Or if you say that, well, God's thinking and it produces this.
But the Christian position is much stronger than this. He purposely from his ideas
is is logo. LOGI intends to create through the idea, like you would
do, Oh, I have an idea, and it's not that you're just
thinking about it and it produces something, but you're taking your will and an
extra activity to execute and take those blueprints and make them the materials into something.
We would say the Christian God does that. So it's it's not as
in the Pathway intentional, it just comes out of it. It's like no,
yeah, because you know what it is. Father. I kind of
thought of like, okay, maybe the problem of evil solved that this being
was kind of like a primitive mind, a subconscious mind, right, that
just does something and we are its conscious version, like we are its eyes
and ears and it's kind of mental. Well that's the David world view.
Yeah, kind well not, you know, a little kind. I guess
he takes it from like these like non dualistic people like this kind of like
the Veda whatever you call them, the bad of La Gita type, we're
all brahm and sleeping coming the life timee of thing, you know, and
I I watched your debate with what's his name? Also our level, Yeah,
I mean, not the old guy, the younger kid. I'm debate.
I forgot about that debate, Yeah, the Frindie. I kind of
think perhaps God would even you know, kind of drop pills everywhere. But
you so, how would you know which pills are right? How do you
know which of these things are true? So I do I do. I
do think you do a great job with debates and things like this. So
my last question is because again you kind of see I'm coming from this all
this one distinction place, you know, this rupert spirit, nondualism, or
even Taoism, if you will. Why couldn't the trinity, instead of God
being a trinity, extend itself to all persons simultaneously. Instead of three peoples
in one, why couldn't it just be all peoples as God? You see
what I mean? Well, for one, we have a fundamental belief in
the between the creator and the creature. So there's an uncreated creator and the
creature is distinct from him. So in the analogy that FDA was giving,
like when you create something, the creation bears the imprint and the idea that
you put into it, but it's distinct from you. It's the effect.
And so we think that God is the creator and he's uncreated, but the
created order is an effect, and so it's not identical to him, even
though it does bear some of his imprint. And so, well, why
is the creation kind of screwed up? Well, that's where the fall comes
in. So for us, the fall of Atom is a key indicator,
not just a moral of man's moral failures, but also that it's in the
Orthodox view, the entire metaphysics of the cosmos is affected by man's fault because
Adam was intended to kind of be a sort of God like being, and
so when he fell, it didn't just affect him morally and spiritually, but
it's the whole macrocosmic universe is affected. And that's why there's you know,
decay and death and you know entropy and all this kind of stuff. But
this was part of God's plan initially, because he must have known this would
happen. Correct, Well, we think that God can be the God can
permit things without being the direct cause of things, and so because he wanted
beings to be like him, in the sense of having free will. He
chose to create a world where there was that that freedom rather than just because
the world very I was subscribed. I'm kind of, like I said,
I'm still searching, if you will, because I went from Catholic to deist
to almost atheist at one point. Now this kind of like floatitious panandism,
guy the universe whatever, And I don't even think we have free will,
and that kind of I guess that's almost like he must. That's like almost
like has to be that way if I believe we're all one, right,
but you're saying no, I mean, yeah, exactly, And I would
argue, I can't even know what the hell I'm saying exactly. So if
you if there's not free will, it would lead to a defeater for knowledge
because everything that you believe you're coming to know is not your truth or something
that you're choosing, or there's no virtue. There's no actual discovery of truth.
There's just what is, and so there's there's If you watch the debate
that I did with JF that's where that ended up. That debate ends up
being Yeah, it ends up going to that because he's like a strict determinist,
And I'm like, well, if you're a strict determinist, then you're
not actually winning a debate, because debate supposes presupposes the true versus the false.
If everything is determined, there is no true versus false. There's just
what is. And Chase Haggard says in the chat primary to secondary causation,
Yeah, I meant to that when I was talking about Yeah, so God
permitting does not mean that he's the direct cause of every event. In other
words, I might know that some bad events happening, and you know that
does going to make me the cause of it because I know about it.
So if I know that there's something happening down the road that will remedy that
event, and not everybody knows that, right, you could say, well
that that's maybe an analogy for why God permits the fall to happen, because
in the end we end up with a more virtuous, better situation in the
escaton than the here and the now. I think that's kind of the point
of the Book of Job, is like, you can't see and know all
the infinite variations of people's choices. God knows those things, and if we
and he we couldn't even understand what it would be. So rather than explaining
every philosophical dilemma, the point I think of the proma of evil from the
Christian perspective is that we at least get a basis for what's good and what's
evil, even if we don't have an explanation for every event of evil.
Does that make sense? No? I get it. No, we couldn't
know if God's plan was larger than what I comprehended, Like a baby gets
buying a car. Okay, that sucks, but that's probably down the line
in his infinite whatever knowledge that was actually part of a greater Look, if
the if you guys are right, then Heaven or whatever the end result is
is superior than anything I could come up with. So ultimately, none of
these things really hurt that much in the end. The other thing I'd like
to ask too, is how's your track record on judging objectively things that you
thought were wrong, like, oh, this is a bad thing. In
other words, have there been things that you thought were like really bad but
something came about really good from it. My whole life is that way.
I mean, I've without knowing like kind of like knowing God like, I
don't know how to explain. I've submitted to what I think you guys would
call it God. My version of God is greater than I don't know whatever.
It's just thing. I don't know what it is. And I said,
I'm going to just do it. I'm going to do what's right,
whatever that means right now. I remember I was raised Catholic for twenty three
years, so I still have the Christian ethics in my da now if you
want to call it that. So I'm not doing you know, I did
my hedonistic lifestyle. I did the women, the drugs, to party and
and I learned through experience that that's just repetitive, insatiable nonsense. I have
a family of a wife and two children, and I try to do better
for the community. I try to tell the truth about the world. And
I'm extremely politically incorrect. In this world today, anything is offensive, right,
So now that I look, I kind of became selfless father, and
now I kind of like, for some reason, my life has improved dramatically
being that way. And I remember my uncle Andrew before he passed and said,
look, just love everyone and serve God. What does that mean?
To serve God? Well it must be then to help your fellow man has
to be right, because what's the point. I mean, what else can
it be not hurt your fellow man. So I don't know exactly how to
explained where I get my ethics. I think they're ingrained in me from my
childhood. And I've done the whole hedonistic like I said, do without almost
not satanic, but nothing matters. Nihilism kind of nonsense that leads to suffering.
So I've learned from my experience that being in you know, in that
I guess fast life, being in the Marine corps, seeing death and destruction
and just accepting life. Okay, you know what things are happening like right
now as we're speaking, children are being killed, people are rape things.
But also babies are being born, people are getting married. So there's this
good and evil happening every second of our lives that we have no control over
it. Yeah, I've kind of come to peace with that. Like as
a stoic, I said, okay, you know, maybe stoke about it.
What can I do in this world? So I don't know if God
gave us purposes. I don't know if you guys subscribe, Like, Okay,
this guy will be born, he will do X y Z. Yeah,
absolutely believe that. Jay I thought you could because then free will then
and then it goes back to that for doing well. The purpose is that
you have a telos, that you have a potentiality to achieve that tilos if
you maximize and act on the virtues, so you don't necessarily not everybody necessarily
achieves that purpose. Right And like someone like myself, Let's suppose I don't
ever come back to the church, yet I still live a life more than
most Christians that I've seen. I don't think God would send me to I
know you guys don't believe in hell, but I don't think someone like me
would be punished in a way. Not that I'm afraid of this, But
suppose you have an atheist who lives perfectly like a Christian, then what well,
we would say that that's not even really possible, because even though you
might have some of the virtues, it's not possible to have theosis or to
participate in the uncreated glory of God that's only had through the sacraments in the
church. But does do the Catholics believe in theosis like you guys do?
Not really not really, like I feel like Catholicism was like a completely different
religion and they and they say, no, it's not. It's just a
pope. But it seems like you guys have a whole No, it's pretty
different. I mean I was Catholic for I was a traditional Catholic for about
eight years. Makes more sense and even is more appealing because again, hell,
you look, go to Catholic church. My dad like, you go
to health. You don't go to church. I'm like, holy shit,
what kind of what kind of God? Is this? Right? But are
you guys like saying no, you go to hell because you said you rebel
against God, and so it's a lot kind of well that and argue of
the hell is that you're gonna be with God, like whether you want to
be there or not. And so the people that don't like God are tortured
by the presence of God, like you said, so that's that's the thing
that makes it bad. But yeah, you brought up the whole actions too,
because I was teaching this and uh, ethics, because you use this
a lot, like the kind of objection like, well, what if an
atheist, you know, they can be moral and they can live all the
you know, duos to things, and certainly in some senses we can say
that there we could find atheists more moral than certain Christians and stuff like that.
But then an interesting question came up in class. What about doing the
right thing for the wrong reasons? Does that in ethics make a difference.
So this is an important question to ask people. Is that, well,
when you're saying this person or this atheist is acting moral, but what are
the reasons? For example, I could feed the poor because I want I
want people to see me. Right, Let's say, you know I do.
Let's say I'm a cop and I'm like, you know what, like
I'm here to I break all the Let's say I do I do all the
good things because I don't want to get in trouble or something like that.
Right, but if I would, if I could, you'd be yeah,
I plant I plant drugs on the guy, I totally. So like there's
this notion of like it's not just about being moral, but do we have
the right reasons for doing it? Intentional behind it? Absolutely and or according
to your religion. God would know that. God knows that and part of
intention. So we have something very similar to a virtue epistemology, but it's
who you are. So intentionality the right reasons comes from right character, and
right character is acquiring the virtues the true nature, right father. So so
if I, for example, if tomorrow murder was legal, and I don't
murder, it's my nature, not the murder people. So even if it
were legal, I wouldn't do it because that's my nature. So you know
that kind of Actually, Paul does say that the law was made for the
lawless man, because the man who is law Faull doesn't need the law because
he has cultivated the virtues. He would not choose the wicked, the wicked
choice, which is the whole story of the Ring of Gaijs, which goes
into uh, what's the Tolkien Lord of the Rings? The whole Ring of
Gaije's is you put this ring on and you go invisible, Like what would
you do? Yeah, because I used to think this when I was a
kid. I used to think about going invisible, and I'm like, I'd
rob the ice Creamman's the first thing I would do. I wouldn't get caught,
And I fantasized it's because I was. I was. That shows how
you were, because you didn't because you didn't rob the bitcoin man. You
were robbing ice cream. That's shows how lame you were. Well, bitcoin
didn't exist yet. If like somebody told me, I would have been like,
oh yeah, yeah, but you should have been invisible and gone and
hung out with the cipherpunk nerds, and then you would have known the future
known we'd be like, hey, we're making this thing called bitcoin in the
future. And but the whole idea of the outward visibility becoming invisible shows me
something about my inside, which is invisible, my character you can't see it
becomes visible, and it's like at that time, like in my life,
it's like, you're a bad person if you would actually rob these banks and
steal from the ice cream man, if you could get away with it.
But like you said, even if you could get away with it, if
you don't do it. The reason why you don't do that is because,
well, first, it's in your nature. So unless you've acquired a or
you've acquired a virtue that your nature is supposed to actually have, that says
it doesn't matter the outward if I get caught or not. I know it's
wrong to do that, and you know it's wrong because you have the virtue
and the character and wisdom to term that so, and I don't want to
take more time up. My biggest two stumps that I need to get into
is that how do I prove to myself God is a person? And I
mean like when you guys say a person, you don't mean like a person
like me, Like we mean a being that has will and intentionality and creates
with a purpose in a sense of like direction direct directionality. Well it's not
just mine, but but more just the mind has a mind, a will,
yeah intention purpose, and it's a being that you can have a relationship
with. Right, So not like the number seven or a law of logic,
Right, you can't have a relationship. You can have a relationship with
the number seven. Number seven couldn't do anything right, It couldn't start the
universe. It just it just it just is. And then what was mother
things? So that is one of my stumbling blocks is to learn if God's
a person, where can I go read something about, like what's your best
material on this person? Because I need to because something is telling me that.
Well, for I would say a couple of books you might like that
would one that would address I mean, you're already interested in the idea of
of an all mind. And there's actually a really good book written from the
advantage point of a guy who's into physics and math. It's called Paul Davies's
book The Mind of God is a really good book for people that Yeah,
it's a great book. I believe something's out. I'm just saying I understand
you would like that book because I remember having a similar thought at one time,
and that book really struck me as really cool. But person the personhood
of God would probably be I would say, read like the Gospel of John
again, or there's a pretty deep it might be be a little too I
mean, I'm not assaulting you. I'm just saying it might be a little
too dense if you If you don't like it, you can go back to
the other book. But father, I'm that's okay. No, I'm not
trying to be arms bro. You know what that means. Orthodox Dogmatics,
Volume one by steinieloy As It really I mean that whole book is about personhood,
like divine personhood. That's the first book that comes to mind. But
I'm trying to think of like if that's too like philosophical You might just like
rereading the book of John right, okay, yeah, I don't want to
take more time. Guys. I appreciate the answers, and again I jumped
into space too. Hopefully the boost you us so well appreciate that. Yeah,
let's see if we got any other looks like we got quite quite a
few in here. Thank you for that. Let's see who's next. Daniel
was trying to get in here earlier. What's this? Daniel? You got
to unmute man? Hello, Hey, are you hearing me? Yeah?
What's up? Okay? So I had a few questions I called you last
time about the argument. I want to ask you another question right about the
transcendental argument. So you know how you say a transcendental preconditions rate, they
need a justification rate, And according to you, a justification is like providing
a good reason to believe in something. Right, So for the transcendental preconditions,
why can't I just say, well, my justification for believing in these
transcendental preconditions is because if I don't believe in them, it would lead to
absurdity. Right, Yeah, that's addressed in the russ Manion paper. That
just because you can't see how it would be otherwise doesn't get you to justification,
because even Aristotle says that through retortion, that it would be a absurd
to deny like the laws of logic or the law of non contradiction or something
like that. And the response to that in the Manion paper is well,
okay, maybe it just appears in my mental schema that reality is ordered and
constructed, but I don't how would I know that it really is. So
in other words, it still doesn't get you to justification. I think,
father Deacon, you have a in one of your papers you addressed this as
well as to why that's not enough to grant justification. Right again, just
move it to a higher level. Okay, well, then I need a
reason why I'm unable to do something cognitively or linguistically or logically. Is a
justification, yeah, exactly. You it just keeps moving the issue back farther.
Oh well, because and then it's either an infinite regress or its circular
or arbitrary. Well, because I said so, and that's the issue.
So you need something much more than that. That's why in the Orthodoxy it's
not simply impossibility of the contrary. But there are positive conditions that give an
account for how all these things are related, how it would work, how
it would provide it, and be the only thing that would be the possibility
of being something that could be a justification, et cetera, et cetera.
So it's a whole that's why we say it's an argument for a whole paradigm.
So I think the way you're approaching this is really kind of reductive,
no offense, but I mean all philosophies try to do this, They try
to reduce it to there's one kind of foundation by which we can justify our
justification cridity, and you see when you do a deeper analysis into it,
none of it works. It's all arbitrary or an infinite chain of promisory notes
for testifications. Yeah. So, like if you read the Manion paper,
if you go down to the section called the deductive problem, and then when
he mentioned logic, if you come down a couple more paragraphs, he actually
addresses this point right there and he says, well, maybe we are just
predisposed to think that our structured reality matches up to the external world, but
how do we know that it really does? So that is maybe it's a
simulation creating that exactly. So another question, right, is about it is
art problem. Right, So in your paradigm, right, how would you
get out of the odd problem? Right if you just say, like God
thinks, so right, isn't that still it is? Well, it's only
a problem for a reductionist position that says that all reality is matter in motion.
So we don't have that metaphysical presubposition. So it's not a problem for
our position. It's a problem conditioned on your metaphysics. Yeah, a student
brought up the same question ethics. I actually thought it was a really good
question. I think it's a good question that you're asking too. And I
draw up some like fan diagrams. So there is the descriptive world that is,
and then there's the awe and I said, look in our paradigm they
overlap. So, as Jay said, the problem isn't that how do we
explain that? It's like, well, we actually believe there's two realities.
There's a normative realm and there's a descriptive and is realm and natural realm.
So it's not a problem for us. The problem is from the materialist or
naturalist point of view, there's only an is yet we make all these oughts,
So it's not a problem that's we're put back on us. It's a
problem that the materialist of the naturalists is involved in, which is where you
get the naturalist philosophy because they're committed in their presippositions to naturalism and is this
and no oughts. Thank you for that question, Daniel Kevin. What's up?
Well, Kevin's connecting. We'll go to the micro something. Mhmm.
Looks like those micro you're on a mute You got to u mute man the
f R. Hello, hey, hey, Yeah. So I actually called
another day and I asked about how and uh, kind of like the Orthodox
perspect on all that, and I kind of skimmed through the soul after life
and everything by sad from Rose. But in that I also started looking a
little bit at Saint Maximums the Confessor and that and that whole thing you're kind
of talking about. But then it was kind of interesting because I was reading
someone and I mean, I don't agree with them, but they ended up
being like a universalist and they were saying that they kind of use Maximus the
Confessor to like justify that right, So you could go look at David Aarhon's
video on David Bentley Hart and he talks about that Maximus does not believe in
universalism. But anyway, today's topics are simulation theory, David I, agnosticism,
platonism, neoplatonism. So let's if we can, let's keep to that
topic. If that's what you want to talk about, Kevin, you want
to try again, let's see Big Boss twenty dollars. I saw Blade Runner
movies, both of them, and I watched your videos. I was still
taken back by the films. The AI girlfriend Joy was ahead of its time.
Yeah, that was pretty crazy. I forgot about those deep dives I
did on Blade Runner. Thank you for checking them out, Dave, the
Philippian ten dollars. The David Ike videos are fun, goofy. When Elon
calls into Ike interviews on Alex and they spelled gnostic transhumanism, it wasn't funny
anymore. Well, I was hoping David Ike might agree to I didn't think
he was gonna hop in this space, but I was hoping he would agree
to a debate with Alex moderating. I think that's what Alex. Alex said
that too. He's like I'll moderate Fox won actual five dollars. David I
used to say that he was the son of God. He's a goofy guy.
Jay Ruck. Try to remember the first time. The first time I
saw David Ike was like probably two thousand and three, and I saw a
presentation that he did on like you know, occult esoteric symbolism, and I
thought it was an interesting presentation. I watched the whole three or four hour
It's like one of his earliest, you know, three four hour talks.
And then I turn to remember, I don't remember when the first guy.
The first book I got was The Biggest Lie I think, which is his
nine to eleven book. I probably got that in two thousand and seven,
six seven, And then I remember reading another one of his books. I
think I read the one of the Biggest Secret around that time. And then
I read his Perception Deception book, which is like seven hundred pages. I
think I read all that. So you know, I've I've and I've heard
Alex's interview David Ike probably probably seventy times over the years. I mean I've
heard I've heard a lot so and I remember when remember when David I was
sold out Wimberley Stadium. I listened to that whole watched that whole talk,
which was like six seven eight hours. So you know, I've been a
long time. I've been familiar with David Ike stuff for a long time,
almost probably twenty years. Cryptonomics, what's up, dude, Hey j I
just had two questions. Hopefully I can get you guys. This is an
answer from you, guys, based off of your understanding. The first question
is what is consciousness? Well, in our in our worldview, it's one
of the traits or properties that humans have that is proper to their nature.
So it's something fundamental to human nature. It's something that can never be lost
from human nature in the sense of like the mind. So whether you're in
a waking state or a sleeping state, if you mean conscious or unconscious,
that's a different sense of mind. For us, mind is an essential property.
It's the it's the inner storehouse of the ideas, right, it's the
the you could call it. You could say it's consciousness if you mean mind.
So for us, it's a it's the mental state property human nature,
and every person has a mind, correct, Okay, So with consciousness be
the same as the soul or is that two different things. We would say
there's more to the soul than just mind. Mind is a key element,
but sometimes soul is also in the Orthodox tradition a little closer to the Hebrew
idea of also including the heart. So the soul is mind and heart.
That is the immaterial component of the human being, the other component being across
the body. I would add to that, I'd say conscious is the property
of mind. Yeah, but strictly speaking, it's philosophically defined, is a
qualitative awareness of what it's like to experience something. So animals, even though
they don't have mind human minds, they have consciousness. They have an awareness,
but they don't have discursive reason and abstract reasoning, rationality and things like
that. So why that's really important is there's different levels of consciousness. Yeah,
so that means that and we have that too. You can notice that
you're aware of when you're drinking a coffee or something like that, but you're
also aware, I hope, so the thoughts and reasonings and discurssive and inferences
that you make too, there's there's an awareness that. So generally speaking,
conscious means it's a mental property. Our cognitive property of being aware and having
a what it's a qualitative, what it's like experience of things. And if
you're looking for an Orthodox book on that, that's a good introduction. That's
brief. Saint John Damascus's book Fountain of Knowledge defines all of our Orthodox ideas
philosophically, so he talks about what we think about mind, what the soul
is, what virtues are, what logic is for us. It's a great
introduction. Okay, So would it be fair to say that the soul and
the consciousness are essentially a one one, one entity or one thing which is
energy since energy does not die, as we know that, the Orthodox tradition
does speak of the noetic energy, So yes, the energy. Yeah,
that's basically. I wouldn't. I wouldn't reduce though, mind too an energy
because energies typically for us are operations of the thing. So you have me,
we wouldn't call soul or consciousness thing. It's that which the person has.
Yes, yeah, I mean, well, I went through a lot
in my life that I kind of experienced an outer body experiment where I was
in coma for two weeks, and that's what led me to like religions,
and I began studying all religions and then I came to a conclusion. I
was like, Okay, well, obviously our body dies in here. We're
here for a purpose and whatnot. So my understanding is obviously the soul is
like a it's an energy source that obviously does not die, and it stores
all the data. Everything that we do in this world is potentially recorded on
on that energy. I would agree with that. I agree there's also a
heart that there's it's more than just like consciousness and like IQ. We also
think that the because I mean, you could think about the organs that we
have, right, so you know mind, mind would correspond to brain,
but we also have heart, which corresponds to heart. Yeah, I mean
essentially they all need like energy, right, whatever we eat we consume where
truly, yeah, we we do. Yeah power those engines through through the
energy that we Yeah, but we also think that we are made to have
uncreated energy as well as part of that synergy. So Robert keeps speaking,
speaking up here, he wants to speak. He keeps messaging me, what's
up man? You got a immune? Oh? Hey, Jay, I
was just wondering if you ever read this book called the Zoha and it's a
Judaic book that they believe came from the word of Moses, but it looks
like it was written in the sixteen hundreds of us some crazy REBBLI yeah,
in this book, I don't think it's a mosaic text. I'm familiar with
it. It has it has it talks about a simulation theory in in the
book. I was just wondering if if you thought I thought that had any
correlation. I remember Michi Okaku says that something about how he links some of
his physics theories to Kabbala and Zohar. So I'm not surprised, but it
makes sense. I mean, Zohar is again like the other Kabbalistic stuff.
It's just judaic version of gnosticism, even according to the top like scholars of
Kabala. Is that it. I was also gonna say it. Do you
think it's interesting that the CIA released this simulation theory of old people? Yeah?
I think that is sus I mean I don't believe in simulation theories,
so I think it is being promoted from the top down. Absolutely. Anyway,
good questions, micro Did you want to come back in? Did you
speak yet? We got a bunch of people want to speak? Now got
an? I'm mute. What do you see? Where do you only see
who gets this wants to speak? I mean I see all the people requesting
to speak. So there's like thir thirteen or there's thirteen. Now what do
you mean? Well, I can't see you. Oh well, yeah,
I'm the host, so I see a different screen. Go ahead, man,
what's up? We gotta I'm mute. Yeah, I'm mute. Man.
You're raising your hand, but you're on you're on deck. What's up?
I'm mute? Yeah, okay, well you're not unmuting, so I
can't. I don't know what to tell you. We're going to people who
have let's see, Goldfish is next up? What's up? You gotta unmute
Goldfish? Okay, I just got just got you. So I had a
question of about Orthodoxy orthosis in Orthodoxy and noses and not not regarding the belief
with one between Oneism and tooism, where you know, Orthodoxy believes in are
created and created dynamic, but more as in the difference in practice, if
we're more along the practical sense than the the the philosophical sense. Yeah,
I think g nosis doesn't include the idea that you need to become morally renovated,
repent uh and live according to the Ten Commandments and you know, participate
in the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. Nosis doesn't care about that. Nosis
is interested in attaining knowledge, secret knowledge, occult knowledge, and mystical experiences
so different that's why we're trinked hearing incarnationalists that knowledge is just a it's just
could be an illusion between your two years. The idea is to take what's
true and beautiful and and good and incarnate it so that it changes the very
being of your of yourself, so it's useless and doesn't mean like facts in
your head are useless unless it actually changes your ontology. Well, the reason
I bring it up is because it's it's it seems to be one of the
weaknesses that it gets it gets exploited in Christian faith that allows people to include
or to manipulate the faith in order to permit things from outside the faith to
change what it's supposed to mean. And so theosis I viewed it almost as
I tried to rationalize it as a as a two way street, with theosis
being a person, a person kind of attaining some form of the divine,
whereas when Gnostics attempt to bring down the divine rather than as sent up to
it. And I don't know if that makes sense, but that's the only
way I was able able to kind of rationalize it. I'll look all the
conversation, but I appreciate your answering, your time pation. Yeah, thank
you. Interesting question. We'll see next up. Is I mean, there's
a whole bunch of people. Now, let's see Rico the cat. Mm
hmm, yeah, what's I mean? Hey, Jay, love your stuff.
By the way, So today I was just watching an interview Alex O'Connor
dropped with the guy from Esoterica and they were basically just talking about the kind
of historical development of Judaism and Christianity. So they kind of went into how
you always was like the thunder God and a god amongst many, then went
into Monotheism. They then went into Christianity and how there were multiple like Jesus
like figures from Galilee, and they then went into Gnoscissism and how Nacissism seemed
to be, you know, one of the big contenders against Christianity in Europe.
And they had an interesting part about how orthodoxy went out, and so
I was just wondering, how how does the church kind of take the academic
view of like the anthropology of the religion, How do you guys reconcile it,
because they seem to insinuate in the interview that it's a bit of like
a post hawk rationalization. So they'd say that like Christianity would like look back
at the past and then kind of make it fit Christianity. But from listening
to you, I don't get that sense. I get the sense that it's
much more realistic and that right, we don't we accept the narrative as is
given in Divine Revelation that the original religion was not animism and then polytheism and
then monotheism. That's the typical, you know, comparative religion scholars account of
how mankind progressed. We think that it was trinitarian theology that evolved into paganism
and polytheism. So all of the world religions are deviations from a primeval you
could say, trinitarian theology. So it's the opposite of what they think,
you know what. I like that point. I was listening to Rachel and
Shoes making this point, and then my friend Ryan and I were talking about
this. The reason why these people come to these conclusions is we're taught in
school like we're moderns. We work backwards through history. We start from our
presuppositions now with our lenses, and then we go back and reread through history,
when actually we should be doing the opposite. We should be starting from
the beginning, trying to throw out as many presuppositions as possible and then try
to get into the spirit and ethos of what was it these people were thinking.
So we're doing it all backwards now. I try to do this in
schooling by like let's say, let's start with the pre Socratics and work.
But I was just thinking about when you mentioned that, why do they in
these religious departments, why do they come up with this because they've been they've
been conditioned to work backwards that my presuppositions. From here, I will read
back in through history, and then that's where you get all these problems.
Well, you see, if I do that, then Christianity evolved out of
this and this. But if you start from the beginning without that, for
those prepects, it's very clear what the story is. And for example,
if you see the video I did the Hebrew Trinity or the Jewish Trinity.
You'll note that that's my open any statement to Daniel Kikikachu and our Muslim debate.
Uh. The whole point of that opening statement is to refute Daniel's idea
that Old Testament Jewish theology was generic Unitarianism. Therefore Islam is in continuity with
generic Unitarianism. That all falls apart if the Hebraic revelation is trinitarian. Okay,
understood, And that was the whole statement. Absolutely, because Monotheism doesn't
even come the word and term an idea is even coment about until the seventeen
it's a really late Monotheism as a term is really late, and doctor bo
Branson has shown that. Yeah. They mentioned in a part of the interview
that they go into some really interesting bits. They mentioned that they found a
temple that was like a proto Christian temple that had cannabinoid resin in in some
of like the cracks of the brick, and so they were like, can
you know, proto Christianity to to Shamonic rituals and things like that. There
was also a mention of of how when they first introduced Yahweh as thee that
when they introduced Yuahweh as the only monotheistic god, that they also like credit
him with with evil, and then that was that that created the necessity for
Satan, and so Satan only came about because you know, there was that
put them in a theological kind of corner saying that, you know, this
god was responsible for everything good and evil and so, yeah, exactly,
that's just kind of the standard academic account of you know, comparative religion.
But if you challenge the presuppositions as to why they think that most comparative religion
scholars are not fluent in epistemology or logic, and they would crumble pretty quick.
Uh, let's see, miss and mister Anderson, Hey, what's it
going? Uh? Yeah, So I was wondering the other day. I
was listening to one of your life streams and you were talking to someone that
sounded like they're from the UK Protestant about Nestorianism. Uh is this like on
topic? No? But what's what's it about? Oh? Well, well
I think he was, you know, he was saying, the scriptures say
the spirit Remember this guy, I remember this? Yeah, right? So
and uh and you said, I think you said something like, so you
believe the divine essence left the body of Christ. That's even a worst heresy,
right, So I'm and I'm wondering. I'm just trying to understand this.
So when so I understand that there's two natures and one person in Christ,
and when he died, his human soul was severed from his human body.
Right, so where And I don't know if this is a dumb question,
but where where was the essence of the divine essence at that point?
And the divine essence is omnipresent, and John Damascus makes that argument as to
how it could never be severed because it's omnipresent, there's no place to go,
and he's you know, you can cite David if I could descend to
shield, where how can I flee from your presence? If I go to
shield, you are there? So John Damascus says there was no point ever
at which the divine was severed from the human nature, even when the human
soul was severed from the human body, because the divine person of the logos
is the person to the human soul that descends into hades. Okay, there's
a great prayer and liturgy that I do too, in the tune with the
body and soul. Yes, in Hades, with the soul, in paradise
with the thief, together with the Father and the Son. Oh you who
are bound this? Yeah? This is this is that is for what Father
Deacon said right there, is expressing exactly the argument that John Damascus makes in
book three at the very end about the death of Christ. So is it
inaccurate or wrongheaded to think of it to say like that the divine essence was
then present just as much in the body, the physical body of Christ,
as he was everywhere in the whole universe. Yeah? Yeah, John,
If you read John one, John makes this point there where he says that
he says in the beginning was the word words with the God? The word
was God. Then he says that we beheld him in the flesh, and
then he goes on to say that he was in the bosom of the Father
even when he was with us in the flesh. Gotcha, Okay, Well
that was it for me. I really appreciate it. Great question, sure,
Boycott BUCkies, you got mute man. Yeah, So I had a
question or a line of thinking somewhat along the lines. But Lucas was talking
about. So when I'm thinking about a simulation a way to go about,
I feel like branching beyond just the thought that we're all sort of in this
giant sort of deal is like stuff in the realm of the occult and whatnot.
And in terms of I'm not sure if you're familiar with Ed and Lorraine
Warren at all, this stuff like the Conjuring movies, Yeah, some of
that, some of what they got into has been an interesting way to kind
of look at and think about, you know, spirituality and God and getting
into this realm of stuff like beyond the simulation and so like stuff like astral
projection and the CIA coming out with like declassified documents on that and then that
being legit. And obviously there's stuff like witchcraft. All this stuff is real
and does exist, but stuff in the realm of like you have like Lorraine
Warrened someone who's like a clairvoyant or whatever, who's like spiritually gifted quote unquote,
and so these sorts of people who have like tapped into this you could
say, like third dimension or spiritual realm that we don't see, but that's
like somehow fully intertwined and inter worked with everything we see now is something that
I think is pretty fascinating, especially in the realm of like what we're kind
of seeing now with universalism and like the modern manifestations of nosis and narcissism,
like in the realm of like, so you have this new Age sort of
fat that's going on where people are tapping into like tarot cards and all this
crap. But this I was talking to a buddy, and it's almost like
you, Liken you, there's this comparison where I look at agnosticism versus atheism,
and I say, agnosticism is almost worse than atheism because the agnostics aren't
willing to take the step to deny the God that the atheists, for whatever
reason in and of themselves, that they have some gripe with God, they're
at least saying taking that step to deny him, Whereas, like I guess
agnostics in the realm of like being better than atheists would be these sort of
New Age fats where people are trying to tap into things like higher knowledge,
stuff like the spiritual realm and whatnot, like seance is and so like It's
interesting with Ed and Lorraine Warren because they were in this sort of weird sort
of third party space, not endorsed by the church, but like sort of
like so I was reading one of their books where they had a priest and
they were doing an extorcism and sort of not the strict Roman rite, but
they were doing like a deliverance prayer type style exorcism where what are the priests
actually functioned as a medium for the demon to go through while they were exercising
the demon from another from the person who was possessed, and so stuff like
this is like they would, I guess one of their worst cases, they
showed up to a house where someone would had a haunting or whatever, and
to gauge the situation of demonic infestation or whatever, Lorraine I guess, brought
in a medium and they held a seance and then all hell broke loose and
so like stuff like this is just interesting in terms of thinking about because because
nowadays you see this new ageism and universalism sort of this idea that like you
can tap into a good outside of the place where the good resides in and
of itself, in the truth, which is Orthodoxy and whatnot, and so
you have this so in the realm of like hesechism, it's something I've been
kind of fast with in terms of Orthodoxy and whatnot. And like this division
between like one true Church, Roman Catholicism, Greek. They say they look
at like Hesochism and say that's like heretical or Orthodox or schismatic, et cetera.
But also the Greek Orthodox are in communion with Rome. And so if
you're saying Hesicism is heretical while they're in communion to an extent, you like,
it's self defeating in a way. Yeah, I mean, it doesn't
make any sense for Rome to think that, you know, Palam Moss and
the you know, Eastern Church fathers are heretics for centuries and then for the
interests of ecumenism under I guess it was John Paul the second. Oh,
now they're saints. They're cool now. I mean, this is totally incoherent,
exactly, Tommy Tucker, what's up? The topic is same theory,
David, Agnosticism, Platonism, God the Matrix. You gotta unmute, man,
Tommy, are gonna mute all right? Next up? Lazarus. Dude
just got raised glue. Yo. Hey ja, I'm a big fan,
sir. What's up man, I'm a big fan of narcissism. Okay,
what's the problem with nacissism. Well, the arguments I gave earlier is that
it ends up being kind of relativistic, it ends up being you know,
no real coherent ethic, Like I don't agree with that at all. Okay,
Well, what's the basis? I mean, if this reality is an
illusion, why would we think if there's anything wrong in this in this reality?
Why is one action bad versus one action good? If this reality is
is bad, Well, it's not that it's bad, you know, gnosticism.
Why you know you put words in my gnostic mouth over here? You
know, are you trolling? I'm serious, It's not necessarily bad. I
mean, it's the gnostic view is that this world is bad. It's a
prison evil. Physicality is evil. So I mean it's you know, it's
everything's relative, right, I mean, an actual prison is more than reality.
All right, you're trolling? So trolling? What does it even mean?
What what is that? What does that even mean? Like you don't
know my own honest opinion, that's really funny trolling? What does that even
mean? Like he doesn't know what it means? Can read this real quick?
Just what is it. I was like, you know, I've written
about it, Vogeland's distinction kind of six characteristics of gnosticism. Yeah. Absolutely,
How does vogelan the famous philosopher, how does he describe it? Yeah?
And it makes it really good. Just in case people are getting confused,
like, how does it different? Christianity, says number one must first
be pointed out that the gnostic is dissatisfied with his situation. This in itself
is not especially surprising. We all have cause to be not completely satisfied with
one aspect or another of the situation, which we find ourselves too. Not
quite so understandable is the second aspect of the gnostic attitude, the belief that
the drawback to the situation can be attributed to the fact that the world is
intrinsically poorly organized, or it's a simulation. For it's likewise possible to assume
that the order of being as it is given to us men, whatever its
origin is, to be sought, is good, and that it is we
human beings who are inadequate. But Gnostics, they're not so inclined to discover
that the human beings in general, and they themselves are in particular, are
inadequate. If in any given situation something is not as it should be,
then it's the faults to be found in the wickedness of the world. Yes,
zero point three. The third characteristic is the belief that salvation from evil
of the world is possible. Four. From this fall as the belief that
the order of being will have to be changed in a historical process from a
wretched world to a good one must evolve historically. This assumption is not altogether
self evident because the Christian solution might also be considered. Namely, the world
throughout history will remain as it is now if I could just pause right there,
what the historical thing? And this is where you see the AI is
that they believe that the Gnostics will actually evolve the world and kind of alchemical
rising, the great work is to transmute this world. Yes, where the
Christian will say no, the world will remain the same. The Christian solution
is that man's salvation is brought about through grace and death. So notice we
go the other way. Yeah, we actually look into the grave at the
cross right. Five. With this fit point, we come to the Gnostic
trait in the narrow sense, the belief that a change in the order of
being lie in the realm of human action, that this salvational act is possible
through man's own effort nosis right six. If it is all possible, however,
so to work a structural change in the given order of being that we
can be satisfied with it is a perfect one. Then it becomes a task
of who the enlightened, the David, ike's the Gnostics to seek out the
perception for such a change. Knowledge gnosis is the method. Right, Oh,
I've got the key. You see through that it's actually a matrix and
a simulation. I've got the key. You're all deceived, right, it's
the ayahuasca that's going to take us and transform and give us knowledge. And
this construction is of the formula for self in world salvation. So I'm saving
myself and I'm saving the world. It's thoroughly egotistical and demonic in that sense.
So it's called the tailtale signs of like the demonic as well as the
gnostics. Readiness to come forward is what. Oh, here i am the
prophet who will proclaimed his knowledge about the salvation of mankind. So the prophet's
the Antichrist. So this whole thing is Antichrist anyways, that's from science politics
and gnoscissism. And I think it's just you know, people get Christian,
Indian and confused. Why is it bad? It's like it's totally deminded.
Are ye all those all those tenants are fundamentally against our view. For the
people asking what happened to last night's funny stream about the Fresh and Fit event,
and uh, David Ike responded the original David Ike thing and talking about
Luke. I moved it to Rock Finn because I couldn't get the when I
played the Wes Watson clip, Uh, he kept saying the F word and
I don't mean the F word that rhymes with Bucky. He kept saying the
other F word that got their stream pulled down and I couldn't figure out how
to mute just that part. So I just moved the whole stream over to
Rock Fin. So if you don't want to watch that stream, it was
pretty funny. We were commenting on Wes's attack, I guess on Andrew and
Jimbob, So if you want to watch that stream, it's right there on
Rock Finn. You're right, He's like the diabolical twin of Father Moses.
I see Father Moses in there. Well his boy like, like, if
you just listen to his voice, you'd be like, is that Father Moses
sounds like you? But he's like the evil version? All right, So
let's see, we're gonna move on to next discussion is let's see who's been
waiting. Hear Boris Boris and the doors in the Doge. Hey guys,
thanks for bringing me on Happy Palm Sunday. Yeah, yeah, ja.
I just wanting to tell you you was one of the first guys that I
listened to on YouTube that introduced me to Orthodoxy and uh. I first I
started going to Orthodox Church back in twenty twenty before the pandemic, and then
I was baptizing Chris Mate it May of twenty one. So I just wanted
to personally thank you for you my inspiration for coming to Orthodossia. Thanks man,
I'll bless you many years. Appreciate that. Yes, Sir, and
his best decision of my life totally changed me. I was raised Southern Baptists
and had about nine years where I was just searching. I didn't have any
peas just everything I turned to. I mean, I looked at h Paganism,
I looked at Buddhism, and I was into Allen once for a long
time. Yeah, we had a couple of people calling in tonight who were
Allen watz Fince, yes, sir, and uh. Then I got a
puddy of mine. Nail, it's a huge David Ike saying, and I
wanted him to listen to the strain. He was busy. But my question
was, all right, hypothetically, if if David Ike was to agree to
it the paid what would be your I guess main points that you would use
to undermine his worldview according to the orthodox Christian perspective, Like I guess what
would be the main two or three points that you would come at him with
and what was the easiest way to show that his world views inconsistem and contradictory.
Thank you more, I appreciate that. If you scroll back to the
very beginning, in the first thirty minutes, I laid out about five things
that I think were the key points of problem, the key problem, five
key problems for a gnostic worldview. And then I contrast to those five key
problems with our worldview. So I remember saying, I put a relativity when
it comes to ethics and knowledge incoherence when it comes to justifying how we would
know that we're in a simulation, that we're being duped a historical positions,
which would mean that your life, your past, your history really are pointless
relativized because this world is essentially right of prison. It's bad. So that
then kind of means that when my life, my past, my country,
my nation, my family, all these things are all part of the delusion,
part of the simulation. So yeah, if you scroll back, you'll
see those five principles that that I listed, that would be that would be
my five main kind of main critiques. Pavel, what's up? You got
an unmute man? Yeah, tonight Actually, guys, if you didn't know,
and shout out to our big crowd that we got. Actually, tonight
was my largest audience live yet. Actually got up to twelve one and fifty
So I've never had that many live except for like Maddal Hunting debate that was
like four or five thousand lives. So tonight was our biggest just random live
audience. Oh you're welcome, thank you, thank you. Fdah Yeah,
okay, give me a second. Are you there? What's going on?
This is I'm there but I'm not not if English speakers, so you had
to write my question to you give me a moment writing. Yeah, yeah,
it's I can't I can't read it right now, and I'm sorry.
Let's move on. I'm not trying to be me and it's going to come
audio. Clad in purple? What's up? Clad in purple? Yeah,
Kotel sent his viewers over that popped it over twelve fifty So what's up?
Man? Right? So does Marcion counts as part of the subject here?
Yeah, I mentioned Marcian at the very beginning. Yeah, yeah, just
checking because it's not in the Martian. No, I think it counts.
Yeah, it counts, right, So how do you answer like Marcian's charges
that in Genesis Free God is walking around the garden. So he's trapped in
a body and he's ignorant. He he's asking did you eat the fruit?
And where are you? And and all that stuff. Right, So that's
the that's the logos. That's Jesus, who's the same angel of the Lord,
who has a form and walks around throughout the Old Testament, like when
he rests Jacob, when he appears to Abraham, when he appears to Manoah
Samson's parents. And the purpose of asking that question is not because he lacked
knowledge. It was a rhetorical question to bring to recognition in the minds of
Adam and Eve that they had sent So those are really bad arguments, right.
And there's another guy I don't know if you know about Julian, the
Apostles, the Neoplatonists. Yeah, that guy wrote that in Genesis one,
God's just God as like a lesser, because he's just shaping the waters and
in the matter into he's not really creating things. He's just transferred. So
the book of Book of Maccabe's and the Book of Hebrews say that he spoke
that world into existence. So, in other words, we don't just take
one book like the Bible is interpret in a holistic canonical sense, so all
of the divine revelation tells us part about the other parts. So I'm not
going to interpret Genesis in exclusion to what's in John one about all things being
created by the Logos, or what's in Hebrews one about all reality in the
world's coming to be through the Logos, or what's in you know, all
the other texts that describe Christ as the Creator or what's in the Maccabees that
God spoke reality in the creative world into existence ex nilo. Okay, so
just one last question I think Julian pointed it out, is that why would
the supreme creator of the universe just ignore everyone except Israel and just allow everyone
else to worship idols right, worship these faith God's Julian thinks that this God
is just another like Eddy, lesser God Israel. Yeah, so the focus
on Israel was a pedagogical teaching lesson for a time. And if you read
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, he actually that God didn't leave or forget all the
other nations. This is partly why Christ preaches the Gospel to the dead.
The descent of Christ into Hades is the preaching of the Gospel to the dead,
which is mentioned in the Book of Peter. Peter says he preached to
the spirits in prison. It's part of our belief that he descended into Hades.
You can read that in book three of John Damascus's on the Orthodox Faith.
Let's see iconomat Noah M. How do we argue against pantheism and the
pantheistic worldview Well, like when we were talking to the guy they called in
earlier, Lucas, and he said that he thinks God is existence, and
I said that, well, that would also be a defeater for knowledge as
well. If all of reality is God, we can go back to some
of the same critiques of monism that we gave earlier. Well, how would
we know? Why would we think that all reality is God? I mean,
what does it even mean to say that all reality is God? What
kind of a God? Because God, for example, doesn't have parts,
He doesn't change. Reality has parts, it changes, and so really we're
getting into an idea to where God there basically has no significance. So are
we saying that rocks are personal, that we have a relationship to to God.
No, So these are different ways that we would go about critiquing the
idea that all reality is God. It just doesn't. It ends up being
kind of a nonsense statement. It doesn't mean anything. Jason Allen twenty five
dollars. Thank you for this. I appreciate the debate, open debate for
him. It's very helpful. I appreciate the topics. I hope you keep
doing these. Glority God, Holy Week is going to be great this year.
Thank you so much, Jason. I appreciate that. Mail you twenty
five dollars. Is David Ike still beefing? I mean, he hasn't replied
since the two tweets Friday, so I don't people say that he doesn't ever
really respond, so I don't think he's going to do it debate, but
thank you for that comment there, mail you, and thank you for the
too. Saw me. What's up man? What's on your mind? Hey?
Jay? I heard you mentioned something that was really interesting to me.
I'm a big fan and I was wondering if you could give me the base
videos to learn more about that. I heard you mentioned that creation presupposes the
incarnation. Uh. I've talked about that in maybe critiques of Tonism Logos and
Logi videos Maximus Logos Logi. If you looked that up, those videos would
cover that. But get Poniotis Nellis's book Deification of Man because the first two
chapters are on that. Okay, I really appreciate you, Jay, Thank
you later. Let's see welcome Father Moses. What's on your mind? Gotta
unmute if you wanted to speak, we can't hear you. That's something it
does something weird, I think with my AirPods. But I was trying to
figure out who you guys were saying that I sounded like the other day,
What was that about? Uh? So I was at an event where Andrew
and Jim Bob were on a panel. I was there because I thought originally
I was going to debate a Muslim guy. That didn't ever occur. The
Muslim guy couldn't make it. The panel ended up being about like masculinity issues
and success and basically a giant buff self help, prison speaker type of dude.
Oh you know who Wes Watson is? Okay, yeah, I saw.
I think I saw the original Wes Watson interview with Big Hurt like years
ago. Yeah, yeah, I'm familiar with it. He's a nutcase.
He's nuts. Yeah, he seemed to get pretty mad over nothing. So
yeah, it's just night. He's just that's just like his shtick is that
he's just like angry and namped up all the time and it's just whatever,
too much. He didn't father, He didn't always used to be that way,
Like it seems like something he kind of developed into. If you see
like earlier videos, he seems more laid back, and yeah, I think
it was when he switched over to doing like Instagram videos of like trying to
get people hyped and they're like buying his program or whatever. You know what
I'm saying that it seemed like he just every day was just super aggressive or
whatnot, and it totally changed the tone of his videos. It's funny,
though, you see that before and after photos ironic, right, because he's
like was in prison for slang and dope or whatever, and then you see
these videos that you see all the before and after photos and like clearly he's
got people on the saw, so it's like, oh, he's like,
oh he's still he's still a dope dealer, you know what I mean.
Like they're they're like, oh, we're doing workout routines, we're getting serious
about diet, and they're probably doing some of that, but guys are looking
awfully juicy after working with Wes Watson. So I didn't even realize who who
some of these people were when I was at that thing. I didn't know.
I was like, I had just didn't know who these people were,
but it was it was a wild event. Did they did you were?
Were you on the panel? No? I thought originally I would I would
be, but then when I got there, I wasn't on the panel.
Yeah, those guys are I don't know. Somebody pointed out before. They're
like they're all these guys that are quote unquote high value. And somebody's like,
yeah, so you know, basically, like where all the women and
children, you know, like you're this this high value individual and women should
want you or whatever else, and then so where are your actual like children
and offspring and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Anyways, they don't
have any of that, so ironically, so well, it's it's ridiculous.
He was saying, if you don't make if you don't make over one hundred
k, if you don't make this, you can't say it's all about the
money. And I'm like, i identified, I'm like I've heard that argument
somewhere. I'm like, that's what the feminists say about if you're not a
woman, you can't tell her if she can have an abortion or not.
I'm like, this is the stupidest argument. That's like basically his argument.
He later like lays it out that well, if you haven't experienced something,
you can't say it's bad. I'm like this, if you haven't eaten poop?
Guys, Wait, who said that? Who said that? Wes Watson
said that. Wes Watson through this argument. But then I noticed I made
a connection that I was like, oh, that's what all the feminists say
too. It's interesting because he uh, he had a video not that long
ago where he was talking and he was just like, nothing even makes me
happy. It's like I don't I don't enjoy anything about life. And it
was a really bizarre I mean, it was a while back when I saw
it. I can't remember what I actually thought, but it was it was
it was like, I don't know how you're supposed to sell people on your
brand when you're basically like, my life is more or less like meaningless.
I don't enjoy anything. And that's uh, you should want you should buy
into this brand for whatever reason of discontentment. It's I don't know, it's
like that's what demons do. It is very demonic. I think, yeah,
the originally it would have been an interesting panel because you had two people
who would have talked about, you know, a virtue based worldview and our
ethic and all of that. But it got completely sidetracked from the very get
go because he just really wanted to push his you know, screamstick and so
basically the first twenty minutes is just him screaming, and it kind of just
got on people's nerves and it was it was just weird. So it didn't
really go anywhere. It was weird because he had this whole transition in his
thing where then he was dating some some woman very unsavory and I don't know,
it's the whole thing. It just it's like, yeah, anyways,
I could, I could talk about his stuff, but it's just it's just
it's bizarro land, Like how anybody could take that stuff seriously? Yeah,
Well, what's interesting is that he didn't want to talk about the philosophy of
what a successful man is and where do we get our values from? And
it was basically just just basically hedonism. So that's it. So yeah,
weird, And that's what the other guys were saying too, Like what do
you think success is being able to do whatever I want? Yeah? Basically
Jim, Bob and uh uh and and Andrew were the only ones that had
any anything beyond just like whatever I want to do. I mean Myron at
least gave credence to God. But I think Myron is some kind of Muslim.
So let's see, full throttle, what's up man, what's on your
mind? Okay, you gotta unmute? What's up man? Full throttle?
You want to unmute? Oh? Yeah, yeah, what's up? Oh
no, I'm just listening you guys right now caught me off guard. So
I just wanted to join the you know, join the topic. Hopefully you
guys are discussing. But yeah, I anything on your mind related to gnosticism,
platonism, David. I was just in my own little world right now.
So you guys just continued talking and okay, try it all right?
Thanks man? By you, Jared, what's up? Do? What's on
your mind? Father Moses? I'll send you the clip. You'll see what
we're talking about. It's about a eighteen minute exchange. It's a it was
pretty wild. We thought there was going to be a fight for a second,
so it almost turned into a brawl. By you. Are you there?
Do you want to say something? You got on mute? I remember
imute? Yeah, thanks, So I was wondering what you're how you understood
In first John chapter three, verse fifteen, it says, whosoever hateth his
brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding
in him. And we know that David committed murder, and I think the
apostle Paul committed murder as well. So how, yeah, you have to
repent. Do you think that they have eternal life by repenting? Okay?
So, so once you repent, you're not a murderer anymore, correct,
Okay? And so someone that hates his brother while he's in that in while
he's committing that sin, he does not have eternal life, but when he
repents from it, then he can have eternal life. Yeah, I mean
that's why we we have to Jesus says he that does not forgive from his
heart, right, you're still bound by that, okay. And then verse
number nine says, whosoever is born of God does not commit sin for seed
or manith in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.
So do you think that someone who's born of how would you understand that?
So ultimately, we're born of God in the resurrection and will be perfect
in the resurrected state. But we're working towards that in this life, in
this state. So we're not ever going to be perfectly sinless, probably not
in this life, but we're working towards that. So I don't think John
is literally saying that we're some sort of Gnostic perfect ee. This was the
Gnostic view of the perfect die that they had attained perfection, and in the
Orthodox view, if you look at most of the best saints in terms of
their sanctity, they did not feel that they had attained perfection. They were
very aware of their sinfulness. So I would also say too that it's when
when we're baptized, like we were doing a baptist for you obviously Lazarus Saturday,
and it's really interesting. I was watching just the physical orientations, like
we're doing the exorcism prayers and then you turn to the west and you spit
on the devil and then you turn east to cross to Christ and his resurrection,
and what you're doing is that you're being born again, right born of
God. And in one sense, I think that's what John's talking about.
Is that, Yeah, although yes, I technically speaking makes sense, Notice
my orientations different. And I think if we think about like sin is like
even the archer right, like missing the mark. If we think of that's
this kind of orientation, it's totally different. Those born of God no longer
look the opposite way to the west. They look to the east, they
look to eternity, they look to the Cross. And I would interpret I'm
like, I would think that would be the orthodox understanding of Father. Moses
could talk a little bit more about that, but I don't think it's like
in the strictest sense, like you never make a mistake. I think it's
a genuine and general ontological change in orientation. You're no longer of the world,
you're born into something different, and you're orientated in a different way.
You're now towards the Cross. Father. You want to say anything about that,
Yeah, I think the problem that most people have with these quote unquote
ideas is that they divorce them from the reality of relationship and then they try
to turn them into something mechanical. So it's like in the first year of
your marriage. I don't know, Deacon, you've been married for a while,
but like in your first year of your marriage, is like, did
you love your wife? And you're like, well, yeah, I loved
her, And then it's like what about five years in it's like, did
you still love her? You're like, well, actually loved her more.
And you're like, wait, so you're saying you didn't love her the first
year. You're like, no, no, no, I still loved her
the first year, but I was, you know, you know, a
greater part of my heart was kind of in a sense given over to her
in that way. I think that this is the problem with Westerners is that
they're so very divorced from the understanding of their heart and understanding it as a
reality, not as a concept, that they failed to realize that as you
deepen your relationship with Christ, you give more of yourself to him. You
love him more, you trust him more, you have you know, a
greater intimacy with Him that comes about through you know, not just devotion or
acts or works or whatever else, but through like you know, hesechasm,
through prayer, through the sacraments, through participation in the liturgy. All of
these things grow your intimacy. And I think the other thing that the fathers
talk about is, you know, the purification of the news and the clarity
that that brings. And so it's very normal for people to kind of in
a sense. During their catechism, they see, they see or sense God's
presence to a degree, and then as they as they progress in the spiritual
life, they begin to see and sense God's presence ever more deeply. And
again, these are all very kind of in a sense, they're unsatisfactory to
a certain type of mindset because everything becomes very reductionistic and mechanical. And the
reality is is that it's a relationship and it's not. Even though that's like
kind of a cheesy way to put it or whatever that people think is cheesy,
the reality is that that is really what it is. And as the
news is purified by prayer, by fasting, by obedience, by confession,
by the sacraments, all these different things, you begin to see God more
and you begin to you know, you begin to experience Him in ever deeper
ways. So and that's a very real, tangible reality. But it's hard
to put into words or explain to people who've never experienced. It's it's like
the sensation of not being a Christian and you say, I felt so empty,
and it's like, well, what does that mean. It's like,
well, I didn't even know I was empty until I had the grace of
the Holy Spirit. Until I knew God, then I knew my emptiness.
But previously I just I had the sense that there was something missing from my
life. But how do you describe emptiness when it's all you've ever experienced,
when it's really all that you've ever known. So anyways, those are some
thoughts. Sumerian Sufi? What's up? Parent, parish bishop, twenty five
dollars. This is the best channel on YouTube. I love that you embrace
your comedic side more often. Thank you for teaching and doing all this great
content. Yeah, thank you. Been wanting to, you know, do
that for a long time, so I'm glad that at least one person appreciates
it. What's up, man, Sufi? What's up? You have to
unmute? Uh Sam, I'm I'm ann sofie And I'm just a bit curious
listening to your conversation. As soon as you guys are like, you know
what, we would conseate the anti Platonist and you know, anti the the
ideal of gnosis and things like that. I know you guys fall under the
Russian Orthodox Church, says a big curious Why do you guys oppose Platonism and
this idea? Of like esotericism and gnosis. All the reasons I gave in
the first hour. If you want to scroll back and on the YouTube video,
you could watch all those points. But I mean, there's pretty fundamental
errors in Platonism. We don't have a clear ethic and Platonism we don't have
a way to know the ideal realm how it relates to this realm of flux.
I mean, all the classic critiques of Platonism will be applicable the monad.
Why would the monad split? Why do we have multiplicity at all?
If the monad is the perfection that we're all trying to get back to the
idea that salvation is quote gnosis itself is kind of incoherent. So all of
those are reasons why Platonism is incoherent and insufficient. I have a question because
what we do is we kind of mix like Clayton's ideals and philosophy. Yes,
I'm aware to make philosophy right and to put on how can you guys
don't do something similar with the Bible. Do you just not see any comparison
between like the Church's teachings and Platonism, Like something that's not strong enough to
unify them because for us we just kind of you know, bread it all
together matches like Platonic ideals and Platonic ideas mentioned well, I mean, the
God of the Quran is an unknowable deity and it's a contradiction to the prior
revelation. So if you watch the debate that I did with Daniel Hikikachu,
who although he's not a Sufi, the debate that I had with him,
the problems of the theology would apply to you as well, even if you
are a neo Platonic interpreter of the Quran. Well, that that's an argument
for another day. I'm just curious on here hecu has a viewpoints, especially
because I've been seeing more Christians recently get into the ideals of like, you
know, Platonic derie. But as he's mostly the Orthodox or but he like
anti Platonists. So that's why I was just curious. I appreciate the answers.
Yeah, thank you. Yeah, go check out that discussion with Daniel
Hook getch you to get an idea for where I'm talking, where I'm coming
from. Mom, what's up e, mom? E? Mom? Something
I can't read the rest of it. George Washington barfer five dollars a very
close Boomer family member holds David egbews is argumentation and effective means of dislodging him
from this view. That really just depends on your relationship to this family member.
I mean, if it's if you're a younger person and they're older.
Since you said Boomer, probably not. You're probably not going to argue or
intellectually convince someone older than you and the family of anything. So in that
case, you're better off just trying to live a model, virtuous life than
trying to debate or anything like that. We always tell people not to debate
their parents or their family members is just a waste of time. But I
mean, if they ask you a question, you can answer them. But
that would be my advice. What's up you, mom? I do what?
I you good? What's up? I've just come? What are we
talking about today? I've just come across the bitch based up? What are
we speaking about? The topics listed at the top, simulation theory, David
Ike, gnosticism, platonism, neoplatonism, nice. What have we got to
say about any of these? Well, I'm arguing against pretty much all those,
so I'm I'm refuting and critiquing and going against those positions. What's your
position? I don't know. What's tim theory? I know who David Ike
is simulation theory that we live in a simulation. Oh, oh, simulation
theory? And what about gnosticism? What is nasticism the idea that we attain
salvation through a secret knowledge or nosis and that the world is inherently evil in
a prison? A bit vague? Vague? I need to look into that
a bit more to that's why. Yeah, that's right, you can check
those things out. Yeah, we don't believe those things. Sense certain.
You have to unmute. Yeah, you have to ummute. You don't have
to raise your hand. You're you're on there. Unmute. Oh hello,
is it my trying to speak? Yes? What's that? What's on your
mind? Okay? Yeah? I was just wondering. Is nosis always sort
of Apollonian knowledge, you know, sort of reason based knowledge or no?
Or is it always like knowledge of one's emotions and control of one's emotions?
So for example, you know, with the the creation, the creation myth
of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, which gave them knowledge, but
actually that resulted in the emotion of shame from the knowledge that they were naked.
So it seems to me that you know, in our current sort of
you know, in modernity, where we have elevated reason above our connection with
our emotions, or denying the reality of our emotions, and there's this sense
that actually we should get you know, more more familiar with the fact that
our emotions are intertwined with our capacity to reason as well. Could that actually
lead to more notice it, you know, to more mysticism if we were
to connect the two together rather than what He's perceived to be, you know,
more and more surgrounded state. Interesting interesting question. I mean, I
think that not all the Gnostics were the same, as we mentioned that.
If you want to scroll back to the beginning, we talked about various Gnostic
sects, some of which thought that you could attain enlightenment through total nihilistic abandon
some of which thought you could attain it through rituals, some of which thought
you could attain it through asceticism. So they were kind of all over the
place. But I think the emotions are an aspect of our being, but
that they don't necessarily give us in themselves gnosis or Enlightenment Rome Martin. I'll
do a few more, but I'm getting kind of worn down, so we
might have to call it a night. What's a Rome? You have to
un mute? Are you there? I'm mute? Okay. I think you
have to turn your mic on or something so we can't hear you. You
can come back and come back in, come out, come back in.
Know what m what's up? As you can hear me what's up? Hey?
Then you having me on. I do have a question that's a little
off topic, but I can I can draw it into Platonism, so I
hope you'll entertain it. I come from a I'm coming into Orthodoxy this Saturday,
and I come from a kind of a Christian universalist background. And one
of the things that I've noticed as I've spent a lot of time listening to
you, just doing reading and examining my assumptions and have moved away and let
go of that universalism to a great degree. So I've noticed that I had
a lot of presuppositions that the Greeks had that unity is preferable to multiplicity,
that because everything came from one, everything should return to one. And I
think that that idea kind of manifests itself in the Orthodox realm and in other
Christian realms as this Christian universalism. Yeah, yeah, I mean that's that's
originism. Yeah. Right, now, you guys were talking a couple hours
ago, maybe now somebody had brought up that how the Orthodox conception of hell
does kind of solve that to a satiates that to a great degree, that
Platonic moved back to the One because in a certain sense everything does go back
to God and that the Divine presence has made manifest. Yeah, but it
doesn't It doesn't mean in the sense of the Neoplatonists that it's being reabsorbed into
some in their unity things returned to God in the sense of being returned to
their natural state, which the fault knocked out of whack. So we're not
being reabsorbed into the One. We are being returned to our natural state,
which was to be created to be beings distinct but also in communion with God,
right, my only. And I'm pretty much at peace with that.
But the only thing that does still kind of nag at me a little bit
is when I look at the Orthodox that that that Orthodox vision of the escaton
and Saint Maximus described that some are resurrected to ever well being and ever ill
being. Right, doesn't the fact that some if it does turn out that
that is the case, that some are resurrected to ever ill being, doesn't
that kind of leave you with the sense that there's some loose ends. What
do you mean, well, that somebody is suffering eternally? I mean I
think we well, we're not told like I mean, we're just told that.
That's how God set it up to where you can basically create the afterlife
that you that you want, which is either either eternal felicity and resurrection or
you're you make yourself an enemy of God, and then it's the presence of
God that torments you. So if by loose ends you mean, well,
why hasn't God fixed those people? I mean God has fixed them by restoring
their nature, But God gave them free will by which they lock themselves into
not recapitulating the virtues in that nature and thus ensuring a bad experience of the
escoton. But the bad experience is not God like tormenting you like a you
know, Jeffrey Dahmer or something. It's God's love is what torments them,
right, Okay, if I can figub one kind of off topic question onto
that I've heard you say before that what makes a saint in the Orthodox tradition
is not necessarily one hundred percent correct theology. And I think you said this
in regards to Santa Augustine, but that probably applies to all the bothers,
because everybody's vallible to one degree or another, even the same. Why do
we extend that grace to some such as Augustine and not to others like Origin.
Well, Augustine died in the bosom of the Church and accepted the judgment
of the Church. On the books that he wrote, if you read on
the Trinity, he even says, I submit this to the judgment of the
universal Church. And so he died in the bosom of the church. Origin
did not. Origin was excommunicated and was called out as a heretic in his
day. Well, it seems to me, because I've spent a lot of
time studying Origin, and it seems to me that he it takes great pains
to point out that a lot of his speculations are just that. And while
he was communicated by Demetrius, it seems that he was received by the bishops
in Arabia. Yeah, that's why it ends up going to an ecumenical council
to decide, and that there's three successive councils that definitively condemn all of the
positions and Origin. And you also can't like emasculate yourself. I mean,
he didn't emasculate himself. That's what some people say, some others just because
of Okay, well so I mean if okay, I know, so we
get the people who want to rewrite revise everything. I'm not accusing you of
that, but like, why can't we just rest the judge in the judgment
of three ecumenical councils on this person. I mean that the sixth Ecumenical Council
doesn't just say Origin is a heretic. There's actually a four page extensive refutation
and rejection of his entire system in the Confession of Saint Sophronius, which is
accepted at the sixth Council. Like, why isn't that good enough for us
to just trust that the judgment of the church knows better than us to try
to go and pick out where Well, I think, no, Origin wasn't
that bad of a guy. I mean well, I heard that question raised
that or the point raised that a lot of those things that were condemned were
actually evagarious is thinking and not origins. But it's not. But you have
a bigger problem here is that if you if you set your sorry, Jay,
I don't mean no, I'm going to say that very point. It's
a bigger problem. Yeah, if you set yourself in judgment of the ecumenical
councils, and it's like what it first, like, what is your actual
authority? And to be honest, it's like at that point, why would
somebody even become Orthodox if they didn't understand that the councils were divinely inspired and
that their pronouncements were actually by miraculously the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And
so it's not just as Jay said, one council, it's three councils.
And to me, this is like, this is this is the problem.
People are becoming Orthodox, but they're they're still Protestant. The idea that like
I can choose and pick and I go, well, I like his writing
and whatever else, and I think that he's a good guy and he probably
didn't emasculate that none of that has anything to do with anything. Our opinions
on things do not matter. In Orthodoxy, we trust the grace and the
and and the revelation of the Holy Spirit. It's you know, it's not
our own wisdom that leads us to come to the conclusions that we come to.
Likewise, when when we talk about who's the saying and you were talking
about Augustine, Well, the the understanding and Orthodoxy of a saying is not
just miracles or this or that. There's there's not a formula like in Roman
Catholicism. It's those who acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit. And it's
very clear, I think, even from the story of origin and the fact
that you know, he didn't die in the church, and he didn't die
in repentance, and did not even seem to have any shred of humility about
his teaching or what is often the case with all heretics in the church,
no shred of humility regarding being corrected. I don't know we would have such
a hard time seeing that as a sign that this person obviously did not have
the grace of the Holy Spirit, one of the foremost attributes of the Holy
Spirit moving and working in a person and This is directly from Saint Sophroni of
ethics, but there's lots of other ones. Is that they are obedient to
the Church, that they understand they can they can neetically see the grace of
the Holy Spirit acting and moving in the church, and that they are bound
to that because they sense that grace at present. So in regards to that
point, the one thing that I guess still kind of confuses me, that
theysny prestle with to the question of origins character is that how did a heretic
have such a pronounced effect on so many saints of our church, that that
so many people spoke so much the same the same way, that the same
way that Aristotle had an influence on the Church fathers, the same way that
any number of ancient classical writers had influence. And yet that doesn't make them
saints or necessarily even orthodox, right Tertullian similar situation. So, but you
understand that it's if Saint Sophronius at the Sixth Council in his four page reputation
of originism is wrong. What it's not just a matter of this, you
know academic you know peculiarity. What that does is it says well, then
you know what Athanasius was also wrong about about Arias. You know Cyril was
also wrong about Cyril was also wrong perhaps about what he was saying about Nestorius.
You understand every heretic makes this argument. If you go talk to the
Assyrian Church of the East, they they will tell you exactly what you said.
Nobody actually understood what Nasaurius was saying. Cyril got it all wrong.
So now the whole thing's undone, you see. So it's not just a
matter of well they were actually refuting Evagrius and not an origin No, I
think again, I'm going to trust that Saint Sophronius correctly was refuting origin system,
right. Okay, well it satisfies me. Like I said, this
Saturday, I'm being baptized along with my wife and our son and my brother,
and a lot of that has been because of listening to you for the
past few years. So thanks for everything. Have you have you looked at
what I'm talking about? I've shared it many times on Twitter. I'll try
to reshare it. Have you seen the four page condemnation of all of Originism
from the Six Council? I have ever read it? Okay, yeah,
and I think, yeah, good questions. Appreciate that. Yeah, I
think, you know, it's understandable too. I wasn't trying to, you
know, be combative. I remember having you know, issues, I didn't
think, I like, what's the answer to this? You know, and
those things will come in time. So, you know, not everyone or
theological questions is going to be immediately answered when we want it. One thing
that happens is that, you know, you may have something in the back
of your head kind of you know, tom around for three or four years
before you find you know, the text or the book or whatever that answers
that quick. That's been my experience. I don't always immediately get whatever issue
I'm struggling with, you know, answered. I remember at one point I
had something wrong theologically, maybe five or six years ago, where I wasn't
sure how to reconcile. You know, did Christ assume a falling human nature
or an unfalling human nature? And it seemed like it had to be a
fall in human nature, because well, how would we be healed if he
didn't, you know, assume a falling human nature. I had not read
where Saint Maximus covers the blameless and the Blameful passions, and so I wasn't
aware of that distinction, and that distinction answered my question. And I didn't
you know which was boppling or was in my head until I saw that text
from Saint Maximus. Chris pro what's up? You got an immune? Chris,
you got to arn you if you want to talk? Are you there?
I don't understand why people sit here and wait. All right, let's
move on. So we got a lot of people who've already asked questions.
And I'm not trying to be rude to you guys, but we're moving on
to people who two, Hu, what's up to Hu? So it's taken
him a second to connect Blake for ten dollars, would you say that the
scriptures in the church are on the same ontological level in orthodox theology? I
mean, they're distinct things, but they are both, you know, aspects
of the faith. So I mean it seems to me that the church and
the scriptures would reflect proper Trinitarian theology analogously. I mean, Maximus says that
the content of the Bible is the logi, the content of nature is the
logi, and probably you could say the Church is the body of Christ.
So it also is in a sense related to the LOGI. I mean,
I guess they're just different things. I mean, you know, the scriptures
are the medium of divine revelation in one sense, but so is nature in
another sense. So it's just I don't know if I would say that scripture
in the church are ontologically on the same level. Land and Jordan fifty dollars.
I mean, the scriptures are a book, you know what I mean,
and we're the actual body of Christ. The book is about Christ.
So Land and Jordan fifty dollars, you were doing too much. Boy,
It's just this is alcohol. It is alcohol. Yeah, that was a
fun eclip. Maybe laugh really hard. Mango three dollars, Thank you for
that, fat super Chet. They're landing. He wins the super chet contest
tonight. Mango three dollars. Is our sin an obstacle and not the barrier
between us and God. I mean, obstacle and barrier can be. I
mean they kind of have the same meaning, so both of them are equivalent.
Philip, Philip Plan ten dollars, Thank you so much. Jacob one
dollar. Do you still read doctor Joseph P. Farrell, No, I
haven't read any of this stuff. In many years. I think, you
know, the last time I read through God History Dialectic, maybe eight years
ago, was the last time I looked at this stuff. Chicken of the
CEA five dollars. Our hypostatic properties depicted in icons? Are they called accidents?
No. Hypotetic property is picking out the property of the son, picking
out the person of the son. That's the son's hyposthetic properties to be generated,
right, the Holy Spirit's hypoesetic properties to be spirated. But what's depicted
in icons is the hypostasis, the hypostasis of the Sun, and particularly we
don't depict the hypostasis of the Father or the Holy Spirit in the icon.
But we wouldn't call those accidents. No, So that's not that's not what
we believe. Tag who five dollars. Prior to the incarnation, could nobody
justify knowledge, ethics and metaphysics. I mean, well, the idea of
justification in philosophy was there because Plato is prior to the incarnation. But it's
not like the incarnation has to happen before truth or grace could come. I
mean, we believe that truth and grace come to us from the incarnation,
even though it happened at a point in time, it operates reflectively. That's
why the grace is the gospel has preached to the patriarch's Paul says, so,
no, even though it happens at a point in time, the grace
applies even to the past and to the future. Since God didn't did judge
humanity, wouldn't conscience and intuition constitute a basis for philosophy. I don't know
what that means. God did judge humanity, wouldn't conscience be a basis.
I don't think our conscience has to philosophy just means asking questions about you know,
what is the meaning of life? What is the examined life? Right?
Is it the examined life? The only life worth living? I mean,
you know, the pre Socratics asked basic questions like what is everything?
You know? Is everything one thing? Or many things? So I don't
know that it necessarily immediately relates to the conscience. So I'm not sure what
that question means. Not trying to be rude to you, just I'm not
sure, not sure what it means. Ricky five three dollars. I had
a Roman Catholic tell me that we eat the divine essence in the economy and
the Eucharist. No, I've never heard anyone say that, So I think
your friend is confused. I mean not even Roman Catholics believe that, So
he doesn't know what he's talking about. DC would work at three dollars.
Welcome to the will Nium. Yeah, exactly. We was down there in
Miami and it is not the way that Will Smith describes in his videos.
So but I guess we're in the Willnium now, mister Anderson, five five
dollars. Have you done any geopolitics espionage debate streams? There was one open
debaate stream on that about whether or not communism was part of the dialectic or
not, and that's when some of those lunatic Maga communists people came on there,
and that's on Rock Finn. Are there not enough people willing to debate
this topic. No, most people won't. I mean all anybody wants to
debate is the Amish question, which I mean I've known about all this stuff
since like two thousand and six. So there was one guy who was pretty
well read and we got pretty deep into debating to what degree the British Empire
fostered and goaded tiny mustache man and that was a pretty That guy was pretty
smart guy. That's on Rock Fin if you're looking for that debate some months
back. I don't remember what it was called, but no, typically nobody
when I do the espionage streams, they get like seven thousand views, right,
I did a whole four. I did four Masade movies and tried to
tie that into two espionage talk stuff. Seven thousand people watch that. Nobody
cares about that. Twenty thirty thousand people will listen to a stream talking about
Candae Owens and Catholicism. I caught them at five dollars. It was funny
how the audience at that Fresh and Fit event and the panel was against the
mouth breaver breava mouth breather, and everybody was on Andrew and Jimbob's side.
Yeah, I was there live. It did seem like most of the audience
was kind of laughing at Jim Bob and Andrews comments. They weren't really vibing
with Wes Watson. It was just kind of everybody was just kind of not
sure how to react. I mean it just because it was odd from the
get go. I mean, Wes was like from zero to one hundred within
three minutes. So it was just kind of everybody was not sure how to
react. It was just I don't know how to describe it as it was
an odd vibe glue Sea Tunes three dollars. I will say it was entertaining.
That was definitely an entertaining event. When challenged by family members, I
don't want a debate for fear of harming my relationships. So yeah, they
don't have to debate your family members, man, I don't. I don't
know why people think that. You know, they watch these streams and they
think, oh, I got to go debate my dad. No, I'll
tell you all the time, they'll do that. What's the best course of
action? Again, don't debate your family members. Your family members spend all
their time around you. They know every one of your faults. You guys
annoy each other. They don't want to listen to your debate. They don't
care. They're not even hearing. It just sounds like noise. So the
only way to convert or get through to family members, in my experience,
especially if they're older, is through actions and how you live. And then
of course you can pray for BMX nineteen sixty six ten bucks. Thank you
so much, BMX. Remember also, we have a show sponsor. I
noticed that at the Mind's event, Chalk was on the display, so I
guess Chalk did end up being a sponsor at the Mines event. I was
hoping to be invited to the Minds event given that I helped those people talk
to our buddies at Chalk. But so maybe next year I'll get invited to
the Minds event since I helped set that up. But we'll see. We
had a lot of our friends were at that event. And then again,
I don't think Destiny was a big fan, so maybe Destiny was not too
hip to the idea of somebody like me coming. I don't know. That's
okay. I don't really care that much about it. But it would have
been neat to go to and I could have gone on with Luke and Lord
Baltimore. But whatever, we had good time. We had a great time
in Miami with Luke on his podcast, and the event was definitely an adventure.
It was entertaining, the Fresh and Fit event, and if we didn't
have the Muslim debate, that's okay, all right, Thank you guys on
Twitter. Appreciate everybody coming, guys, remember head on over to chalk dot
com. Chalk is our sponsor. They were also there at the mindsevent You
can get fifty percent off of those products over at chalk dot com. My
favorite is, of course the ton cattlee right there, the Talcat one hundred
proven to boost tests saucer rone in the studies you can read over at chalk
dot com. A'shoq dot com. We also have the pre workout chad Mode
which you can get as well for fifty percent off if you use a promo
code J fifty this JY five zero on all those great Chalk products. Chalk
is linked in the show description c choq dot com. Thank you to the
mods for putting the links to Chalk in the chat there. For everybody for
watching this later, click in the show description to that link. Also,
guys, remember we will be live in Las Vegas with our good buddy Jamie
Kennedy. You know him as Randy Meeks and biggest horror franchise of all time
called Scream. You might have heard a Scream and his stand up is very
enjoyable. He's a very funny guy, very fun in person. He's been
very cool to us and always been very open to doing a lot of these
events with us. We've had a lot of fun with him, and we've
also got our good buddy who's in that same region, Isaac bishops I Llunati
Watcher. You've seen him on my podcast many times. You've seen me and
him on Sam Tripley's podcast. You've seen you know, he's got one of
the top you know, Hollywood esoteric pop culture conspiracy podcasts out there. So
he's going to be live with us June twenty second in Las Vegas. We
found a great venue. It was the only venue, so amazingly it worked
out. I didn't think it was going to work out. Did not think
I was going to be able to get a venue. Thankfully, we got
this great venue. Get your tickets right there. It's six hours of fun,
six hours of infotainment. I'm going to be lecturing on geopolitics, espionage,
dark spiritual forces, blackmail and all that. Jamie, my wife,
lectures on esoteric Hollywood concepts and topics. Isaac Byshet will be giving a deep
esoteric Kubrick talk, and of course Jamie Kennedy does his stand up routine and
takes a lot of Q and a. You can also get all of your
scream memorabilia and what not signed. Trust me, it's great, it's fun.
We'll have books, books signing. You can get your book signed and
all that our books, everybody's books, Isaac Wischep's books as well, and
there's the link to that. Otherwise, thank you guys for a good discussion.
Maybe David Ike will come around and decide he wants to do a debate.
It'd be great if Alex moderates that. He said he would be willing
to do it. I don't think you will, but I'm definitely down to
do it if he wants to. We can have a friendly, you know,
civil conversation. But for the because I don't think it'll happen.