. Do
you have a not so much debate but more like feedback? Uh huh and
uh yeah. So so if you could start with, like, when's it
good? Like I think this is the second session I've kind of like logged
into listened to for a couple of hours. Okay, so the topic,
it's so it's a debate for them. What we do is we offer people
to come on and give argumentation where they disagree with Protestant ideas kind of the
ideas Muslim ideas, Atheist ideas versus arguments that I might present. So,
okay, you have that or not, Well it would pertain to like I
co founded an abbey based on like the ancient Irish tradition as as obscure and
veiled as that maybe coming from a Protestant like background last few years, mildly
enchanted with some of what's going on in the Orthodox tradition, always kind of
wrestling back and forth. Am I doing the wrong thing? Am I in
the right stream? So yeah, we're kind of floating a little isolated because
we don't really have a place in Protestantism. Some things are attractive to me
about Catholicism, but not many a couple of things. But I would it
would be more a present or like, well, an interaction with you about
here's kind of what we're doing, here's why, here's I mean, that's
not really I'm not trying to be mean or rude, it's just not that's
not my I can't facilitate or answer those kinds of questions. So but you
know, maybe you could reach I would say, reach out to like an
Orthodox bishop or you know, the Orthodox Church around you. But thank you
for that comment there, Jamerican. What's up, ja American? We've got
JAMERICOI in the house. Virtual well insanity, speaking of jamericoy, virtual insanity
is what's happening tonight. I'm on that. I'm on that virtual insanity tip
tonight I'm dancing like m may require virtual insanity. What's up? J American?
You gotta on you? So y'all see how my patience has been extremely
tested and pushed to the point of snapping tonight. I've been hopefully somewhat patient.
I have really had to kind of really struggle to be patient tonight.
So uh, j American, Uh, you had your chance, Thomas.
You came on. All you guys already have been on, and you guys
know that it's it's disagreement night. Hick House. That's a good that's that
sounds good, hick House, Jack, you're doing oh my bad? Oh
ship? So I thought roy R, I thought you already came on.
Go ahead, Hickson, hick hicck whatever, hick House. Yeah. No,
I was going to say, you're on a you're on a terd night.
I uh, in thinking about what you've been talking about, I was
I figured you may entertain me for twenty seconds on the idea of you know,
say, you know, you and me are you know, spiritual beings
showing a human flesh shoot, and we're at a supermarket picking of religion,
right and uh? And the question is like, what what what are your
requirements for religion? Because you know, I think everyone has their own I
don't know. Uh, you can look at the you know, neurons wrapped
around feelings from you know, religion, they're taught in childhood or this app
and the other. And so my question is, I don't know to you
if you're you know, say you're on the open market for religion, or
say no other religions exists and you're going to create one, you know,
what is that? What are the priorities? Look like? You know,
what are the what are the need to be there? You know, like
pure capitalists, you know, let's make a religion, which I sort of
think I'm on the open meat market. That's what I'm saying. If everybody
looks at if you look at these guns, you'll see the meat market.
Now, Tristan's over there sweating and getting nervous. I'm sorry, Exon,
I don't I don't understand. That's what we're gonna have to move on there.
What are the requirements for a religion if we're shopping? I mean,
I guess it's going to depend on what you think religion is or what you're
looking for. I mean, Orthodox Christianity offers to man, you know,
the pathway to eternal life, becoming like God, deification, theosis. That's
that's what we believe in. But thank you for that question. Let's see
now somebody's in the chat fussing saying uh ro yar. Didn't you already come
on? Like everybody who's all fussy has been on flame too. You've already
been on you can come back on. Yeah, just make it. It's
weird to me that people can't make They just have no idea what an argument
is. I just think it's like arguing or something. Go ahead, Okay,
I can hear you. Okay, so you're talking. I just wanted
one quick question that I'm out of here. You were talking about without Mason
guy, about my MP whole and how his lecture with astrology at the end
of that, except that it was all about just yeah, socialism, United
Nations, that's the whole selling point. Yeah, what part was it?
I wanted to look like the last of the whole lectures on astrology. So
I don't know it used to be on YouTube. I don't know if it's
still there, like the lasts of it, his last election on astrology.
At the end, does he just say it's about socialism? Yes, and
it's not what freemasonry is all about. So it's just well, I mean,
freemasonry is not absolutely necessarily socialist, but many socialist Revolutionaries were absolutely Freemasons.
Absolutely. So the topic tonight, guys, is God's existence. Cause
the Alicism paper is he Protestants, not the philosophy of Freemasonry, unless you
want to say that Freemasonry has the correct theology of God or something. Roscoe,
Roscoe, get on you can you hear me? So? I just
got a quick question about something you were talking about angels? Did you said,
did you have a topic to debate about protonism with al says unorthodoxy?
Oh no, I don't, okay, So it's it's open debate. What
what were you What do you want to ask about? Uh? I heard
you on another streams say that when the angels were tested, they were tested
in just a moment. But I was reading a book, The Religion of
the Apostles by Stephen DeYoung, and uh he said that angels were appointed over
nations and then they fell away out of out of the uh, the the
counsel of God. Yeah, I agree with you. I agree with that.
So if they were tested in the moment, how could they fall out
of that council, the divine council? Because the angels exist in the aon,
which is outside of time. It's a timeless eternity. Yeah, but
how were they in the council and then out of it? Because that's in
the aon, the timeless eternity. It's not a it's not a thing in
time. Okay, I don't know if I quite get this right. So
if you read Vladimore Lawski's book, Uh Orthodox Dogmatics, there's four pages in
that book that deals with the Aon and what that means in Orthodox metaphysics.
And this is something that contrasts our view with platonism. So we have a
uniquely Orthodox idea that there's a created eternity known as the Aon, and that's
the realm in which the angels live and inhabit. So they don't they can
be in time, but they don't exist in time the way that we do.
It's called the aon aio in and many Orthodox elogians, including Saint Maximus,
talk about the eon. So yeah, I mean like people saying they
want to come back. Bro, if you didn't, I mean you came
on you major arguments. It didn't work. Ryan Burr, what's up?
Do you have a disagreement? An argument you want to make? Nate says,
for five dollars, how do you keep up between the politics of the
seas. I don't keep up with politics. I mentioned in geopolitics we talked
about a lot Garrett sixty four five dollars. What are you about the concept
of panpsychism. No, we don't believe in panpsychism. That is a heresy
that we would reject. Thank you for that, super jet ricky five dollars.
What's wrong with belief? In the Roman Catholic sense of the eucharists created
grace? So that's two different senses. Obviously, the Eucharist is a created
thing in the sense of bread and wine. The question is the grace that
we get in that Eucharist is not created? So the grace itself, as
Maximus excuse me, as Ephesus and Cyril say, is the uncreated energies of
God. And this is dealt with in the Decree of Ephesis and the Two
Lettershystic Census, where it talks about what we get in the Eucharist. Go
ahead, Ryan, So like I've been looking around, like the world around
us, and does this not remind you of like nineteen twenties Germany before,
like you know, you know, Okay, So the topic is Protestantism Catholicism.
I know, but it has like something to do. No, it
doesn't. So the topic is Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam atheism. I said
at the beginning, We're not here to talk about Middle East politics. We're
not here to talk about tiny mustache man. That's not the topic tonight.
Uh so, Wouler, what's up? Ruler? Doctor Chillonson's five dollars and
said, in regard to your debate with Jake, have you watched Khalil ad
Nanni's cross examination of Jake. Yes, I've seen all the discussions between those
two. Doctor Khalil annihilates Jake. I'm familiar. Thank you that for that,
Doctor Chillon, Oh's oz pod one dollar. I've seen a paper that
was scholarly calling Saint Athanasious a Sibelian. I'm sure you can find an academic
paper. This is everything I mean. I had classes where, uh the
entire class was about trying to prove Shakespeare was gay. So you know that
that's what academics do. Can you explain this? I would just read orthodox
sources. Don don't worry about that stuff. Octavian twenty five dollars? What
trans I mean, it's it's absurd, given how often Saint Athanasius defends the
Trinity, that he would be a Sibelian. It's preposterous. What transition do
you of the Orthodox Bible do you recommend? I mean again, I'm a
big fan of the Orthodox Study Bible. I've been using it for many,
many years. You know, the notes overall are really good. Doesn't mean
they're always correct or infallible, but you know ninety percent of the time they're
really good and correct. Guy Guy, Guy, Guy, Guy, three
dollars? Could God have made a better world? And this gets into Leibnizes
arguments about best of all possible worlds. I'm I'm not sure what I think
about that. I'm not sure true Pachamama believer. One dollar? Are you
ar FDA aware of creationist books against evolution? Yes, I mean there's hundreds
of them, so I referenced many of them earlier. I thought there was
one coming out. I mean there's a lot of them, so I mentioned
them in earlier in the stream aquaemtas one dollar. How do you commitce a
Mennonite that Christ recapitulated everything in the Escaton? You don't because of Menna Nite
it's not going to know what you're talking about. Just fix the damn wheel
on his buggy and move on. Just just love him by fixing his buggies
and buying his meat. Cody Cigar one dollar fresh tat breath. The atheist
guy is a requested speaker. Oh fresh, I thought I'll let him on,
but he didn't, so he was the breathy atheist. I think he
dropped off or we couldn't hear him. So if he's still there, he
can he can pop back on. Guys. Sometimes on Twitter spaces, if
you come in, you gotta like come out and come back in. I
don't know why, but sometimes it works that way. BMX shout out longtime
super Chatter a big fan of BMX since ten bucks. Thank you so much.
Bat dude won two three five dollars. I am a Christian. One
characteristic that I hear Protestants describe is that God is immaterial? Correct? How
can the material universe come from the immaterial God? Well, it matter comes
to be out of nothing ex nilo. And the only way that we know
that that's the case is because divine revelation tells us that that's what he did.
But we're not ever told how. Right, So the Bible isn't really
describing the mechanics of creation. It's describing the what, not the how.
So it's fine for humans engage in scientific activities, which is the how.
But again, the Bible's not a science manual on how God did this.
It's just telling us what he did. So I don't know how, Aiden
says, I have disagreements. Yeah, I know, Aiden, Now maybe
this was prior to you coming on with the Masonic arguments. Kabibe fenboy one
dollar. My mother is becoming a Messianic Jew. She's celebrating Passover Sabbath blah
blah. She and my Baptist church and her judy as her friends are mad
that I'm reading church history. Pray for me. Yeah, I mean,
if you watch show your Mom Lewis's documentary over at Orthodox Shahta about the continuity
between Jewish worship and Orthodox worship, because Orthodox Christianity is the real Messianic Judaism,
none of us seven seven, seven ten dollars. I'm convinced by the
pizza argument of Pope Princess. Well, that's good, appreciate that. And
also, I am not a man because I have a little bit of beard.
So, by the way, what actually counts as an Orthodox beard?
Like, what's the actual like do we need cinimeters? Now? I can't
use cinimeters because that's my sonic. Did y'all know that the decimals jamis in
their laugh And it's true though, the decimal system actually comes from Masonic dudes,
So we got to only use King's English here, and it's got to
be basically a foot is like this, right, So the beard literally pretty
much got to be out about here or I don't believe you're Orthodox. I'm
just now beginning to maybe think Father Deacon Anonius might be Orthodox because this beer
is pretty long. Tristan. No, in no way, dude, notn
Orthodox at all, probably not even a man. So basically there's only like
probably three Orthodox people in America because how many people actually have a beer that
long? A handful, if that much, Paul Kelly tonight, everybody's being
idiots. Jay, Well, Paul, I'm inclined to kind of agree a
little bit, but thank you for that. Ten dollars Christus Victor christ Vicker
on Earth five dollars math problems. Five dollars plus seven hundred viewers equals that's
a lot of money, but I don't think we're going to get that much.
Die or give me one more chance Conservative ex Masonic arguments Aiden. I
mean, I don't know. If you're still in there, you can come
back on. I don't care. But we gotta understand what an argument is.
And if you're just gonna fuss at me that I'm using big words,
then there's no point in doing that. Matt Belta, three dollars. Can
you show me where the church Fathers speak of the Trinity as we know and
understand it today? Oh, the church Father's the first three centuries. Well,
you could start by going to the discussion that I did with Inspiring Philosophy.
We did, I think a two hour podcast where we just highlighted Trinitarian
theology in the first and second century, so we didn't even go into two
to three hundred. I don't even think we now, we didn't go into
the third century. So I mean, there's a whole almost two hour podcasts
you can go watch Inspiring Philosophy, Jadeyer Trinity Ricky again, three dollars.
I can't wait for the debate with Jake made the Spirit empower you? Well,
I think the main thing is that, you know, the hardest part
about these debates is reading these really long Islamic texts, and so you know,
the even to me a text I'm having to read. I've got like
four of them, but one of them, two of them I did.
I've done. One of them is the really long one, and it's pretty
dry and boring. So it's just it's just a matter of like, I
fell asleep twice trying to get through this even to me a book. So
what's that ruler say? Yeah, my question is how would you respond to
the contient objection of a tag that it's the categories are just in the mind?
Well, I mean that would reduce to the problems of Kantianism, which
is that his whole system could not be known because he can't know what's outside
of his own mind. So, in other words, the whole system is
undercut by not being able to know because other minds are part of the Newmena.
But you're just using the exact argument he gave, but flipping it to
prove your argument. No, I'm flipping it to prove that Kantianism doesn't work.
But so you're using a transcendental argument. No, I'm not. I'm
not. I'm saying that on its own grounds. Kant system doesn't allow Kant
to know if other minds work that way. But I don't think his argument
is a question about minds. You just said that, what if the categories
are only in the mind, that's consposition that the categories exist in the mind.
In the mind theological question, not a metaphysical or ontological question. So
do you understand that if they exist in the mind, as Kant says,
that's consposition. Kant's own worldview is undercut because he can't know if other minds
work that way, because other minds are part of the noumena. Well,
we share the same nature as humans, so we each have our own that
goes outside of Kant's. You can't go there with if you're a content that's
the noumena, you don't know that. How can you prove that the categories
exist? Well, the hold on that's a different argument. So my argument
is that it's not const argument. The categories have to be really existing metaphysical
things like Aristotle thought. Why so for one, because I want to just
say that about con because there's no other way to structure the logic of sentences
means it's not jump from that reputation to saying, oh, therefore it actually
exists a positive claim. No, the argument is that the by the by
the impossibility of the Kantient system, they must be really existing things. Mm
hmm, how are you like verifying that? Well, if there's a disteleological
world, then sentences aren't possible, so teleology must be a real metaphysical principle.
Okay, Well, can you go back to the reputation of the Kantian
system? How does not know? Are you not aware of the critiques of
cont like there are already many many critiques of KNT, and this is a
very famous critique of con Okay, but then the response would be, it
doesn't matter. If we don't know the nature of other minds, then he
can't say that that's that's true. He can't say that that categories exist in
the mind. He only knows about his own. Are you not listening to
what I'm saying? Are you not listening? You can't it's an unjustified claim.
Do you don't understand how you can have to actually like give an argument
and not just assert your claims. I'm not making an argument I'm talking about
CONT's own position, not working on content grounds. It's not me asserting Christianity.
I'm saying that this is a classic critique of Kant. You're not aware
of this. I am aware of it. You're not articulating it. I
am articulating it. What do you mean? I just gave you multiple articulations
that Contoonne claims about his own system. Go outside into the new minal realm,
which, by cons definition you can't know. Do you want me to
bring a professor in who can help you with this, because he'll say what
I say? Do you want a professor in here? That's an appeal to
authority? No, it's not. It's an attestation. No, it's not
an appeal to authority. It's helping you out. I'm not saying it's true
because father Deacon says it. I'm saying that he will help you understand that
what I'm saying is accurate. Okay, why don't you try explaining it in
your own words? All right, We're done, Bill Vanier? Bill Vanier,
I'm mute. Hey, how you doing? Brother? Uh? Just
two quick questions for you. I'm not calling the debate or offer an argument
or anything okay, but that's what topic is tonight, So Protestantism as related
to dual politics. Again, I'm sorry, man. That is multiple times,
multiple times tonight specified that. No, that's not what we're doing of
mine. I'm not trying to be mean to you. You're welcome to call
back in. I do open it up for geopolitical discussions at times. Bays
quotes what's up, dude, thank you guys for the superstar. Oliver says
a dollar. If we have free will, should we be scared of temptations?
I think we have to fight our temptations win. They're temptations towards sin,
the passions. But I don't think we should be afraid of free will.
Go ahead, based Bays guy, what's an abased guy? Just an
Abays guy in the house. Hey, mister Dierk, can you hear me?
Yes, sir, So, I'm trying to wrap my head around tag.
But I guess I still don't understand. Couldn't the atheist theoretically just say
that he presupposes, like his worldview just presupposes like all of those issues,
you know, the fundamental issues that you talk about a lot. Yeah,
but it's not a matter of just saying that I presuppose or just you presupposed.
We already agree that everybody has presuppositions. It's a question of giving an
account for those presubpositional categories. So that's two different things. It's not just
saying, well, I presuppose, God, you presupposed categories. So I
guess we're at an impasse. No, No, everybody presupposes the same categories
the preconditions for the possibility of knowledge, and the question of tag is just
just who can give an account for those categories? Okay? Is that register
or is that not clear? I'm trying to think And I guess I recently
watched your debate with Dela Hunt, and I guess that was kind of what
he was trying to argue, and I didn't really understand. Yeah, so
Matt said the presuppositional transitional categories just are okay, But that doesn't work in
a debate. Just are what and just saying something is. It's not a
justification for how that thing exists. As Matt himself says, you should never
believe in something that is empirically verify. He admits in the debate that transnital
categories are not empirically verified, and he says they just are. Just are
is not an argument, It's not a justification. It's an arbitrary assertion.
It means absolutely nothing in a debate. Just are what? Just are?
Where? Does that make sense? Or are you there? What's up?
Yeah? Yeah, that makes sense. I think I'll look more into it.
Okay, Yeah, good questions there. Yeah, I think if you
go through like some of the discussions that Father Deacon and Ice have had in
the past about like epistemology and justification, those talks that we did would actually
be very helpful for the topic that you're bringing up. We'll go to We'll
get a bunch of more people hopping in here. Zar Gones, you know
what, I'm gonna have to go t T. So I'm gonna have to
go t T. Y'all just hold on for a minute, but I gotta
I gotta mess is from our sponsor. Don't go anywhere, and we will
continue on because I'm just in a mood. I'm feeling some type of way.
I'm feeling some type of way. I'm feeling some type of way.
Hey, and we're gonna continue this because I'm having fun. And you know
what, I've just submitted to the fact that it's gonna be crazy stuff all
night long. I don't mind. It's okay, I just just does just
marry the madness, bring it on. But look, I gotta tell you
about our sponsor first, and that sponsor is chot dot com. Baby,
I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Now hold on one minute.
Puzzling synthetic dies and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know
it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any
further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there
could be consequences. There's a new certified Sigma Male pre work out powder for
sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your coworkers, fire
your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode
stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and
dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors, which are actually not natural
at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula experience. The pure goodness of
chad Mode colored with organic blue spirolina extract organic lemon cherry and organic maple crystals.
Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power
of organic green coffee bean extract which will get your mind going and pump you
up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients,
the first clean pre workout of its kind. Why are these people adding
synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming
nasty fake sucralose Each this dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a cup
and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins,
minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to
fire your boss and dot. People do call in at times to try to,
like, you know, get you riled up, and it doesn't bother
me. I'll just roll with it. In fact, I wanted that beard
dude to come back, the dude saying that I'm not actually mascular man.
He ran off so so nope, trying to trying to call me out,
basically saying I got a basically a gay beard and that's okay. You know
what, man, you know what, I just sometimes I gotta come out
of the closet with my gay beards on. So argon's Matt, what's up?
Jargon? So to depict, I would like to say that to Protestants
and Orthodox holds us firmly to the conviction that the word became flesh, they
do, but they don't. I would argue that they don't embrace the doctrine
to its fullness. They don't see all the way to the bottom or draw
out. Okay. So, so who truly has the right answer on it?
Catholics see gods continued in fleshment, in the oil, water bread.
Who has the true answer? A kah, the true answer? You said?
Catholics and Orthodox don't have the true answer on it. So I'm asking
you, okay, who does Who's got the right answer? No, they
have, they have the true answer. They just don't hold as firmly to
the conviction that word became flush. Okay, who truly holds to it?
Then? You? I mean, who who's got the right answer to the
confident Church? Okay? The who the confident Church? Okay, So we
don't have the true answer, but the Catholic Church has the true answer?
Yeah, what do you I'm not saying what's the argument? The argument would
be that the way that confidence, uh but believe in the incarnation of Jesus
is more profound, it's more deep, it's more firm. So what you're
saying Roman Catholics have a better understanding than Orthodox is that what argon? I
wouldn't say a better understanding. I would say just more rooted and firm and
tradition. Could you understand that the Orthodox Church holds to the christological teachings of
the First Seven Councils and the Roman Catholic Church typically doesn't even know what those
are most Roman Catholics, So I don't know where you would get that.
What what's the correct christological view that we're supposed to have here? Okay,
I'm sorry that became God became humans so that humans might become God. Yeah,
I mean that's orthodoxy one oh one. All right, Well, yeah
that's the case. That's all they got to say. Okay, m gohan
bach, what's a this is? This is wow? Good grief, og
cowboy, five dollars. AI will reach superintelligence proposition one. This proposition two
constitutes a mind refute this. Why would First of all, intelligence is not
equivalent to complex algorithms. AI is always only input data and algorithms. That's
never intelligence. When we say that it's artificial intelligence, it's based on an
anthropomorphic analogy that computers work like human minds. So it's another kind of like
bait and switch word concept fallacy to think that because the computer works like a
mind, that it is a mind. So putting in more algorithms is never
going to make it conscious, nor does it ever make it a mind.
So there's the reputation of what your point, it trades on fallacy of uh
well, the word concept fallacy. Gohan, I mute, bro, This
is just it's just too entertaining to not continue with this. I mean we
don't usually get this much. Wow feral activity. I mean hey yeah sure,
mm hmm. Well what's up? First of all? Yes, sir,
how you doing? Back of the ball? All right? So real
quick? Was that I saw a screenshot earlier? Was the pope really on
this street? We're going to put you on something? Yes? Him,
I'm going to put you on something along? Was he? Was he really
the speaker? Dude? It wasn't a pope? Come on all right,
Look, I just want I want to believe. So that's that was the
first question up. Yeah, I mean that's that was actually the most pressing
thing. I'll pass the mic. Thanks Jack, m Matt, what's up,
Matt? Hello, Yes, sir, I just have a question about
Wait, it's about atheist argument. It's not really an argument, but it's
a It was well, my friend was arguing with an atheist and he asks,
if we were made in the image of God, then how can we
sin? And I just don't know how to respond to that. Well,
being made in the image of God partly means that we have freedom, so
that means we have the ability to choose different options. And unfortunately, in
the fallowing world, that means we have the ability to choose sin. So
being made in the image of God does not mean that we are equivalent to
God in virtue. We have to learn to choose virtue versus choosing advice by
you, Jared us up by you? Yeah, So, Aiden, do
you want to come on the stream again? And I'm happy to explain these
things if you can relax and not just machine gun. So, and when
Orthodox Christianity says that we become God, it does not mean what masonry means
in terms of being your own God and apotheosis. So this is why words
don't always have the same meaning. Okay, it's a word concept fallacy.
So by you are you there or what's up? Yeah, I'm here?
What's up? You wanted to get your your view? What is your view
of the nature of scripture? And do you have like an evidential argument that
you can provide to kind of substantiate that. I do believe that the scriptures
are inspired. I don't think they contain theological error. I think that there
are copyist errors. I think most people believe that there are minor copyist errors.
But that the unanimity amongst textual scholars for the first you know, a
few centuries of the thousands of manuscripts, in terms of the ninety to ninety
five percent unanimity amongst the texts, I think suggests that the veracity of the
text. I mean, the New Testament in the first few centuries is like
the most attested to document in history. It's even more attested to than Plato's
writings. So if you're talking about like historical attestations to the veracity of the
New Testament, I would say those kinds of things are examples of that.
But the reason I believe the Bible ultimately it would be things like messianic prophecies
being fulfilled, very precise prophecies, as well as philosophical arguments like the transcendental
argument and so forth. Okay, yeah, because when I was seen a
lot of Christians debating skeptics, they it seems like they get back into the
most that they can say about the scripture is that it's, you know,
mostly historically reliable, and they I haven't I haven't seen Christians step into the
ring with the skeptic and actually try and defend that the that the scriptures,
the Old and New Testament are the literal word of God. You know,
it kind of depends on your your definition of inspiration. Do you believe that
the Bible is is equal to God speaking in every so, the Word of
God is the second person that God had Jesus, the like the Messiah is
the Logos. They're identical. That's the one person that's present in Christ.
So the Word of God is not equivalent to a book. The book is
called the Word of God because it's the revelation of the person of Christ.
So it's not identical in the same sense. And that's I I'm not saying
you do this. A lot of Protestants commit the word concept fallacy, where
they think that because the Word of God is Jesus, Jesus is the Bible.
Right. This is like KJB fundamentalist type people. We wouldn't say that.
But I do think that the Bible is historically accurate and so forth,
reliable, inspired, et cetera. So if someone were to convince you of
an error in the Bible with what would that do to your faith? Well,
again, it would depend on the type of error, because I said
there are copyist errors, and I have a not a copyist error. It's
something that all of them. Let's say, let's just say theoretically every manuscript
agrees this is the correct reading, and it's some historical fact that is proven
to be like incorrect or And what's the argument? Where is this argument?
It's a theoretical argument. I'm not making this specific arment. I mean I
can point to there's the in the gospels. Is where you're going to find
the most You have two different you have three if you're talking about this in
optics, you know three different accounts of the same event. And this is
where most of your you know, quote unquote contradictions are going to run.
I'm aware of many of these claims and made the arguments, and there's a
lot of scholars and there's a lot of argumentation that reinterprets and robuts those things.
So that's why, for instance, there's one in particular that I've never
really heard anybody address. Well, I mean, I've brought it up before,
and people say, well, it's talking about two different events, but
I think if you read the context, and it's clearly speaking of the same
event, which one the gatherering demon event. No, this is the parable
of the wicked husbandman. So at the end of the parable, Christ says,
what therefore, will the Lord of the Harvest do to those wicked husbandmen
or something along those lines. And then and then Christ answers the question,
and he'll he'll miserably destroy those wicked men and give the vineyard to another.
Right. And then in another gospel Matthews, Yeah, I believe it's in
Matthew, Mark and Luke. In one of them, Christ gives the response
he's going to destroy them and give the vineyard to another. And in another
one of the gospel accounts, it's the scribes and Pharisees that respond. He
asked the question and then they respond. So in one gospel, and if
you read the context, it's the same. I can't remember exactly what the
context is, but it's the same surrounding context. Right. But matthews audience,
for example, is a Jewish audience, and you've got other gospel writers
focusing primarily on gentile audience. Right, So if there's a highlighting of the
response of one group that's in Matthew's gospel, it makes sense, for example,
why it would point out things like scribes and Pharisees, whereas, uh,
you know, the gentile direct the gospel might not talk about that because
it's not real as relevant to that audience. So yeah, but so who
said the response Jesus or was it the Pharisees, because it depends on which.
So this this one really got me because now you're if Jesus said that,
then one of the gospels is putting the words of Christ into the mouth
of the Pharisees or vice versa. And that's that's why it really caused me
pause, because I'm like, well, this is these are this is actually
Jesus speaking here. So this isn't like, you know, he he crossed
the sea and he landed someplace he shouldn't have landed, and this is putting
the words of Christ into the mouth of the Pharisees. And also just like
the view of you know, I mean, it depends on how you look
at inspiration because a lot, it seems like a lot of Christian apologists and
stuff, when they even talk about the Gospel of John, they're going to
admit that a lot of this dialogue and monologue of Christ in theirs is rough
approximations. These are not a word for word the things that Christ said when
he prayed to the Father or something like this. And you pretty much have
to argue that we'll just the Holy Spirit just told John what to write,
because no one can really understand exactly where he would get this type of information
from. Well, but I mean, if God is God, why couldn't
he do that? I mean he could, but I mean that's the same
argument that anyone could that's the same argument that a Mormon could make. Or
well, yeah, but I mean yeah, but the fact that a Mormon
could make that argument doesn't have anything to do with whether that might be the
case here, right, So I'm not saying it's true, because other people
could make that claim. But what I'm saying is on its own grounds,
that's not a problem. So the fact that some other person makes that argument
isn't relevant to this case. But I mean, by the way, so
hold on, let's go, let's go to the first one. So I've
got Matthew, you know the parable divine dressers pulled up here, and you're
talking about at the end of the parable or okay, okay, So it
says like forty five the chief priests Pharisees heard the parables and said he was
speaking of them. They sought to lay hands on them at the question,
and he said, what is he going to do to those wicked men?
And they said, and they said, he'll He'll destroy them and give the
vineyard to another. I think christ answers in Matthew, and then he goes
and he and he tells another very short parable after that, the stone the
builders rejected. Okay, yes, correct, So it's before the stone that
the builders rejected, right before that, like the verse before that. And
you're saying that because in another gospel there could be the I mean, maybe
Jesus has made this point in the past and so they're repeating. I mean,
Jesus does re emphasize and restate things. So I'm just not saying why
this would necessarily be a contradiction. But what's the other what's the other text?
Well, I don't it's I'd have to look it up on my phone.
It might take me a second to do that, but if I just
do a search for so, you're talking about the same parable in uh what,
Luke, Yes, it's the same parable. It's the same it's the
same context around it, like that, all the narration leading up to it
is the same. So the argument that these are two different events is a
bad argument. I think. I don't know why you would make that argument
other than to just try and reconcile and harmonize. There's no other evidence that
I've seeing to do that. You know, it's the same parable. He
asked the same question at the end. The same response is given, but
in one it's Christ responding. In the other it's the Pharisees responding. I'm
gonna try and pull it up here. Okay, well I'm in Luke twenty
twenty one. Okay, look twenty is the Luke's version of the mind Dressers.
Yeah. Yeah, so Matthew twenty one to forty. When the Lord
therefore the vineyard cometh, what will he do to those husbandmen? And they
say unto him? So in Matthew they respond to Christ he will miserably destroy
those wicked men, and he will let out his vineyard to other husbands,
and which shall render him the fruits in their season. So that's in Matthew.
And then let's see So the it's Luke twenty Okay, I appreciate you
taking a look at it, because, like I said, I haven't really
gotten it. I mean, it's I'm not I've not heard this one.
I mean I've heard a lot of these over the years. I'm not.
This one's just not familiar to me. So I'm always willing to take a
look and see. And it says, yeah, so verse let's see twenty
Luke twenty thirteen the vineyards. Yeah, you can pick it up in like
fifteen. So they cast him on the vineyard and killed him. What therefore,
So here's the versekin, what therefore show the Lord of the vineyard do
unto them? And then christ answers, So this one, it doesn't say
and they said, so mine keeps the words in red. But we'll disregard
that, you know, the red lettering because that's not inspired. Right,
Well, hold on, you mess me thinking of a KJV person. I
don't. I don't think that the non read letters are uninspired. I don't
know where. No, I mean the the it being color coded red is
something that the translators do. I'm aware that's their interpret saying that this is
Christ speaking. I know, because that's that's the it has nothing to do
with Yeah, but that's nothing to do with like our theology. But go
ahead. Yeah, So in this one, uh, it's Christ answering his
own question. You know what, Therefore, of the Lord of the vineyard,
do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall
give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said,
God forbid. So obviously that's not them speaking that answer, that was Christ.
So this is the this is the same parable. And if you look
at the contact. Yeah, but like, I just don't understand why this
is a big contradiction because you could have multiple people in an audience engaging in
similar types of things, right, like, for example, the way that
the Bible describes the death of Judas. Right, there's two aspects to the
same event. Right, He's hung, and then his body falls off of
the tree and it busts open. Right. And then people say, oh,
it's a contradiction in the way that the Bible gives you account of Judas's
death, when it's just two different descriptions of the same event from two different
angles. Right, one is the hanging, the second is the fulfillment of
the prophecy when the hanging body gets bloated, pops and falls off of and
open busts open when it falls off of the tree. And so what I'm
saying is that you could have Jesus describing this parable, and perhaps he's told
this parable before, and different people in the audience are replying to him,
and Matthew and Luke are highlighting different responses. So even this isn't necessarily a
contra addiction. So explain to me how they how they both respond with the
same response of Christ respond the same event because it's a crowd of people,
right, And you can have within a crowd of people, if Jesus has,
for example, made the same point many times throughout his ministry. You
probably have people that have already heard this, and so you could have Jesus
and people in the audience both responding like oh oh right, like a like
when you're having a lecture and a lot of people are in the audience and
then some people say oh, yes this and then you say yes this right.
I mean, that doesn't seem like a plausible or reasonable explanation to me
because Luke is is he is writing down this account of Christ, right,
But Luke's writing for it. Luke's writing for a gent audience. Matthew's writing
for a Jewish audience. So what they what they emphasize will be relevant in
that regard. Sure, And I mean there's other little things you know that
I don't mind, like wording differences or whatever, or emphasis different. I
mean it's not a word for word the same, obviously, it's there's differences.
But the problem is that that Matthew has Jesus answering his own question and
then Luke sorry, yeah, but I mean this again, this is like
why cannot I mean, have you ever been in a large crowd of people
where you're having a loud debate and a discourse with lots of people done.
I've had it many times, right, And so if for example, you've
stressed something in the past, they can the audience can shout something, and
then I can also say it too. So it's in other words, it's
like a false either or, like it's got to be either way. And
what all I'm saying is that, I mean, why can't there be you
know, the same just the same phrase being said by both Jesus and by
the Pharisees. Why does it have to be either or? Because that just
seems that to me, that seems weird, like the more but it's not
weird. But it's not weird if both gospel writers are emphasizing different things for
different audiences, one for Jewish audience, one for a gentile audience. To
me, the more plausible explanation is, so Luke was not present with well,
we don't know, we don't know that. Well, as far as
we know, he went people to write his gospel, right, and I
mean he's he's he's picking up these stories from the eyewitnesses or the people that
he's interviewing. I mean, does he say that, does he say that
at the beginning of Luke I don't recall I mean maybe that's what he says,
I mean, or is it? Are you saying that's what scholars say?
That's what he says. At the beginning of acts he includes, he
says, the former Triotist treaties that I've written under you, O Theopolis,
you know, to take an account the things which we are are sure surely
believe, and and he says that he uh, yeah, he's got introduction
right, I'm reading it right here, I've got it pulled up. But
I mean, this doesn't say that he wasn't there, does it. No,
it doesn't say he wasn't there, but we don't. He's not mentioned
in the gospel account. So if he's there, he's he's just he's not
mentioned, you know, he's not like one of the But I mean there's
giant crowds of people. So yeah, so he could be there. That's
that's true. But I don't see any reason to think he was there.
I mean, we just did. There's no a Well, but I mean
you're saying you're just saying that we know that he wasn't and I'm saying,
well, say that I'm not saying that we know that he wasn't. But
I think that he's you know, he's writing his gospel. I think is
the is the longest of all of them, if I remember correctly. But
he's he's he's got a lot of more like detailed information about different rulers and
and and kind of specific historical things because he's ready for because he's ready for
a gentle audience. Yeah. So so he's going and this is this is
why the view of inspiration is like and in errancy is kind of difficult because
Luke is you know, when I first became a Christian, you kind of
have this idea inspiration that Luke just kind of sits down one night and it's
dark and he's got a candle light and God just inspires him and he just
writes the Gospel of Luke one night or in a couple of nights. But
this is a project that probably took him months and months, It's not years,
you know, investigating and interviewing. Yeah, I mean this is just
like, I just don't this seems like a week one to me, honestly.
I mean, I'm happy to look at this and I just don't see
why it can't be focusing on different different persons saying the same phrase which again,
if we're talking about let's say, let's say there's a big debate that
I have in person with somebody, and let's say that a bunch of atheists
show up, a bunch of people that have followed my channel for a long
time in the last three or four years, and they've heard me say a
lot of stuff, right, And let's say in the course of me telling
a story, I'm talking to the crowd and they shout out something that's a
phrase like, let's say they say, yeah, unmute dude, and then
I go exactly, unmute dude. And then two people are recording the event.
One guy records and Jay replied, unmute dude, and another guy records
the audience shouts, unmute dude. Are either of those accounts false? No,
they're both true. Just like the Death of Judas where he hangs himself
and then his body falls and his but it busts open. Right, it's
not a contradiction describing the same event at the beginning and at the end of
the event. Does that make sense? Why can't Why is that not a
plausible way to interpret this? I think it's it's it's well to me.
It seems ad hoc like you're just saying, well, they both said it.
No, I'm just saying I'm saying that that happens in the course of
the Gospels when people repeat phrases that Jesus has already said. I mean,
doesn't I mean the stone the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone that comes
up multiple times in the New Testament, right, yes? Yeah, So
I mean, like people have heard Jesus make and say these phrases and use
these arguments probably multiple times throughout his ministry. For example, like he talks
about, uh, you know, the Kingdom of God will come and many
many standing here will see the Kingdom of God coming. And you know,
he says that phrase a lot, right, So we wouldn't we wouldn't conclude
that oh well he only said that phrase one time, and then the other
times he could have never said that phrase, right, I mean, why
can't. I just don't understand why you can't have one gospel writer highlighting a
response from the crowd and another gospel writer highlighting Christ saying the same type of
argumentation or response like he does often. Yeah, I mean, you you
I think that's the only way. I mean So I've heard two responses,
and one is his response for giving now that that Jesus said it and they
repeated it back to him or something, and for some reason, Matthew wrote
down, you know what they repeated back and which but if you if you
look at it, so let me continue my thoughts. So Matthew decided to
write rep and Luke decided to write him him responding because they had different emphasis
or something, or to say that they are just two different events. And
both of those explanations are not as good to me as just saying, well,
Luke, when he was getting his gospel information, that's the story that
he got, and it was one detail of it was wrong or it was
right. And Matthew one detail that he wrote, you know, he said,
he said that this person responding and it is actually this person. I
mean, my my thing is like, well, that's okay if that's if
they got if Jesus didn't actually answer and it was them, and one gospel
writer said it was Jesus, that's okay. I'm I'm I can live with
that. I'm not gonna abandon Christianity because of that. And I think the
view of the inspiration of the word of God is like being God literally speaking,
This is like, this is God God. Do you believe that,
I want to say, the Bible says that what they say, No,
God says this. God says this, And it's like Paul talking about it.
Do you believe that the account of Judas's death is a contradiction? No,
that one is no problem for me. But it's the similar it's a
similar type of thing, right. So like if if we're admitting in the
case of Judas's death that one gospel writer can emphasize the body falling and busting
open, and the other gospel writer can emphasize that he hung himself, Like,
by your logic, it should be either or right, because just like
in this case, it should be either or To me, it's more like
one writer says that Judas hung himself and another writer said that somebody hung Judas.
No, it talks about his body falling, talks about his body falling
and busting open. Yeah, So that's I mean, I that's fine because
it's it's two very different things that you can synthesize and harm harm whereas this
is it's the same event. But again, have you ever been so if
you've been in an event where a lot of people are you know, I
mean, Jesus the most controversial person history, Right, I'm not that controversial.
But I've been to live events where people stand up and yell at you,
and they yell out, you know, things that you've said. Bryce
and Gray came to a live event yelling things out. We were yelling back
and forth. The crowd got involved, the other debaters got involved. So
if a person was at that event recording they have, they might record emphases
of and Bryson Gray was saying blah blah blah and bryceon Gray was refuted by
his own arguments, right. Other persons might record that, and Jay was
replying to Bryson and blah blah blah. Right, So it's two different accounts
of the same event, emphasizing different things. Again, to me, this
just doesn't I would I need a harder version of a contradiction to me,
this is just to me, it just seems like a week one. Honestly,
I mean, is there a I mean, if we already, if
you harmonize them, so then you basically have to say something along the lines
of this. Christ asked this question at the end, when when the Lord
therefar for the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? And
then they say, unto him, he will miserably destroy those wicked men,
and let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits
in their season right. And so imagine the situation. So at the same
time Jesus says, uh, what therefore shall the Lord of the vineyard do?
He'll come and destroy the husbandmen and will give the vineyard to others.
And then they give this long answer to it's just like it doesn't make any
sense. It makes more sense that they're just they've got their sources and there's
a little bit of a difference there, Like I don't have a problem with
it, but they both can't. I mean, I don't want to say
can't, but they both don't seem to come. So what I'm saying,
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that if it's not on the surface a
contradiction, that we have to assume that that it can't be reconciled through emphasizing
the crowd and Jesus saying the same thing, like, I mean, I've
had that kind of thing happen in crowd argumentation. So like, imagine that
we're imagine, let me let me give another example words maybe a little more
applicable. Right, Imagine I'm debating a bunch of Muslims and one thing I've
always said is that you know, God is one and many, and the
Muslims always say one one, one equal to one. Right. So imagine
that I'm making fun or I'm provoking Muslims in a debate, and I say,
the Muslims always say one one, one equal one, and then the
Muslims reply to me, of jash so as the muslim say one one,
one equal one? Right? Is it a contradiction if one person says that
the Muslim said it, another person says that I said it. No,
And I understand your explaination, right, But I mean, why why can't
that happen if it seems like a very common type of thing that happens in
big crowd level debates. Uh, just because when I put them, when
I put these two, when I put these accounts side by side, that
just doesn't seem like the most reasonable explanation to me. And that's just my
preference or anything. But I think that the deeper point of this is,
like if you have a Christian who is convinced that there's a contradiction all right,
like like I am of one. Even though it's small and pretty insignificant,
you know, it's the most significant. It's significant to me because it's
Christ speaking or not, you know. But so so that sounds like it
sounds like you came from like a Protestant evangelical background, and then you have
the idea that there's this sort of mechanistic view of inspiration, like you know,
like they're possessed and they write the text or something like that, like
there's not a human element to it or something like that. I mean,
is that your background, like Protestant Evangelical, Yes, yes, right,
And and the thing is you're you're taught that like if there's if there's one
error, then it's all then it's all untrue. You might as well toss
it in the trash can and you know, e drink can be merry for
tomorrow we die. And I just feel like that's dangerous and I think it
causes people to have problems that like it almost caused me to have problems instead.
I just changed my view of inspiration. And it's not just because of
this one text, but for a lot of just learning more about how the
Bible was written and transmitted, and and just realizing that, you know,
when you read Christ speaking in the Gospel of John, that he probably didn't
say those exact words. You know, it's probably something along though as lines.
And people just say, you know, God said this, and God
said that, and they're you know, reading from I don't know, ruth
or you know, okay, and so what and what is your view?
Now? My view is that the authors of scription. Now what what religious
view do you have? Now? I'm a Baptist, so I don't know
how so but you were reading about the formation and history of the Bible,
and you're a Baptist. Oh yeah, I love and like secularly, but
how do you if you know about the history of the Bible, then why
would you be Baptist Because that has nothing to do with being Baptists. Like
the Bible? Who put the Bible together? Like who formed the cannon?
Yeah? Well, actually, I mean I can't speak a lot to that.
I know Catholics say that they did, you know, or whatever,
But and that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. I'm talking
more about you know, I've read about manuscripts and how they're discovered in Egypt
in different places, and okay, and that's what what is that? What
are you talking about, Nagamadi? What do I mean? Yeah, but
that's the Gno. They find codexes, they find codexes, they are like
I'm aware, I know that the books that are strange. It's like Jonah
and an Epistle. Yeah. I would just okay, d thank you,
all right. I would say I'll look into the history of the formation of
the Canon and that will raise interesting questions about the church. Idara, what's
up? Aiden? Yeah? Again, must manly p. Hall's philosophy is
not coherent, and I'm happy to address that. Aiden, if you want
to come back on. But I don't see you in the chat. So
Adara, what's up? Yeah, I'm mute. Oh hi, I'm so
sorry. I was on YouTube. I'm going to put on I'm going to
put you on. I was going through the spaces. I'm going to put
you on something real quick. I want to participate because I've had some really
interesting experiences. I'm someone that grew up as a Christian, but I was
someone who was really curious if God really existence, just something I really always
wanted to know, and I sort of believed, you know, miracles and
the stuff in the Bible should happen, but I just didn't know how.
I mean, it just kind of seemed like, if it says that this
is possible in the Bible, should be true. But do you have an
argument about the topics or oh, the topic about which faith is? All
right, I'm not trying to be rude, but so the topic was debate,
right, Debating Protestantism Witholicism is on atheism, and so for people to
come on, you need to have a question to debate a topic to debate.
Jack? What's up? Jack? What's up? Jet? What's up?
Jeck? We're going full manson on y'all. What's up Jeck? You've
got you aiden sos of dollars? Says I've calmed down. I ordered a
dictionary apologize from crackhead gen Z. I am conservative black man on X.
I thought you were Aiden. So Jack, do you want to speak or
you just wanted to sit there for a long time? Elliott Smith? What's
up? Elliott? All right? My next starting to hurt. I'll know
much more. I can go, by the way, if you guys want
to support FDA. You can do so by getting the link to you Lower
Coffee, an excellent Orthodox coffee brand that you see behind me. The link
is in the show description. I'll also put it in the chat right here.
Elliott, you want to unmute or what's up? Hey? J uh
huh? Yeah? J how you doing good? You have to mute me
in the background, dude, can you hear me? Okay? Yeah,
I'm not in the agnostic or I've been an agnostic for most of my life,
but raised Christian, kind of leaning back towards Christianity and Deism. But
I'm trying to figure out the Orthodox perspective on creationism. And I know you're
a creationist, I guess, But I'm trying to understand why is that critical
to Orthodox like faith to accept the interpretation of genesis of creation because it ties
into christology and the doctrine of Christ and what Christ did as the second atom.
So Christ can't be like a second evolutionary atom. He's got to be
the same atom as Adam. Okay, but why can't? So? Why
why why can't you accept like a sort of like a what do you call
it? I mean, there's other reasons as well. Like death is unnatural.
It's not a natural thing. For Orthodoxy, it's unnatural. In Roman's
eight, all of creation is subjected to bondage, and so Christ's recapitulation would
be undone if if Christ isn't the second atom, if he doesn't recapitulate all
reality like Adam did. Okay, so intelligent design would not work like like
God sort of starting the evolutionary process in motion that resulted in death is a
result of the fall. It's not a thing that exists for AONs to produce
Adam and Eve. Death is the result of the fall. So there would
be no death without the fall. So it's not a thing that exists for
AONs to produce Adam and Eve. Okay, So like all animals would would
not die, there's no death before Adam and Eve. Therefore, death as
a process of evolution cannot be the thing that exists for AONs to produce Adam
and Eve. Okay, Okay, Okay, I get it, I get
it. Okay. So then I guess I don't want to get into a
huge scientific debby well, I mean, let let's just we can do like
the philosophy of science debate, because I mean I'm not trying to be mean
to you. I'm just saying, like, most of the time, people
that argue this stuff can never tell me why I'm supposed to believe in their
theory of science. Well, I mean there's a there's a scientific process.
You accept that that you accept the scientific process, right, Yeah, I
know, I'm asked about the philosophy of science. Okay, Well, I
don't know if I'm equipped to debate the philosophy of science, but I guess
I'd just like to understand, like, how do you reject modern science?
Is like contention that the Earth is like four and a half billion years old
based on radiometric dating, and because of that, all of that is based
on presubsitions baked into the measurements themselves, and that people making these claims are
going outside of the balands of what can be known from observation and making gigantic
metaphysical leaps and telling me gigantic stories about the origins of the universe, which
is not justified on the basis of a lot of times physics things that are
occurring that can be explained on both models. So a creationist and an evolutionary
theorist or a big bang theorist or whatever. They can both have equally accurate
descriptions of various phenomenon, So the phenomenon themselves are not going to tell us
the gigantic age variations and differences. So that's when I say, how does
empirical observation tell me O preori all of these gigantic descriptions of AONs of time?
And the people that I asked that question to can never even tell me
about their epistemic theory to begin with, or why I should believe in empiricism.
So for me, none of it philosophically gets off the ground because they
don't even realize they're assuming all these metaphysical things and all these all of these
things that go way outside the bounds of what empirical sense data can actually verify.
Okay, so you're saying the scientific process itself is not undergirded by like
a proper philosophical basis. Yeah, I'm saying that most of the time,
the average biologist or life science guy or a physicist. I'm trying to think
of the people that I've had debates with from the science realm neurobiologists, neuroscientists,
like they don't know anything about philosophy. And I'm not saying that makes
my position true. I'm just saying that when I start asking them questions about
the scientific method, I think they can't justify the method. But the method
is supposed to be the thing that, in their view confirms this idea of
gigantic metaphysical truths. So how are we going to get back to metaphysical truths
when modern scientists is premised on rejecting metaphysics. Well, I don't think.
I don't think figuring out how old the Earth is a giant metaphysical question.
It's just well, there you go. So there you just you just demonstrated
my point that science eve men have no idea what metaphysics is. They even
realize that absolutely that's a gigantic metaphysical question. Of course it does well,
it has, It has gigantic metaphysical consequences. But the science itself is when
someone's conducting a scientific experiment or analyzing data, or looking at rheiometric evolution,
you know, processes igneous rock. Okay, what do you think? What
do you think metaphysics is? What? I can't give you a definition of
metaphysics, but a whole lot so you don't you know that science isn't making
metaphysical claims? But you don't know what metaphysics is? No, I think
that has metaphysical consequences. I don't think. I don't think a scientist has
to be a philosopher, I mean a grand philosopher of metaphysics. Right.
A scientist can just be doing scientist a scientific experience experiments. Yeah, but
that misses the whole point that I've just been making that you don't realize when
you're going outside the balands of what the tool of the scientific method can tell
you and what it can do, and you end up making these gigantic metaphysical
claims. And that's the thing I'm calling into question. And then when I
ask you what that is, you tell me you don't know what that is.
Well, I mean, just just to get it back to basics.
Wait a minute, so yeah, let's back to basics. So how do
you know that they're not making metaphysical claims if you don't know what metaphysics is.
I I don't know that they're I No, I don't know that they're
making metaphysical claims. You're right, But I know that they're making scientific claims,
right, so you're you're just you're trying to poke holes in the scientific
process. By no, you totally misunderstood what I said. I just said,
the scientific process is a tool for uh doing certain things studying the natural
world. It can't give you the things they want to make it do.
That's what I said. So I absolutely believe that I did not. I
never questioned the scientific method. Okay, so just a basic question. So
why why does radiometric dating why cannot why cannot give you? Cannot give you
evidence of the age of the Earth in millions of years or billions of years
because the methodology already has in the system baked into it the long eons of
billions of year date. It presupposed. This is the thing that I'm questioning.
That's why I said both models. Are you familiar? Hold on,
are you familiar with what's called the underdetermination of data problem? Vaguely? I
mean, I think I get what you're going What is it? Vaguely underdetermination
of data? You're saying that you're drawing a conclusion from the data. They
cannot be drawn, is what you're saying. Right, No, it's a
problem in pistemology where certain theories can be accurately and sufficiently explained by different models,
and so piling up more evidences or more data, for example, is
not immediately going to tell you which paradigm can explain the same data. So
it's a famous problem in epistemology where it's a way to demonstrate or show that
just having more data isn't going to tell you the paradigm of the data.
And so that's why it doesn't work to say, yeah, but I can
give you more and more examples of data which proves the age of the day,
which is at the age of the earth, which is based on the
thing that's in question. So what I'm saying is that so like radiometric dating
or the similarities between like the uh, you know, percentage of DNA that's
shared between apes and man, both the creationists and the evolutionists model both have
both have explanatory models of the data the same data. So it's what I'm
saying is that data doesn't solve the underdetermination of data problem. Okay, but
what about when different strains of science, different disciplines of science match the same
theory, In other words, they they corroborate the theory. Well that I
mean that depends on the theory of questions. Well, it depends on what's
in question. So but that isn't going to to tell you the metaphysical claims.
That's what I'm trying to say. It's it's never going to get you
there. Yeah, I mean I understand that if you have different disciplines of
science and they all point to the Earth being four point five billion years old,
that could be biogeography, it could be play tectonic, it could be
yeah, but those models all assume the models already assume the thing in question,
right, That's what I'm pointing out. So your just point because all
of the people producing those papers and those models already believe in the long date
thesis. And I'm saying, so you're I mean, I agree with this
theory, like when it comes to climate change, but I have a harder
time connecting. Wait a minute, Oh, so the system only lies about
climate change? Does it lie about gender studies or not? Is that like,
because I do meet a bunch of doctors that tell me that I can
be a woman, I think it definitely lies about that too. Oh okay,
but they don't lie about anything else, Is that right? No?
I mean I'm I'm I'm open to the possibility that, But I mean,
are you suggesting that it's it's almost like an unspoken conspiracy about all these disciplines
of science that are I'm saying that they make them the same mistake that you
make, which is to think that looking at a piece of data like a
rock or geologic structures itself a priori gives you an AONs timeline of date when
the same model of a creationist model can accurately and sufficiently explain that as well.
So in other words, we're looking at let's say, strata of I
don't know, like in the Grand Canyon or something, and we see these
different layers of dirt and whatnot, and one model says, oh, the
only way that this could have been produced is over AONs of time, And
I say, well, but wait a minute. There was a thing that
opened up in South Dakota overnight and it's basically a mini Grand Canyon that happened
like that, So how do I know? So in other words, I
might look at the thing that opened up overnight in Montana whenever I can show
you the article, and I might look at the structure and the layers there
and say, oh, the only way this canyon could have formed is clearly
by you know, one hundred million years, there's no other way to explain
it. Or one other example, the fly geyser. Why this, you
know, stalactite, stalagmite structures like this, these calcium deposits, they can
only form in you know, ten million years. That's how long it takes
for it to build up, when everybody knows the fly geys are built up
over forty years. So what I'm saying is that the models themselves are going
to reinterpret the data that's in front of us to fit the model. So
every time you tell me that, well there's another science team that says that
it takes a zillion years for the light from Zaeta reticuli to get to Earth.
Well, God can create a universe where the light is already present from
Zeta reticuli. It didn't spin spin off from a single big bang that took
a billion years to get here, right, You see, both models can
accurately sufficiently interpret data, and so more and more data, which is what
you're talking about when you tell me that you can pile up science papers and
science men, more and more data is never going to get you to proving
the model that interprets the data. That's why philosophy of science is prior to
doing science. Sure, but I think empirical science can also build models.
Right, you can go again. No, so you just showed that you
don't know what you're talking about right there. Now, I'm trying to be
mean to you. But by definition, empirical science cannot build you a model
because models deal with prior to science, things like epistemology and metaphysics. So
maybe we mean different things about models there. I'm talking about world views.
Yes, yes, we do, we do. Yeah, Okay, I
know, I get what you're saying. So how far are you on to
go with this? I mean the Biblical the Biblical story of creation, and
so is your I'll tell you what how about it? Well, you tell
me what the model is, right? So what am I supposed I'm supposed
to believe in? What empirical science? How does empirical science tell me?
First of all, what happened uh on Earth one billion or one hundred million
years ago? I mean I could go with I mean you want me to
go into science, I mean it would be through the geologic record, But
that's not empirical data of what happened eleven millionaire years ago. That's an interpretation
of of evidence. Yet, well, it's an interpretation of objects, rocks,
layers of strata, right, Yeah, and where where when you look
when you look at that strata or that rock, where does any of that
tell you a date? It tells you a date based on the ratio.
So now that's interpretation. So that's my point. The empirical evidence in front
of you does not tell you anything like that. You interpret the evidence according
to the paradigm. And the question is, how do you know you have
the right paradigm? Maybe you do, but how do you know that?
Okay, So what you're telling me is that we need scientists that accept the
view that the Earth is about ten thousand years old. Then they need to
start doing science based on that paradigm and they will figure it out. They
will figure out that the rocks are really not that old. No, I've
just been giving you classic arguments and examples from philosophy of science about how philosophy
is prior to the doing of science. But everybody does science doesn't recognize this
and doesn't know what I'm talking about or what philosophers are talking about. They
think they're just playing word games or something when they're asking real questions about the
things that are underlie the scientific method. How what makes the scientific method possible?
That's the things I'm talking about, and those things I find that that's
fascinating. Okay, but guess what. Those things are not in the purview
of the scientific method, so they can never get you to that. But
did science just go off the rails? Then? I mean, what happened?
Why have all these disciplines of science go on off the rails and taken
on this erroneous theory. I already explained earlier that science and scientists typically don't
know anything about philosophy, and so they don't know when they're talking about metaphysical
claims that go outside the bounds of the limits of their system and their science.
But you're suggesting that there's a boundary that they shall not cross. If
the science takes them somewhere they crosses a metaphysical boundary, they should not cross
that boundary. But that's now I'm saying that they need to give an account
for what they're talking about if they cross the boundary, and that they're not.
They're subject to their own limitations. But they don't even realize that because
they don't know what they're doing when they do it. So it has nothing
to do with all of scientists in the world going off course and buying into
some grand conspiracy. It's more so that people adopted worldviews that became popular,
normative and were pushed down from the top from Oxford, Cambridge places like that,
the Royal Society. They have pushed this material Empiris's paradigm, which probably
ninety five percent of the West believes, and it's a non sense sense,
gibberish paradigm which if they understood it would actually make science itself impossible. That
has nothing to do with whether those people do science. So they can do
science all day long, and they can come to true conclusions, they can
discover things in engineering and mathematics and whatever. That doesn't mean that they can
give an account for or justify their system, their claims, their beliefs,
or the metaphysics that underlie it. That's what I'm saying. Okay, that's
fair. Can you just tell me real quick then, under your view,
the Earth was created around seven thousand to ten thousand years ago, is that
right? Sure? And was the whole universe created that moment with the stars
and the Yeah, I mean that's have you not read Genesis? Yeah?
Okay, So and the solar system as do you accept the conventional solar system
too? What do you mean by the conventional solar system? I mean obviously
like heliocentric model, except I don't have any I don't have any hard set
view on any of that. Okay, So do you believe in I mean
you accept do you accept space travel and like Mars and Elon Musk and all
that stuff? Uh? I don't believe that we're we're gonna fly to Mars?
No, okay, but exist you believe that Mars exists and that it
is rotating around the Sun of course Mars? Like why would I not believe
Mars exists? Okay, no, no, no, no no. I
was just trying to I was just trying to understand that after your worldview on
on the nature of like the Earth and the Sultan and all that stuff.
I mean, I I don't claim to be a physicist or any of those
things, and I don't have to be a physicist to ask questions to people
who make grandiose claims. Right, So a lot of times. For example,
people in the science sphere will say things like, you know, outrageous
wild you know, claims require outrageous wild evidences, and so I just hold
them to the same standard. And I say, you want me to believe
that something came out of nothing and that you know, various species who don't
even have within their DNA the ability to be another species produce other species because
there was a mutation. So to me, that's a giant non sequitor leap
that underlies a lot of these kind of ridiculous pagan myths. I mean,
to me, the idea that something comes out of nothing and that one species
mutates into it transmutates into another species, to me, that's a fairytale stuff.
So so what about microevolution? Uh, yeah, I don't have a
problem with that. I mean, that's just adaptation. We observe that.
Has anybody ever observed macro transmutation? No, No, they haven't, doesn't
exist, they haven't. Well, I mean, yeah, there's got Oh
but wait a minute, I thought you were an empiricist. So where's the
empirical observation of this? You don't do metaphysics because that goes up. No,
where's the empirical of macro transmutations that you said. I mean, I'm
not I'm not a hardcore evolutionist in terms of human evolution, but I just
have a hard time buying into buying into the genesis story. That's all so
well. I have a hard time buying into the conflicting, contradicting narratives of
atheist retards who can't make sense of basic metaphysical claim. So I'll believe your
science when you're telling me the philosophy behind the science understood. Can I ask
you in their question? What is like in the garden of Eden? So
when when God created like all the animals and all the humans and amnies,
what you you believe that there was no predatory behavior between the animals like it
didn't correct. The orthodox view is that the functioning of the natural world prior
to the Fall was much different than it is now. So it's a very
metaphysically different world when Eden was there versus the modus operandi post fall. So
we didn't have, you know, biologically engineered bodies to you know, try
to chew meat like I wouldn't need incisors. The bodies were very different,
and that's different than most you know, Western theology of the fall and all
that. So Orthodoxy is a much more cosmic, metaphysical account of the fall
and its cosmic scope than what you typically find in Protestantism and run Catholicism.
So they don't they don't accept that view. They believe that animals were predatory.
Who Catholics. Most Catholics believe in evolution post humani arrests or whatever plies
the twelfth. Okay, So so what you're saying is so we would have
had microevolution after after creation to become carnivorous. Yeah, I think all predatorial
components and the I mean the very makeup of our bodies to you know,
take in nutrients from meat, fats, and our guts, all all of
that is post fall configuring so to speak. Okay, and do all Orthodox
churches and priests accept this? Do they do? They preach this? No?
But I mean what that doesn't really have anything to do with whether it's
trure false because you can read Father sid from Rose book Genesis Creation Early Man,
and I mean I'm holding to the traditional view. Okay, okay,
So what are you a minority? Is that a minority view or is that
the majority view amongst priests or the doc. Yeah, amongst Orthodox priests,
I don't even know. I don't even know that. There's probably never been
a survey of most. I would say probably most, like American Orthodox priests
probably favor something like theistic evolution. But I have no idea what the percentages
would be they favorite. Wait, which one do they favor? They would
probably favorite theistic evolution because they're taught in Western universities. Okay, okay,
I missed. I missed the earlier part of the show. What were the
recommended books on creationist science stuff? Well, the NST Supercreation Research has a
lot of good stuff. Like doctor Jason Lyle, his books cover a lot
of probably what you would be interested in. But again, I'm not a
scientist, so I don't I don't claim to. I mean, people give
science this sort of like authority in this power that they don't even really realize
is like the emperors wearing no clothes, and they think that. I'm like,
I'm not anti science. I'm just pointing out that what you think is
science is actually just a lot of metaphysics and alternative storytelling. And I would
say, you know, real hard science is stuff like engineering, like people
using principles to build you know, computers, and you know the outrageous algorithms
that go into making this you know, Apple computer. That to me,
that's real science. But people that you know speculate about what happened eleven million
years ago and what what the monkey was doing when it was fighting with the
you know snake in the tree eleven million years that's just all bullshit. D
that's made up stories that I'm supposed to believe. And if they can give
me an account of the basic principles they are using to make these assessments,
then I'll listen to them. But nine and a half percent of them can't.
So why should I listen to people who can't give an account for their
methodology? Isn't that, by the way, kind of being a scientist.
I mean, I'm doing the science of investigating your methodology whether it's solid or
not. But isn't it funny that most of these people don't want to be
questioned on their philosophy of methodology? Well, it's not that funny because they're
not philosophers, right, they're not equipment. Oh so they have assumptions that
they're working on, and they think that they're doing something and when I call
it doing a question, they'd rather not answer those questions. Sure, I
mean they probably don't. They probably don't have a lot of time or inclination
to study well. And they don't even realize that they're doing metaphysics when they're
doing science. Well, they don't realize that. They wouldn't. I don't
think they would accept that interpretation. But I mean, I get what you're
saying. I mean you're saying you didn't know what metaphysics was. So how
are you going to say that's wrong? I mean, give you a definition
of metaphysics real quick. Well, but wait a minute, you've been saying
that they don't do it. I mean, metaphysics is what the philosophy of
knowledge? Is that what you would call it? No, So you just
basically showed you have no idea what this is about. Epistemology of that's philosophy
of knowledge. Metaphysics is not. The is not epistemology, two different disciplines.
So anyway, I'm not gonna be I'm not trying to be rude to
you. I appreciate your questions. We're just gonna we're gonna move on.
I've covered that many many times for many many years. You can go buy
my philosophy course if you want my free lectures, but they're all all all
that's free free as well. Anyway, I can't do anymore. This is
I'm super super tired. Thank you guys so much for a wild night.
I couldn't stop. It was just so wild right, But if you want
to support my channel, you can go to the shop at JAS Analysis and
get my big fat red Book. I have some of my philosophical critiques of
evolution in the red Book. You can also get my Hollywood books there as
well, like esoteric Hollywood want