The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the bah. All
right, what's up? Everybody? Meltdown time? So people have said for
last few weeks because they want to get attention, they want clicks and whatever.
Oh, you want debate this guy, you want debate this guy.
So I've talked about having debates with this guy for months. He would only
want he only wanted to debate the Philly Oakuay. I wasn't interested in that
debate because he had already had that debate with UBI. We did a whole
review of that debate with David Rhan and so I told him, I want
to debate the thing that scholasticism rests on, which is the self evident maxims,
the first principles of your system, and if that falls, scholasticism isn't
true. He will not debate that. I've asked him for at least a
year now, maybe eight nine months to do it. He won't do it.
So he does a stream talking about me or something. I don't know.
I didn't watch the whole stream. Somebody sent it to him and said,
hey, he's talking about you. Do you want to hop on?
And I went over there and said, I'm ready. I'll come over here
and debate you. So notice he won't come over to my end and debate.
He won't debate me. I'll go to his home court and argue with
him because when he's making this new regurgitated argument for philly oquay. Which keep
in mind, these are people who think that citing authorities counts as arguments right
because they still exist in the Middle Ages. They think it's the year thirteen
hundred, even though the Vatican doesn't care about Tomism anymore, even though their
whole sect has moved past Tomism, literally doesn't care about it at all.
These people believe and larp as if it's the year fourteen hundred and their heads.
They're living in a scriptorium online, and no one else in the rest
of the Roman world in terms of power, authority, and status, cares
about Tomism, So it only exists in the trid world. And why is
the trid world melting down of late? Why are they having such issues well,
it's not just because of the obvious absurdities that we point out with their
saints, which they have to hold to Margaret Mary Alacoquay's miracles and visions,
because her sainctity so called, is actually part of the ordinary magistrum. And
we can look at those documents that discuss that in a minute. But imagine
saying that, well, I don't have to believe her visions. I just
can accept that she's a saint. Well, if her visions aren't true,
then she was a deluded woman. And according to Durami thirteen, Derami eighteen
Galatians one, false prophecies and false visions make you a fraud, not a
saint. So it's totally inconsistent to think that, oh, I can just
accept Margaret Mary Alacoquay as a saint, but not all the visions about sacred
heart and that Jesus supposedly told her to carve his name into her chest and
sign a blood packed with the flowing blood, and then afterwards she reopened the
wounds to make it bleed more. This is the Roman Catholic idea of sanctity.
So there's something about the I mean, they are gluttons for punishment,
and I guess that's why they like to continue to be punished in these discussions
when they make really fundamental mistakes. And what he's done here is a word
concept fallacy. So he thought that because there was discussion of relations in the
Cappadoceans, which is very frequent in the Orthodox tradition, we know all about
this, we talk about all the time. I've had doctor Bob Branson on
many, many times to discuss the Cappadocian triadology. That's what his dissertation is
about. And I've read a significant portion of the Cappadocian Corpus that's in English,
and their discussion is about relations of origin. Hypostatic properties are the foundation
for the relations of origin. And as the famous Orthodoxy Elergi of Ladimirlowski said,
a person is a subject, not a relation. So you can't identify
persons even by relations. The persons have relations, but they can't be identified
primarily by a relation, because a relation is a predicate and a person or
a hypostasis is a subject. So they certainly have relations, and they certainly
have relations that are fundamental, such as the son is the son of the
father, so praternity to filiation. Those are certainly relations, but the relation
is not the person. And that's why when Aquinas says persona at rolatio,
the Orthodox tradition always took issue with that, because a relation, again is
a predicate and not a subject. A subject is a person, the subject
Bob, the subject Bill, the subject son of God. Those are divine
subjects in the trinity. For us, a person is a subject or an
agent, and a relation is something that a person, a subject or agent
has. But because of the tendency towards collapsing collapsing distinctions into the essence Intnism,
Augustinianism and then Tomism has always had a struggle and a tendency to speculate
and want to come up with ways to make these distinctions other than and outside
of the relations of origin and hypostatic properties that the Cappadocians and their theology ends
up having dogmatized at the constantinople one. This is why the Cappadocians, for
example, speak of the Father unanimously in the writings as the soul cause.
The hyposide of property that picks them out is soul cause fount ark and ark,
et cetera. Source, that's his hypothetic property. Basil famously says that
the son is the son because he's the eternally generated son of the father.
The spirit is the spirit because he's eternally spirated. And the famous quote from
Basil is that there is a difference between spiration and generation. We know what
the difference is, we do not know. And that's pretty common. I
mean, that's very well known. It's a very common. So when you
get to stricter definitions or ideas of simplicity that we find in origin Plutonis and
then in Augustine, and that definition is essentially repeated between those three people.
And when simplicity is catched out mainly as not having distinctions, an absolute unity
without distinctions, you then have a challenge without presupposition. That's a metaphysical presupposition.
And the rod of Galwitz's thesis and the Bradshaw book showed that that's not
the approach that the Cavedocians did. And even the Kongar paper that we're talking
about, which makes the point that there's a difference between relations of opposition and
relations of origin between august and the Cavedocians, admits this. So the funniest
part I think of the whole thing was just simply that he thought that relations
just always meant a relationship of opposition. When what happens in the course of
Trinitarian theology is that the Augustinian definition of simplicity, which then led to other
ideas like philly oaquey in on the Trinity, leads him to speculating about other
possible ways to distinguish the persons. So, for example, if we wanted
to distinguish father son in his holy holy Spirit, but there is a philioque,
Now there's a new relationship and a new property, you could say that
father and son have that spirit lacks or if the father has a power,
Augustine argued, then it seems to necessitate the son should also have that power
too, or else there would be a kind of subordination. But Augustine apparently
missed the fact that, well, if the spirit lacks that power, then
he's also subordinated. And that's the basis for namely, the power of causing
a person. So it's to confuse the hypostatic properties with the essential properties or
attributes. The essential attributes are common to all three persons. That's why the
Cappadocians say that anything you say about the Trinity, it's either a property or
power positive property or power that one of them has unique to that one,
or it's common to all three persons. That's a Cappadot rule or law.
So, for example, causing a person can't be something that two persons have,
because that would mean that it's an essential property. If two have it,
three must have it. If it's an essential property, then the Holy
Spirit spir rates himself and nobody believes that except maybe idiot Roman Catholics. I
don't know. But the whole point here is just simply that monarchical trinitarianism in
the East and the Cappadoceans does not struggle with and have the same problems and
issues that later Latin theology has because of their assumptions about simplicity. Now,
if the debate really progresses to where I would like it to debate to go,
then what happens is that we realize that, well, we all know
that the Plutonian definition of what simplicity is is true, do we? I
mean? Rodshaw's whole book Ariosol East and West is premised on arguing that the
Capbudotionans don't go with a plutonium definition of simplicity. Their definition of simplicity starts
with whether or not God is acted upon or whether he acts, And it's
obvious why the Cappudotions wouldn't want to start with a radical essentialist identity thesis view
of simplicity like we see it fourth Lattering Council with Lombard, because it's very
difficult to have a triad when you start with an absolutely simple essence, it's
your starting point. Triad becomes something tertiary, something secondary, something that's like
a diminished status. But regardless, all of this was none of this was
really what this issue was about, because I left to comment saying that he
misunderstood relations of opposition in Augustinian theology and why it was used and why it
arose versus relations in the Cappadocians, which is primarily relations of origin opposition.
As Orthodox theologians have criticized this position in the past, notes relates to two
things, to a diad, So if the trinity is really a triad,
it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to utilize the idea of opposition.
And by opposition, I mean the metaphysical baggage that comes along with dialectical opposition.
And that's precisely what you see in Augustine. And if you doubt me
on this again, Congar wrote a whole essay just surveying the difference between the
Augustinian and Cappadocian approaches. It's not even really that controversial. But what's happened,
and this is what always happens with the Tomas and with these guys,
is that they utilize word concept fallacies where they see this word here, they
see the word over here, they then assume that it's all talking about the
same theological meaning. And they do that because of what they're epistemology. They
have an empiricist based epistemology. They believe in the peripatetic axiom that there's nothing
in the intellect that is not first in the senses. And that's a quote
from Aquinas and de ver Atat citing Aristotle. It's called the peripatetic axiom.
But no Toomas, no scholastic will be able to give an account for their
starting points, for their self evident principles. And I can just bring up
all day long the criterion problem, which they actually like to dismiss, even
though I shared a paper from a famous Catholic cardinal who cited at the very
top of the of the paper talking about how the criterion problem dominates philosophy.
So they don't even care about what their own academic say. They just handwaig
whatever's a problem to them. And they again, they think they're living in
the fourteen hundreds, so they don't have to answer or reply to any arguments
post fourteen hundred. Why because a quitiness bro because being bro And we saw
the other day the Thomas that was talking smack all day, he just didn't
come. He said, I will come and debate you at ten o'clock your
time or whatever. No show. Wagner's been saying, oh, you won't
debate me. He's scared. Dollar're scared. So I have to go to
his stream to debate him because I'm scared when I've been asking him to come
debate these topics endlessly. Now, why would I talk about epistemology? You
just wanted to deflect. Oh, you just wanted to deflict. If we
get to an issue where, for example, the Thomas says, well,
we know that this is what simplicity means, because it has to mean this,
because that's what simplicity is. They have a metaphysical assumption. But if
I have a different metaphysical assumption about simplicity and about energies and about God's unity,
et cetera, et cetera, how do we resolve this question? Well,
ultimately it's going to go back to something more fundamental, because they're putting
the metaphysical cart before the epistemic course, which is what's our starting point for
going about these issues. For me, in my position, it's divine revelation.
It's not the first principles of Aristotle. I'm not going to let aristotles
philosophy dictate what things are possible metaphysically in the Bible. And this is precisely
why they don't believe in the Theophanes. And I think it's going to be
obvious that they then must depart from what is listed in scripture. And that's
why I'm going to be from now, I'm just going to start going to
all the texts about God's glory being present in time and space, because that's
all that's needed to refute these idiots. Now they're gonna say, but it's
self evident that something that's absolutely simple can't have distinctions and blah, blah blah
blah blah. Okay, but now you're denying the Trinity, dummy, Like,
what are you talking about? So we're going to open it up.
We have some of the fans from that sphere. I don't want to limit
it to that though, So if we have people that want to come on
and discuss and defend other top topics, options are there as well. If
you want to talk about Islam, Protestantism, Gnosticism, Unitarianism, we can
go into all of those as well. As my microlow. That's weird.
Oh I know why it's low. When you hop on stream Yard, it
automatically, it automatically de boosts your microphone. So that's better. Yeah,
thank you for that. So his stupid ass stream Yard or muted my microphone
when I when I went on there. But let's give an example. So
here's a Roman Catholic website. Before we open it up to the Thomas here
that want to talk this, here's a Catholic a website doing the very thing
that we see these people trying to do. And perhaps he even utilized this
website, who knows. But this website argues, for example, that the
Philly OK Way is mentioned for example in Toledo, and so I think he's
citing Denzinger here, whoever wrote this, and it's talking about how there's a
there's a relation. It's kind of mentioned in Toledo. You could say that
there's a way they think to distinguish the persons via relations of opposition. And
you can see that the fact that it's cited in Toledo, which is one
of the first Philly oak Way supporting councils, you can see that the concern
is obviously associated with the mine simplicity and defending philioque. But then this,
even this Catholic guy notes that the Greek fathers understood that it accurately describing the
Trinity with the terms which have become common is difficult. Gregory the theologian says,
for example, what is it to be preceding? You explain the in
generacy of the Father, and then I will give you a biological account of
the son's begetting and the Spirit's proceeding. Now understand this is making the point
I made a few minutes ago that for the Cappadocians that there's a distinction between
generation and procession. We know and believe what that is. We do not
know, and so this even this Catholic website is noting that, right,
And then Gregory goes on to say, we don't know. We're not told
the specific distinction of the nature of generation versus firation, but rather it is
revealed to us that we know there is a son and that there is a
holy Spirit. Now, notice this guy does the same thing that the Roman
Catholics do. Here where this other guy? So this guy he left so
that we got a Toomas, I'm about to go to you. You've been
saying you want a debate, and then he runs away. These are a
bunch of women, like they're a bunch of effeminate, like just ridiculous people.
That's why they all had to come on in the comments and say that
I got cooked when he booted me from his stream. So we'll play his
clip here in a second. But I notice here what the Catholics going to
do the same move to try to find in the Eastern Fathers, this idea
of relations of opposition, which is not there. There's relations of origin,
and we're going to see that. They also have this quote they're passing around
y'all, thank you for coming back critical Tomas and we'll go to you.
In a second, Regomnissa says, the person of the Father is begotten,
and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Is Therefore, because the cause of the persons
is one, we say that he is the one God and that he exists
an eternity with these others. So notice that that's relations of origin. You
see that the persons of the Godhead do not differ in time or in space,
or in occupation or in activity. They only differ between them in that
the Father is a father and not son. The Son is son and not
father. Holy Spirit is neither father nor son. So you can talk about
distinctions, you can talk about them having a differentiation of relation. But in
this very comment, it is not relations of opposition the way that it's formulated
in the Augustinian arguments for filioque in divine simplicity. For example, in the
Kongar paper when he explains this difference, there was a specific Augustinian quote I
wanted to read here. So by the way, this whole paper talks about
what I'm talking about, which shows that it's not it's not even really a
controversial thing here. It does I think this is it? Augustine says,
here it is in day trinitade. Augustin takes Biblical Texas his pointed departure to
show that they disprove the Aryan position. He then goes on to consider the
problem if an intellectually valid agreement between the unity and diversity is necessary. If
there is that, if it's necessary, then at the same time sufficient to
distinguish between absolute and relative terms. The terms father's on the spirit distinguish the
persons, and they are relative, and they are relative in that they affirm
the person's by opposing one to the other. The problem is that it is
true to say that there is a relationship and that they do oppose one to
another, but relations of opposition is not a sufficient means to distinguish the persons
without relations of origin. That's the whole point. And Conggar goes on to
make that point to say that the competition fathers, even though he thinks that
they're intending to express the same thing, they don't really differ from one another.
I think Augustine does differ obviously disagree with Cungar. But since Augustine does
not express a consistent view of relations of origin to a sole cause, this
leads to difficulties in trying to explain. Well, then perhaps it's what differentiates
son from spirit is that one is from one and the other is from two.
But that's a new additional property or attribute, right that again subordinate spirit,
because to be from one rather than to be from two isn't really a
consistent It doesn't really tell us anything without all the other things. And also
it violates the earlier competition principle that there's nothing there's no property or attribute that
two persons share that one lacks. So being from two is not some positive
property. And by the way, it's it is a positive property because it's
the father and the Son, according to Lines in Florence, together are a
single principle of the power inspiration of the eternal existence of the Spirit. So
the Father and the Son together, as the councils of Line in Florence say,
form a single principle. So there's a singularity that's common to father and
son. That is the power that gives existence, eternal existence to the Holy
Spirit. And it's something then that the Holy Spirit clearly does not have.
And then he goes on to talk about the fact that part of the reason
for this is that the Cappetitions begin with person in their triology, and the
Thomas and the Augustinians begin their triology typically with essence. Yeah, exactly,
So what I said isn't really even that controversial. Now, I want to
talk briefly about before we go to critical Thomas the last point here, and
I'll play his clip later. But oh crap, let me do that.
So their argument is that there's a quote from Basil, and the quote that
they're passing around is kind of bizarre because it's not worded the way that the
text that it supposedly is coming from is worded. So let's look at this
quote really quick, and you'll notice that it's just talking about hyposthetic properties.
It is not saying that relations of opposition is the primary way to distinguish the
person's. In fact, it doesn't even really say that at all. In
the nature of distinguishing marks, that's for us, that's the hyposthetic properties,
and that's what Basil's talking about here, to show otherness in the identity of
the sub substance. So he's he's saying that the hypostatic properties mark out what's
distinct even though there's an identity of substance or essence in the trinity. As
for the distinguishing marks themselves, that is, the hypestetic properties, they are
often contradistinguished from one one from another such that they are separated to the point
of being contraries. So they are contraries because they're of father versus son.
It's not dialectical opposition, and that's what is in the Augustinian and Tonistic position.
How are they separated, Well, they're separated because of the hypostatic properties
are markers. They certainly do not rupture the unity of the substance, as
with winged and footed, and aquatic and terrestrial, and rational and animal,
Since there is one substance that underlies them, these distinguishing marks do not make
the substance foreign to itself. So, in other words, the essence that
the Sun has is not different than the essence that the Father has. Nor
are they persuaded to join each other in a kind of rebellion. They implant
the activity of the things that they identify as a kind of light in our
soul and a guide to an unders standing attainable by our minds. But you
know, Meius, having transferred the opposition of the distinguishing marks to the substance.
So it's not relations of opposition in the Augustinian sense, it's distinguishing relations
via relations of origin. He just uses the word opposition and he uses the
word contrary, so that's too contrast. He takes this from the starting point
of umpiety, scarring us with sophisms as if we were children, the light
should indeed be something other than the unbegotteness. So Unmius, as you guys
know, was a radical area. And you know mes argue that the light
that is the Sun is radically different than the light that is the Father.
So when the creed says God from God, light from light, Youunomius is
rejecting that. But this is not the same thing as Conguard emits as relation
of opposition as a means to distinguish the person's to help save the doctrine of
the filioqui. So and note two that in that in that distinction, Basil
made it clear that the distinguishing marks or opposition is not a dialectical metaphysical opposition.
It's a distinction of relations to the origin of the Father. If anyone
wants to accept that which is true, namely that begotten and unbegotten, their
distinctive features that enable identification and are observed in the substance, which is the
Unomian position, which leads to the clear and unconfused. Note he's saying that
if you if you don't make these distinctions, you'll be a Eunomian. This
leads to the clear, unconfused notion of the Father and the Son. Then
you will escape the danger of impiety and preserve the logical coherence in his reasoning.
The distinctive features, which are like characters and forms observed in the substance
the differentiate. So he's talking about the what the hypostatic markers or properties are,
beginning with the person of the Father and not the essence. So you
understand that from the outset, the ordo theology of the Latin Church is wrong
because it tends, especially after our accidents in Middle Ages, to begin with
the essence as the starting point. Then you have the difficulty in the challenge
of distinguishing within the triad a reality of threeeness. But for the Cappadocians it
begins with the person of the Father. As the other article that we just
read admitted right, the other Catholic Guy's article not Kungar, but the other
one, noting that the Eastern fathers begin with the concept of the person of
the Father. This is monarchical trinitarianism. There's one God because there's one Father.
That's what the Creed says. I believe in one God, the Father.
Paul says, we have one Lord and Father of our Jesus, of
Lord Jesus Christ. So for us, trinitarian theology begins with the person of
the Father, and we do not know the divine essence, so it doesn't
make sense to even start any theology with the divine essence at all. He
says that these distinguishing characteristics, for example, pick out the person, and
yet the sameness of the substance or nature is common to all three, whereas
fatherhood and sonship are distinguishing marks. The combination of both that is common and
the unique we arrive at the comprehension of truth. So all he's saying is
that distinguishing marks of paternity and sonship are relations. They're real relations. They're
not fake or dislogical or conceptual. They're real relations. But remember, persona
at relatio cannot be true. A relation is a predicate and not a subject,
and the persons are the subjects, they're the agents. Consequently, if
you hear unbegotten light, you think of the Father. When you hear begotten
light, you think of the sun. In so far as they are light
from light, or light and light, there's no contrarity between them, whereas
in so far as they forgot and begotten, one observes the opposition. So
this is just to distinguish them one from another. But because being not the
other is not a clear marker, right, because le let me give an
example of this. Each of the persons is not the other two, right,
But that doesn't tell me anything. That's a true proposition. It is
true to say that the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, but
that doesn't work as an actual concrete thing to tell me anything, because all
three of them equally share the proposition, not the other two. So even
though it's true, it doesn't really work as any kind of indicator or marker.
And strictly speaking, dialectical opposition, which is what we're talking about and
what's imported by the Augustinian position, only becomes necessary due to the radical,
divine simplicity positions that they start with if you start your trinitary theology with the
person of the Father, right, what does Palama say? God did not
say I am it? In Exodus three in the in the Burning Bush,
he said I am he, meaning that we begin with the personhood of the
Father, not the essence. So using the term like an even using the
term opposition, does not equate to the dialectical idea of relations of opposition that
comes about in later theology as congo or even admits h critical tomist. Yeah,
go ahead, yeah, what's up? Man? I can't really hear
anything. I can hear you. Huh, come out, come back in.
I mean we can all hear you. M h autocratic Go ahead,
man, I'm you Hey, j how are you tonight? What's up?
I just had some questions, like, of course I'm in the Orthodox Church,
canonical Russian Orthodox Church currently in most of now actually, but I've been
like looking at the Orthodox anymore and some people online, and I'd be curious
to what you would say to the response to old calendars or like some people
call themselves true Orthodox. Yeah, I mean that's a separate topic. We
can deal with that. There's some essays that cover that topic. But that's
not the topic for today. But thank you for for that critical you want
to try again. Thanks, there's some Manuka honey in that. Yeah,
what's up? Can you hear me? Yeah? How you doing? I'm
good? How are you? I'm good. I watched your debate with Christian
Blagom, and I have a couple of questions. Sure, so you're talking
about you were saying that if the persons are distinguished by the relations, it
doesn't necessarily follow the like relatively like, relatively opposing each other? Is that
your position? Or so relative opposition is what's used by later Augustinian post Augustinian
theological argumentation to deal with problems, for challenges to trinitarianism or to the filioquay.
So it's not a thing that you find in the capp of Doceians.
You find one reference to the word opposition, but that's not relations of opposition.
Okay, So what do you think relative Okay? So I'm going to
go what do you think relative oppositions are? And what do you think the
church brothers mean when they say positions? Since the properties, the formal properties,
in their essence, don't import any relations, and they don't make room
for any relative opposition, So what would you say, hold on, what
do you mean? What doesn't make room for that? So for example,
like God's divine wisdom and gods divine being, or God's divine wisdom and God's
divine truth, things like formal properties like that, they don't import a real
relation between each other, the logical proprelations. So there's no like relative opposition
there. But because the person's important, a relative opposition than the subsistent relations.
But you don't hold that, we believe that the attributes or the energies
actually are really distinct. So I don't have a problem. I don't have
the inconsistent position of saying that the attributes are all synonymous with each other and
with the divine essence, but also the persons really are distinct. That's the
term mystic position. Wait, you believe that the attributes to really so you
believe that God's wisdom is not identified to goodness at all? Correct? Okay,
So then how would you respond when someone tells you that you know,
you believe in a composite being. Yeah, because I don't believe in a
composite being any more than you do. Because you believe that the persons are
really not identical to each other. So you believe there's a real distinction between
the father and the son. Makes sense, That does, because it's the
very argument that's had for centuries about this issue. No, So composition comes
from a dependency relation in the form of that the essential properties and something.
So the reason why I'm a composite being is because I'm a black man.
My skin color is dependent on my substance, which is me. Now,
there's nothing you're saying. You're not a composite you are You said you're not
or are a composite being? No, I said I am a composite giving
oa. I agree with that, right, So when it comes to god,
we're not going to say obviously for the film, as I suppose,
because I don't take this position, but that all the formal properties are only
like a virgin these things. I'm sure you know this here, Yeah,
of course, and we think that that. So then hold on, so
how does it need to moveism? Sorry, because it's not consistent to say
that the attributes are all identical and identical to the essence, and that the
persons are also strictly identical to the essence. But the persons are distinct amongst
themselves. I mean, have you read any of the topics, any of
the discussion of this topic. Right, I've read. I've read a couple
of papers. I've read this sc with theologia, I've read Aquinas Suma.
I've read a couple of papers. You've read the Aquinas Suma. I'm saying,
have you read on the debate between East and West on this topic?
Now, have you read a bunch of of toll Oh? Yeah, typically
the East, of my opinion, no disrespect. They typically just cry about
things that are not relevant. Okay, Well, let's let's talk about do
you think the Bible is relevant? I think the Bible is relevant. I
think the Bibles against your position. But oh okay, well let's talk about
that. So in Levitica, do you think no, no, no,
no, no, Let's go to that, because that's the key point.
Do you think do you think that God's do you think God's glory is created?
Go to glory? Depends on what you mean by glory and the way
that glory is the same way that Jesus talks about sharing the Father's glory before
the foundation of the world. Right, So I would okay, so I
would say that God's glory is his end, which is identical to himself,
but in the way that he so it's his essence, right, because all
the attributes are the divine essence. Right? I mean, what would you
even define glory as? I mean, you don't think this is used in
scripture. I would just say glory is just like a manifestation of God's being.
Oh, exactly, and so God's being his his essence right? Right?
Okay, So did God's glory i ever appear in time and space?
Right? So God can distribute his glory to creatures? At the second?
Did God's glory itself ever appear in time and space? Right? So?
I just said it depends on what you mean in the distribute God's the way
it's described in Leviticus nine. Right. Can you relax? I did God's
glory appear in time and space? Relax? I can think? I am,
I'm relaxed. I want the answer. Okay, so the station of
his being can be moldly conferred to creatures, and the glory is not a
creature. So you just made a stupid mistake. Hold on, so you
worship creatures? Hold on, let me finish. You just said it.
You just said, it's transferred to a creature. So I said, it
can be communicated to creatures in a Sicknay, So the glory of God in
Leviticus nine is a creature that they worship. Not true, That's not what
I said, because you did just say that. Agrees. Okay, you're
smart. Here we go, here we go calling out my name. Let
me speak, right, yeah, I'm calling out your name being respectful.
You need to let me speak. Let's have a respect for this question.
But you already contradicted yourself, contradict myself. Okay, sure, yeah,
you just said that it can be. You said the glory is God's essence,
and you're saying now it can be. It can be conveyed to a
creature. So the worship of a creature as God's essence and God's glory being
identical with his existence. No, okay, so God existed prior to his
existence. No, God always had a distinction between his essence and his energies.
He always transmitted and communicated his glory amongst the persons from all eternity.
And it's not his ence. His existence is not identified as as beak.
He didn't exist. How did that happen? How did what happened? He's
always he's always shared that glory, as Jesus himself says. Okay, when
you say he shared that, your presupposing the thing in question, his existence.
Does Jesus say that in John Seventhohn was Jesus an eternal person? No?
No, no, no, stop refer scripture? Ah, exactly right.
Stop referring to scripture because your position actually is totally divorced from divine revelation.
Did God's glory? Did God's glory appear in Leviticus nine? Okay,
stop referring to scripture? Notice how the Thomas operates. Everybody, the whole
audience can see. Stop referring to scripture. You are stop referring to scriptures?
Can you actually? Here we go? So now he has to go
to personal attacks. I stick to the scriptures, he says. Stop referring
to scriptures. Sounds like a flipping You sound like crimes he or bro.
Just relax, so invit. Now let's go to Leviticus nine. Explain to
me how how the God, the glory of God is worshiped than Olyticus?
If God existence, if his existence is not identified as as being, but
he communicates something to his existence. How are you going to see, not
to his existence, dummy to another person, not to his existence to another
person. So you just just listen. The whole thing is assuming to me,
your metaphysics is wrong. Your metaphysics is wrong. Why are we show
over each other? Because all of your arguments are coming from your metaphysical assumptions,
and I'm saying that they're wrong. Okay, you speak over people when
you know to have a good point. You don't have a good points because
you're you're avoiding. You're avoiding the points, all right, So let me
speak that talk about Leviticus nine. That's my argument. If you're confident,
let me speak. Would you let me speak? If you're going to address
Leviticus nine? Thank you? No? No, So you want a dress
scripture? So once again the others he wanted to dress scripture Leviticus nine,
Or you're gone? Are you gonna? You're running away from something, you're
deflecting from my argument. You're running from the Bible. You're running from divine
revelations. I'm running. You're saying, don't quote scripture at me. Scriptures
don't prove that God's existence is created. No, I don't believe that.
So now you're that's a strong man. You know, I'm not arguing God's
existence is cort So something that is not God is uncreated entirely speaking, So
something that's not it's called the glory of God that appeared that they all worshiped.
Have you read leveticas? Do you know what? Okay, divine nature
is uncreated and something that's not identified the divine natures uncreated. Right, that's
called the essence energy stinction. Right, that's our position. I'm glad you
think it's funny. And that' why you don't want to go to scripture.
So what happened in Leviticus nine? What's what's? What are they worshiping in
Lemticus nine? You can't conceptually unless we're saying you can't go to these scriptures.
Go, don't go to these scriptures. Bro, don't quote the Bible.
Let me tell me what's happening in Leviticus nine? This guy, he
mean no God, no answer. How does it crease your point? The
glory of God is appearing in time and space. It's a common argument in
all Orthodox theology. So they're worshiping it. It's not a creature you can't
worship creatures. It's a simple argument. So when go the people and he
appeared to creatures to the defects he's made, yes or no? Did he?
What can he appear to creatures through the effects that he is? Me
it's not a created effect. It's called the glory of God. And you
please answer this question. It is not a creator that you can't worship creatures.
Can you worship creatures? All right? So here we go, So
all he does the same money, he won't answer the questions. Answer no,
I'm answering your question by saying that the text refute you. The Glory
of God appears in time and space and they worship it. And you're saying,
but that that that I that is a qua? Is it a creature?
Can you actually be serious to me? Is it a creature? No?
I think you're I think I think it's funny or me? All right,
just relax, I'm not I'm having fun I don't know anything. I
need to relax. Keep your composure all right, keep your composion all right.
When good, when God chooses to communicate to himself in creature to creatures,
can he do so through the effects that he's made just a simple question.
He can, but this is clearly not a creative effect. It's called
the glory of God. Have you ever had an argument with a Muslim on
Ye? Right, so you can. But that's not what's happening in this
passage that has no relevancy of this pastor. Okay, okay, okay,
Now tell me why in that passage you take it to be that God,
that God's infinite essence. Where is one of his infinite essential attributes? And
you want to say that because it's called the manifestation of his glory in time
and space? Okay, the manifestation, Yeah, Christ, glory is not
a creature. You can't worship creatures. Why do I have to take you
because you're not arguing against that. You're just restating a bunch of stuff about
the passage. What's the argument against is you're saying it's not a creature.
I believe that God's infinite attributes are really identical with essence. I know that
we all know the Thomas possession in any way, all right, so in
any way that the Bible refers to God communicating, So you're metaphysics is wrong
because it goes against the scripture. That's why you don't want to go to
the Bible. That's what you said, don't put the Bible that scripture.
It's one thing for it to go against scripture, and one thing for it
to go against your meaning or your interpretation of scripture. Okay, well tell
me how it is you can worship a creature. You sound Protestant. You
need a right, So going to divine revelation is Protestant? Yes, exactly?
Did you realize? So you want to tell you what's really going on
is that you're You're metaphysics is wrong because it's it's the wrong starting point.
Look, I'm trying to have a respectful conversation with you. You can keep
saying that, but you're just deflecting because your argument is that I'm a Protestant
now by going to the scriptures when the scriptures clearly say over you do not
understand it's the same it's the same part problem in the incarnation about Okay,
yeah, so I'm talking about something that's so you're acting like this is not
an actual debate. You don't think this is an actual debate philosophically, are
you conceiving that you cannot defend the philosophically that you have to refer. So
this is the point your my argument is that your philosophical position is wrong.
How do you how do you deal with that? Phil your your philosophy is
wrong? Is my argument? Can I can defend it because I have the
right starting point, which is divine revelation? Yes, well that it just
assumes that your philosophy is correct. Let's do that. You want let's go
to philosophy. You want to do that, Yes, let's go to philosophy.
I'm saying, let's go to that. Can you do it? I'm
saying, yes, let's go to that. All right, cool, Now,
when you have meta physical attributes? Okay, how do you know this?
How do you know that? Let's go, let's go to philosophy.
How do you know that that's the case? You just to let's go to
philosophy. I want to know how you know these propositions that you're saying are
the case you just told me, I just told you. Unless you're reason
Oh well, that's my point. I think your position, if it was
consistent, would lead to skepticism. Yeah, because because you put your metaphysical
cart before your episomic course, you wanted to go to philosophy. So if
you listen, if you don't shut up, I'm going to boot you.
Just shut up, Just shut up. No, you're on my stream.
You don't tell me what they No, you don't talk to me like that.
You're on my stream. Have some respect, all right? I said,
I'm gonna boot you if you don't shut up. You're not. I'm
not. I'm I'm I'm on my strength to me because you can't respond to
my No, I want to go to philosophy. Do you hear me?
Are you gonna kick me? Because of insecure? I want to go to
philosophy? All right? So stick on the topic at hand, and the
topic the topic is about your metaphysics. I don't believe your metaphysics. You
explain to me how good is being? Why should I accept your idea of
being? In metaphysics? About God? I'm not saying, just explain it
to me. I want to know. I have a different starting point for
what's possible and what God can do. It's called divine revelation. You don't
want to go there's final lests go to philosophy. So why should are you
a self? Do you believe in self evident truths. No, do you
believe in self evident truths? You said, you said God has being,
but God's being I have a different paradigm for you. You said God has
being, but God's being is not his existence? Correct? For us,
God's being is an energy. So I have a different position from you.
So let's go to Let's go to philosophy. You have a different position.
Explain the position. I'm not No, it's not I'm not here to explain
the position to you. You came to debate, let's have a debate.
You said you want to go to philosophy. Don't you want an explanation for
the position? Yeah? The Vine revelation says that God's God's God can appear
in time and space. God can, So do you understand that you you
destroy the incarnation with your stupid position. You need to extract, You need
to you need to expassionate your positions that I can understand in order for me
to know divine revelation is my starting point, and it tells me that God
can appear in time and space. You're adding metaphysical like understandings to interpretation of
description and you're not doing that. Tonism is a pre subposition metaphysics. Yeah,
we all do that. So what So you're just stating what everyone knows.
So what? Okay, we have Christians that are genuinely trying to listen
to our conversation. So can we still start the tone policing the ad Enough
of your tone policing. It's not working for anybody, but you're but you're
a small band of idiots. So do you want to talk about epistemology or
not? Small? Bro? Please? Just do you want everybody saying that
you're crash dude? The whole the whole chats laughing going to are you going
to explain how good with the old chats laughing? Everyone's laughing at you?
No or not? Not? Bro, take a breath. You embarrass yourself
by saying courting descriptures. Court descriptures up, let's go. You're just a
fourty year old fat races. I look at that. I'm a fat racist.
Look at the meltdown. The Thomas can't do anything, so I do
a few jokes about his about his roster voice, and he calls me a
fat racist. I'm not even fat. What are you talking about? Meltdown?
That you should check? Look, Oh I'm fat and good one.
Yeah, did the fourth graders give you that your position by reason? Yes
or no? Uh? And that's why it goes to a pistemology, goofus,
That's why it goes to epistemology. The dude literally can't pronounce his words,
and he says stop starting still storing a coup A couple knocks me words.
But you still read and your frought weird. I bet you have.
It is embarrassing for you. Ah, there we go. That's what I
reject. That's the essence of the point. That's what I've been trying to
get you debate the whole time. It is that's what I'm arguing. That's
the essence of my argument. Yeah, I reject that position because it's not
true. You understand it's it's a contradiction. You see, it's a contradiction.
Let's have that debate. Hold on, let me speak. You said
that never makes sense? Thomiss, He calls it Thomists. Oh my gosh,
what's you have a perfect accent? You are your mind? Your mind?
You got the pigeon? Do you got the pigeon? Braw child?
Because you want yeah, you get what you deserve. You won't deal with
the topic. Look at profile pictures. This is what he goes to?
Your mind? Oh your mind? What your what? They got down down
to pigeon? You speak the pug and you want to have the debate now
that you melt it down, you fat bro. You know there's over here
crying. It's Jerry Curls dripping because he's crying. Do you want to talk
Let's talk about why? Let's talk about a pistemology. Ready you ready to
talk about a pistemology? Are you ready to talk about a pistemology? You're
the one that called me fat. I just made fun of your voice.
Do you want to talk about a pistemology? Bro? Grow up? Do
you so you don't want to talk about a pistemology? Question? How is
that is? No? You already brought up metaphysics and epistemology. Let's talk
about that. We already so you're not going to do it. So you're
not going to go Let's move on to the question you want it? He
won't do it? Deal with the actual argument. Do we have any actual
Roman Catholics? Here we go? You fat bruel, you fat, fat
racist. That's all that they have to go through. Yeah, really fat,
super fat? You have fat? Risk is brawan go their breath alivee
Eric, I'm mute, Eric, you're here? You want to the debate?
I'm mute. Yes, yes, hello, Hello, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. I didn't know this you. Yeah, let's go. So,
So I don't understand. I mean, I mean, how how how
do you do you have an argument? Come on? Yeah? Oh yeah,
yeah, our lord's word to see what does that mean? What does
that mean? That's your argument? So we're here talking for an hour about
tomism and divine energies and the competitions and you don't want to argue Matthew sixteen,
Yeah, because it comes down to that. But I don't come down
to that. That's the lord to your arguments. Bro. Yeah, you
can make fun of of of How did you did? You barely get on?
Bro? What's up? Fool? I think you got your top button
a little too tight. Bro, there's not enough going through your brain.
Brothers barely getting there? Oh my god, here we go. Why do
they have to repeat It's like they have to repeat my name. I don't
get it. Do you want to have a discussion or not? You want
to? Okay? So you wanted tobate Matthew sixteen? What happens? You
want to be that? What are you? What are you Hispanic? Or
I can't tell? Is that what it is? Are you Muslim? Okay?
So you wanted to make Matthews and you hear me, Hey, bro,
you gotta put some more, put some more salts inside. Hello,
h try to come out, come back out and come back in. Where
are the Roman Catholics at stopped quoting these scripts? I mean, mind,
by the way, please only quote them ifty in the pigeon. Stop quoting
the scripts. I've been what's up? What's up? All right? So
what we're speaking about? Because I just joined recently? So what you want
a debate about? Considering Thomism Thomas? Well, I mean today's whole topic
was about anything relating to like cappit Osians and trendy to your essen center distinction.
But we can talk about the uh do you worship creatures? I do
not worship creatures? Okay? And do you mean like as and I worshiped
the like natural world? No? No? No? Like? Uh no?
Like For example, if God's glory appears in time and space and the
Israelites worship that and call it God. How is that possible on a Thomas
position. I'm not at Thomas myself, but from what I think Thomas believe
in, I think that would consider that he controls the entire universe, he
reigns over the entire universe, and that his presence affects the natural world.
Okay, So what does Levitic's nine mean when it says that the glory of
God appeared in time and space, the divine energy and the divine fire appeared
in the Israelites worship and call him God Hello? Could you repe that?
My min Aaron lifted up his hands towards the people and blessed him. And
he came down from the sin offering and the burnt off bringing the peace offering.
Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle and came and blessed the people.
Then the glory of God appeared to all the people, and fire came out
from before him. When all the people saw it, they shouted and fell
on their faces. How is the glory of God, which is not created,
appearing in time and space to all of Israel and being worshiped when you
don't worship creatures. So the glory of God appearing like that is considered a
creature. No, how could it be. You just said you don't believe
in worshiping creatures and God's glories, not creating that is not a creature at
though. Exactly, So it's not God's essence, right, No, it
is not. Okay, So what is it? All? Right? T
Y? You got me there? I actually don't know exactly. That's why
there's an essence iner distinction exactly. Eric, gonna try again. I'm mute.
Were cooking DC tall mess far breakfiles. We're cooking and stripping the tormos
down for de break fire. You are fight by the way, Eric,
I'm mute. Man, we eating torm ass fall breakfast, said dare I,
Like yeah, God, y'all remember back in the day, we used
to have congo quinas that would call in and he whispered out like that.
I wonder if that was congo quinas, remember him? Eric, what's up?
You're here? I'm mute, h what's some more saults inside of the
morn bro? It ain't working? Eric meant they broed. It needs at
least like three or four course more more assaults inside of the motem and then
maybe the word bro Eric, bro what's up? I mean, there's little
Torreso. What's up? Eric? What's up? Man? It's like Thomas
are, like, don't they They act like they're women's saints that scream and
cry and cut themselves, like freaking Margaret Mary alec Coque. There's like five
or six trads defending that as like that's really based in trying to imagine defending
self harm and self mutilation as based in trad. This is idiotic. These
people are I think these people are, Like I'm starting more and more to
think that these are mentally unstable people and that you just can't interact with these
people because they won't do anything related to the actual topic. They'll deflect into
a million different things and then play victim and whine and cry. Go ahead,
hey, Jay, So I was just gonna ask, like lists the
Wagner thing, and we interacted a little bit on Twitter, and I think
you answer my question. But what I see the relations of all positions being
is like the dietic thing that you're objecting to is just when you're talking about
two persons, and I don't necessarily see an issue with that unless you're reducing
it strictly to it being a diet, which isn't that kind of your objection
that you're seeing it's a diet. Well, relations of opposition would go along
with in the in the Augustinian sense, goes along with dialectics. And so
if you begin your Trinitarian theology with the essence, as Augustine tends to do.
No, I'm not saying he never mentions the role of the Father as
the cause. He does talk about that in the Trinity, but the locus
of the focus is on the divine essence, and he starts with a Plutonian
definition of what simplicity is. That then causes these challenges and these odd approaches
to trying to make distinctions within that absolutely simple essence. And one of those
would be to say that and he does a lot of these different speculations,
and on the Trinity, one of them is he says we could maybe distinguish
him by saying that one is not the other two. Father's not the son,
not the spirit. Spirit is not the Father, not the son.
Right. But the problem with that is that that's it doesn't tell us anything
because all three of them share this kind of vague property of being not the
other two. So it doesn't do anything to tell us who the persons are.
The roots problem of this whole thing is when a Quinas says persona at
rolatio person is relation. So the Roman Catholics, because of their advince simplicity
position, literally think that the persons are the relations. But a relation is
a predicate, not a subject. Remember subject predicate, right, So a
relation is something that a subject has. For example, I am the son
of my father, Right, that's a relation that I possess. So I
possess a lot of relations, but none of those relations are who I am.
They're what I have there, their attributes or their predicates. Jay is
five a bunch of these attributes, So it will never really so it doesn't
actually tell us between the persons though, like the father, because I see
I hear a lot of the same kind of language being used. So do
you reject that identifying the father as the father in relation to the son like
that. No, it's true, it's it's true. It's just that it's
just that the relation is not reducible to the person. The father is the
father and his hypostatic park marker or property is to be the cause. So
you can't say like it is equal to the relation. And that's kind of
that's the objection. And there again remember remember Aquinas's famous quote is persona at
rolatio person is relation. And if you read Losky, he has a whole
critique of this. He says, it makes absolutely no sense to call a
person a relation, because a person is a subject a relation as a predicate.
You have a real force of this argument here. I think you've like,
it makes so much sense. It's just too bad that it can't get
to this point. I don't they're not interested in they don't care. They
just want to score points and find a gotcha and so okay, okay,
yeah. And then lastly, so like this is my last question, but
when you talk about God, can you just refer to the nature generally as
God? And I know bo Brandson's doctor bou Brandston talks about God being the
father. But I think even I don't want to say no, there's nothing
wrong. There's not. I mean doctor Branson himself talks in many places and
we've talked about it as well. The word God is not a like it
picks out different things. Yeah, God can pick out the divine nature,
can pick out the divine persons and pick out the divine energy, and it
can pick out human and angel messengers. Okay, so sure, yeah,
I mean God has the nature and when we worship, when we worship God,
listen, when we worship God, we worship the whole God. So
yes, But the difference is that we don't start with God as essence because
God is not revealed as essence. He's revealed as I am, He the
person of the Father. That's where we start our theology. But then if
I was seeing this worshiping God the Father, then I would when we say
we worship God, I would think it's incorrect to say we worship the nature
because that seems to be well, I don't know, maybe I have to
think more about that, but yeah, we worship the nature because it exists
in the mode of the person that has the nature. So oh, only
in that sense, Okay, gotcha, gotcha? Okay, ship appreciate it.
Sure, yeah, great question. Remember too, the relation in the
Kappadocians is relation of origin, and even if you talk about contrarities like Basil
did, it's still not arguing the Augustinian position of relations of opposition within an
absolutely simple essence. And the congar article makes this point. Even though congar
thinks that Augustin and the Cappadocians are basically saying the same thing, which I
don't agree with, he at least admits in the article that there's differences of
approaches to the Trinity, and that's not even that controversial what we're talking about.
I mean, the Vatican clarification on the Philly Oquay, not that long
ago in the nineties or whatever, admits this point too. It admits that
there's still tension between the Augustinian and the Cappadocian approaches to the Triad. They're
different. One of those difference differences relates to the fact that the Cappadocians are
very clearly monarchical and they stress that and they stress that the Father is the
sole cause. That's why Wagner spends so much time trying to prove that there's
another cause in the Triad. And that's why we had that whole talk with
doctor Branson on this, because he wrote his dissertation on this topic. That's
why. So for those who want to go deeper into the specifics of the
camp of doc issue, which is what this goes back to, it goes
back to it's right here. On distress discord is muda. I appreciate that.
On demn stress discord is modda. Mm hmmm, dude, you're taking
the agnostic calls. Uh primarily was talking about tumism. So does not really
anything about agnosis as a mirror. Do you want to do it now or
you want to call into another time? I mean, is it quick or
is it a question? Or what are you wanting to do? Yeah,
it's about pre sup Basically, do you have any presuppositions you cut out?
What? Oh? Sorry? Do you have any pre sup presuppositions that don't
have justifications? Well, I think everybody's worldview bottoms out at some point where
there's no justifications. That's why I believe in paradigm level of circularity. So
you do have some level of circularity at the base layer of your life.
I'm saying everybody does, okay, because the only other option is some form
of foundationalism or self evidence, and I don't see how you can be consistent
with that. So is it a little bit of special pleading that you prefer
yours over someone else's due to the circularity happening? Now? It's not special
pleading if my argument is that everybody has circularity, right, but you prefer
yours over someone else's. It's not a personal preference, it's a it's demonstratable
via the inconsistencies by the reduction reductio in the other positions. But is it
part of your reductio, the fact that the other worldviews have circularity? No,
it's that they contradict. Every other position contradicts itself. Yeah, at
a fundamental level when we flesh out what their argument is. That's why it's
a comparison of worldviews. Transcend augmentation is a comparison of rival world views.
So the fact that I say that everybody at root relies on some paradigm level
circularity, that's not the problem, because I said everybody has that problem that
position. So how would we argue if that's the case. The only way
to do it is to argue whether the positions as a whole are coherent,
whether they have grounding, or whether they contradict on a fundamental level. Well,
have you heard every worldview possible or have you heard every worldview that is
held on earth? No, it's not necessary because every worldview of necessity has
a few basic starting points that they have to begin with, and those starting
points then determine the rest of the system. Okay, so like a materialist
or an empiricist, what is the contradiction. Well, they're not able to
give an account for the argumentation that they use as rank materialists, so they
have to utilize things that are impossible on a materialist perspective, such as laws
of logic, universals, mathematical entities meaning concept So at some point don't you
reach a point where you cannot give an accountability or a justification. Yes,
Hence why I said all worldviews at a paradigm level are circular. Right,
But you just stated that empiricist materialists have this contradiction. But then you just
admitted that you have your own. Yeah, paradigm level circularity is not the
same thing as a contradiction, two different things. So then what's this what's
the paradigm level contradictions for empiricists, Well, empiricism can't justify empiricism's presupposition that
all knowledge comes through sense data. You can't find incense data the truth or
the proposition that all knowledge comes their sensitive So that's just saying that they have
a presupposition. No, it's a contradiction. The difference. It is a
contradiction. All knowledge comes Listen, all knowledge comes through sense data. That's
a proposition, that's the starting point for all empiricism. That proposition is not
found in sense data. That's a contradiction. That's not circularity. Let me
get Let me give you an example of circularity. Right, Like I can't
use work, I can't define words without using words. So in linguistic philosophy,
that's kind of an obvious circularity. But we wouldn't say we wouldn't say
that that's a contradiction, whereas the empiricist argument is a contradiction. And explain
one more time, Sorry, Why is that a contradiction that our information and
data comes from our experience? No, the claim all knowledge comes through sense
data itself is not found in sense data. That's the contradiction. If it's
human knowledge, it won't matter. So listen the proposition. The truth of
the proposition itself is not found in sense data. So I could say all
humans are mammals and I don't need to study every human being to understand that.
Yeah, but that's an analytic truth. That's an analytic truth, So
that doesn't This is the analytics synthetic to say that doesn't tell you anything.
That's why it's not relevant. And by the way, analytic truths are not
empirical truths. I still don't understand why human knowledge cannot be gained through empiricism.
You're not justified in making the claim on empirical grounds. The point,
on a ground level, you're not justified for your beliefs. Again, you're
confusing circularity with a contradiction. That's two different things. You're you were confusing
and actually because you're saying my circularity is empiricism. But then when I point
out that at some point you have that problem, so you think circularity and
contradictions are the same thing. It's okay, good job, I'm saying you
are because you're saying empiricism ultimate. First, before we proceed the argument,
Okay, I think what you said was that empiricism. Well, first of
all, you got it wrong that you said all knowledge. I think empiricism
would be human knowledge. So hold on, is there other knowledge than human?
Hold on and your is there other knowledge? The human knowledge? There's
only human knowledge right now. There is knowledge from like other animals and stuff
like that, but knowledge from other animals how do you know that as an
empiricist? Oh well, as an all right, this is you don't even
get as dude, We're done. I'm looking for the people who want to
discuss Tomism, Roman, Catholicism, Papacy, Islam, Protestantism. It's not
it's always it's not TAG Day, but whatever. Actually they're all related.
So maybe it should be tag day because as we tried to do with congo
Quinas there, we couldn't get him to go into epistemology. What's up you
hear me? Yeah, okay, so I do have a Catholic question.
So I think it was yesterday whenever your last dream was you mentioned Stigmata and
I was looking. I was looking. I was doing a little bit,
a little bit of internet research, and I found this guy before Francis of
ASSISI named as Bert, who apparently died in six ninety five. Have you
heard of him? No? I found it was like a Western right thing.
Apparently calls him a saint. But I don't care what Western right people
say. They're they're usually wrong. So well, it is before the schism.
So I was just wondering if you knew that. Well, I mean
again, I don't I don't have the Roman Catholic position that I have to
accept all the stories about you know this or that legend of this or that
ambiguous saint or whatever. Oh okay, well, I just wanted to bring
that up, that there was an account of him. Is after he died,
they found stigmata on his Well, how do we know that that's the
same thing as the living stigmata? Yeah? And that's the other thing is
that it's not clear what it meant. Maybe maybe grave robbers came and desiccated
his body or something, and who knows what that means. But again,
I mean, there's just it's just not it's it's foreign to the orthodox ethos
that there's these you know, sort of tortuous self harm approaches. I've not
heard this. I've never heard of it. So maybe somebody has some.
And I don't think fasting in this kind of stuff is not the same thing
as the idea of carving Jesus name into my body and then using the blood
to sign a blood packed and then reopening the wounds, which she did.
By the way, did you want to say something for other dig No,
it's came in case a topic came up to Camment up. Yeah, please
do, uh, please do if you can. So, so let's go
back to this because people are saying you wouldn't debate the p Thomas, That's
why you had to run to Morgaret Muriel Cookeway. So you need to understand
that this is not optional for you as a Roman Catholic, not because Roman
Catholicism dogmatizes everything in a in a so called saint's life, but rather this
is fundamental to the Sacred Heart devotion. So if you let's follow the logic
of this. So let's say I'm a Roman Catholic and I choose to not
believe the divine revelations so called the private revelations to Margaret Mary Ella Cocuay.
Well, according to Deuteronomy thirteen Deuteronomy eighteen, the book of Jared Amaya in
Galatians, won people who are false in their visions and in their predictions and
in their messages. If those visions are false, then their false prophets.
If Margaret, if I reject her visions, that means she's logically a false
prophet. If she's a false prophet, then the entire Sacred Heart devotion with
which she's intimately bound up goes away. No Roman Catholic can consistently coherently toss
out sacred heart stuff because it's bound up with her. So all of this
stuff hangs and falls together, but they want to pretend that it doesn't hang
your fault together, and again they pick and choose. Now does it really
make sense to see if I can find that other guy's comment, because there's
a guy who had a really great comment. Not I mean, this was
another follow up comment, It's not the one I'm looking for. But notice
that Margaret was upset by the fact that the wounds that she cut into her
breast were beginning to fail. She then attempted to reopen the original wounds on
more than one occasion using a knife. So this is self harm, which
is wrong, it's demonic. But since she failed to do this, she
then burned herself. I mean, who can't see that this is It's not
holiness, it's mental problems and spiritual problems. I'm trying to find this other
guy's comment because somebody had a really great comment about whether or not you could
sort of dismiss these things. I don't accept these things. And he found
a couple. Uh it cyclical references. Now, this is the famous ecstasy
of Terresa, and everybody should know it's supposed to be spiritual rg asm.
That's what this means because and all that romancathers saying, well, there's a
comparison between married people and the Church in Christ. Yeah, not a sexual
attraction for God. What's the analogy is the union? The union of a
married man and woman is analogous to the union of the Church in Christ.
Doesn't mean that we have sexual desires for God, you idiots. I'm trying
to find that one. Guys, I know where it is. Let me
find this comment. This is really good. Now, that's not it.
Somebody found the freaking the people in cyclicals that like establish all of this stuff
from her, And I can't find that guy's comment because no, I haven't.
I don't care about this is not something I ever cared about. It's
a Roman Catholic to go and read the encyclicals on Mary Ala Coquay or whatever.
I don't care about that. But I can't find that guy's comment.
So, but it was really good because basically it shows that like, it's
not a thing you get the you don't get the right to like, Oh
I don't. I don't accept that. That one I tossed out. I
had another couple of Roman Catholics were saying, oh, you don't have to
accept the saints. Yeah, you do. It's part of the magisterium.
It's ordinary. I just hear him. Anyway. I can't find that guy's
comment, but you get the point. Like, the point is simply that
the Papa seed did a whole thing on this and said, yes, this
is the ghostbusters in room. Rome have approved Margaret Mary Alacoque. So imagine
saying that, well, I'm a Roman Catholic, but I just doubt like
the most popular devotion next to Fatima of the last you know, several hundred
years. I mean, come on, who would take that seriously? But
then again, I guess in Roman Catholicism it's you make it into whatever you
want it to be. So if you wanted to be praying in mosques or
like Mother Teresa went and prayed in the Buddhist temples, which she did,
you can make it either one of those. Make it whatever you want.
You want to be a charismatic brother. The Roman Church, the papacy has
accepted charismaticism. I mean that, what does that tell you while it makes
the point that we've been making that these insane historyonic women were the charismatics of
four hundred years ago. So it makes perfect sense that Rome would accept and
approve of this ridiculous movement of pentecostalism and charismaticism from the papacy down by the
way. All right, let's see he's next. If that guy's listening,
or if you're in here, the guy who put up the encyclicals related to
Sacred Heart, or if you guys in the chat find it, feel free
to link that and I'll pull it up. Let's see, Sapphire got an
mute? Hey, j Yeah, this is a I have one question on
topic of the Tonism debate you just had. What could you I just think
it'd be helpful if you were to like cite all the all the book listed
or made reference to for future reference. I don't know if that's like a
huge ask, but no, in relation to what energies or what what do
you mean? Yeah, like the relation of opposition or like where Augustus mentioned
it because he tried to do this gotcha at the end where he was like
where did it? Gusta site us? Well? And I was actually correct
because later on it's book five where he starts to talk about this, and
I said, it's around the beginning of the second half where he starts to
go into the trendy turning speculation. So he booted me right then, So
I know it's kind of but that is correct. H con Guar talks about
that. It's like book five and afterwards where a Gustine goes into these things.
So keep in mind, like I haven't read Date Trinitate, like I
read it like fifteen years ago, so I'm quit caring about all this stuff
a long time ago. So but I mean, I think it's pretty good
to remember, like off the top of my head, it's the second half
of the of the treatise. But but yeah, you could so I would
say you could read the con Guar essay where he he just laying out that
it's not really that controversial, that there's two different approaches between East and West
on the Trinity, and that the Augustinian Latin approach eventually tomistic approach originally eventually
goes into a different direction in the Middle Ages, when it's you know,
heavily tonistic and focused on all of the nuances of scholasticism, and the East
didn't have that, which is why it was pretty funny when I said you
think that, I asked Wagners, you think the that there's scolat that the
Cappadocians are scholastics. He said, yeah, they cite Aristotle. Okay,
So apparently the only thing that's required to be a scholastic is to cite Aristotle
in his mind, so basically everyone is a scholastic. So this is what
Roman Catholics do, where they'll just like bait and switch and like switch out
the meanings of the words. And so if you agree to something, they'll
say, ah, yes, well that word means this, So you agree
with my position, you're reputed. It's they love to play these words concept
of games. That's why his whole position was based on the assumption that relations
is identical to relations of opposition, and so it's a word concept fallacy.
Think about what they do with logos, right logoss The logoss right Emj's logoss
is the same as every other philosopher that uses the word logos, even though
no, I mean John One. Logos comes from the Book of Proverbs,
the Hebrew wisdom tradition. It's the second person, that godhead. It's not
the same thing as the logos of Marcus Aurelius and anyway the Stoics, So
I mean Plato uses logos, Does he mean Jesus? Of course not so
obviously they're not identical. But they play these bait and switch word games and
word concept fallacy. So that's why he had to boot me, because he
sensed that the he that I might have been right about him confusing relations with
this Augustinian notion of relations of opposition, which again is part of like the
absolute divine simplicity Philly oak Way to be dispute, and it's just simply not
used as the focus of even if they use the word contrarities or something like
that, like the focus of the Cavin Docians is hyposthetic properties and relations of
origin. And like a lot of these people would do well if they wanted
to really interact with a position to read some of the books that deal with
the critiques. For example, I would say you need to read Mystical Theology
the Eastern Church by Loski, I mean every Roman Catholic should at least read
that to have a basic idea of what our critiques are. Because Loski studied
under Jillson, right, the famous Thomas, so he knows and understands Thumism
very well when he writes his critiques of Tomism. And most of the arguments
that you hear me repeating and putting out there, almost all of them are
in Lawsky, I mean, and Lasky is not the only person to do
it. But you know, there are also arguments that you find in you
know, Steinyloy. But really the arguments go back to the cap Pi,
Dooceans, Maximus, and the Palamite disputes and synods. So I would say,
read the Triads by Saint Gregor Palamus, Read a Debate with a barley
Might by Palomas. The uh Palomite synods have all been translated now it's in
a book now by Norman Russell. I would say, read those. You'll
see that all the arguments that are made because, by the way, all
of most of I should say, many of Palamas's letters are also translated in
that book. So it's also going to be a key to let me just
get the books. Yeah, oh, thanks, man, I appreciate that
is your graduato stream. Oh no way, okay, now I'm I'm not
at my other house, so I don't have all my other all my other
books, so I don't have any lost Key books here, and I don't
have any church Fathers here. But so's there's really there's several really good books
on this, and I would say start with Losky is kind of an introduction.
I would read Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. I would read Vision
of God by Lasky is really good. Dogmatic Theology by Losky also good.
But to get specifically into the energy's debate debate with the Barlamite, which you
can get I think for still like twenty bucks at s n u Y Press.
The Triads is a really good book by Palamas. That's a more fleshed
out, longer argument on this topic than the book that I'm talking about.
That's a translation of of Palamas's letters and all the Palomite Synods. Is Norman
Russell's book Gregory Palomas has the cast controversy in the debate with islam Documents relating
to Gregory palam Us, it's this orange book right here. It's really good
if you really want to get really technical. It's not an easy read,
but it is very relevant and proves that Palamas, tadd the essence inter distinction,
and then it's say real essence interdistinction, and that's teekon Pino's dissertation.
Essence and Energies Being and Naming God in Palamas is a good book. I
would read doctor Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West, which is also very technical,
but it will get into disputing Eastern and Western views of the Trinity and the
energies. Doctor Bradshaw's book that's a bunch of his other essays that's collected together
called Divine Energies and Divine Action is Necessary. It's a really good book.
And in the Church Fathers, I would say you should start with something like
Basil on the Holy Spirit and Basil against Unomius. Both of those make arguments
on the basis of the energies Basil Letter two thirty four. And one of
the key things that's overlooked with the dispute between East and West is Maximus's book
two hundred chapters. And the reason I always recommend they never read this,
They never look at this. But the reason I recommend the tuner chapters is
that the first five pages is Maximus saying that there's two senses in which we
can call God pure act. There's one sense that's valid and another sense that's
not valid. Roman Catholics do not make this distinction. So when they call
God pure act, they mean it in a reductionist sense that God is identical
to his essence as you heard congo quitas and here's chirpin or earlier. That
doesn't make sense, right and right. So he says that we cannot call
God pure act in his essence. Literally, the first five pages of the
two inter chapters makes this anti Tomistic argument. He says we can call God
first act or pure actuality in contrast to creation. And he says that you
have to have this do sense of naming if we're going to use terms like
first actuality or pure act because if you reduce God's the persons or God's essence
to pure act Maximus says, you'll end up in the heresy of Aristotle.
You would be it. You would believe in an internal dual principle of an
eternal actualizer actualizing something other than himself, which is why it's often again pertinent
to bring out the eternal creation challenge, the modal collapse challenge to the people
who argue this I sad. Yeah, Train more often relies on that sort
of thing too. Yeah. Yeah, pretty much all their arguments are are
this way. I have two more questions. You should go pretty quick.
But I would say also, another really essential thing to read, which none
of them have actually read, because they would they would know if they had
read this, is if you read on the Orthodox Faith by John Damascus,
particularly book three, So you have to make it all the way to book
three, which I don't think they do. They just quote. Mind they'll
actually read these texts. But if you read book three and when he gets
to section fifteen is where he takes all the essence energy distinction arguments and applies
them to Christology. But now of these people know anything about Christology, so
they wouldn't even understand why it's way more there's way more clarity about the energies
in Christology. And if you understand the essence energy distinction is the very thing
that Maximus argues in his disputation with Pearis, Right, that's you could get
that book Disputation with Pearis by Saint Maximus. I recommend that the whole book
is arguing the distinction between essence and energy, both in God and in Man.
And that's why there's two wills and two energies in Christ. So it's
the very way he refutes Pearis. So, yes, it has to be
a real, real there have to be really different, and that's why John
Vascus says they're really different. And then they want to haggle over the terms.
What was it mean to be really different? Are you saying it's parts?
No, it's not parts, No more than the Trinity is parts.
So let's look at fifteen and you'll notice right here at book three, section
fifteen, what does John Damascus start this whole passage with concerning the energies and
our Lord Jesus Christ. If he equates and reduces the energies to the essence,
all of these arguments fall apart and none of them make any sense.
It's as stupid the Roman Catholics. Then they think you're stupid. They want
you to rely on their quote minds and all this crap out of context,
as if you won't go and actually read John Damascus saying right here, observe
that energy capacity for energy or power potentia, the product of the energy that's
the effect, and the agent the person are all different. Here's John Damascus,
saying to you that the father's action, or excuse me, the God's
action to create is distinct from the divine persons. The effect of that creation
the world is distinct from the person acting creating. And clearly there's a difference
between these actions. Because did God rest on the seven day from creating or
not? Yes? He did. And this is an argument Palamus uses against
the barl Mites. He says, did God restaurant or is he still creating?
If he rested from creating, then not all actions are identical? Is
that something? But why will why won't they accept that? Because if they
accept that, the whole tomistic system tumbles like a house of cards. That
it is and that's why what that's why did you hear the discussion earlier with
congo Quinas and Leviticus nine? Was that a guy in the space because I
helped on like ago? Yeah, so he said, don't go to de
bai stock quote literally, stop vote philosophy. Why would I? Why would
I go to philosophy when literally you believe divine revelation tells us that God's glory
appeared in time and space in Leviticus nine to all of Israel? What is
that. Yeah, doctor downs that created effis. Oh, so you can
worship creatures the creator to fix is not a creature? Ond. Yeah,
that's crazy. Now this is this is how crazy they are. They are
in a cult that believes a system. And if you go to the challenging
the assumptions of the system, that's why they melt down. I say,
do they believe in potential at all? Or not in God? I see,
Okay, that's a big problem. If they admitted any of that in
God, then they would say that that in their mind, that metaphysically necessitates
that God has composed, God is changeable, God is passable, God has
parts. I see. I have one more question about two more, but
I think it'll be pretty quick. And but that, by the way,
is why I keep asking them if they will discuss epistemology, because they will
say that that all of that's not possible, and then I'm going to say,
well, how do you know what isn't isn't possible? Well, because
we know because of being in metaphysics. The the black guy that was on
here even said metaphysics is prior to apistemology. Oh okay, and I wanted
to ask him and talk to him, how do you know that, because
that's an assertion, that's that's where your your system starts with. I was
gonna ask, do you do foll follow up debates at all? Or what
do you mean like with uh, that Wagner guy, I think that was
his name, He won't debate. I've already I've been asking him for months
to debate dang, yeah, or like I know, it's kind he only
wants to have a formal debate on Philly okuay because that's the one thing that
he studied. Uh, and that's he already debated UBI on that. So
I'm like, well, tumism isn't built on Philly okuay. Tmism is built
on the idea that metaphysics is prior to epistemology. I don't believe that.
I want to challenge that, and they won't debate that. Yeah, yeah,
to me, that sounds crazy. I think epistemology would come before metaphysics.
But well, even if you thought that it did or didn't, like,
there still needs to be some addressing of the argument that it doesn't.
Yeah, that's just a it's just an assumption question first principles. M HM.
I would ask do you do Follo up debates with like, I know
it's kind of out there, but like Tea Jump or malpass Or, I
would not have another debate with t Dump. I don't think there's any point.
Yeah, and my last question is, I've seen you talk about black
hebrews Raelites for a while. Have you ever read into Rostafarianism And if so,
do you think that's like on the same tier of like bananas or just
craziness. It's very similar. In fact, I think Hebrew roots and black
Heber Israelite will have some ideological lineage from Rastafarian tendencies. I can believe that
because it's not es centralized religion is the weird thing about Rosty stuff, right,
And they don't really have dogmas. It's it's not really a dog a
position with like feel like you're not going to find the Rastafarian systematic theology like
that doesn't think there's no Russifar and heresies or Rustafarian metaphysic. It's just kind
of like a vague abstraction. Yeah, but I do think that some of
the ideas of like you know, we're the true Zion and all that,
I think that did influence I've just seen people arguing this in some articles I've
read, but I don't know that much about either Rastafarianism or any of these
movements other than the one livestream. I did kind of reading some articles about
it. I'd recommend you read into it because it's like they believe that like
Gone incarnated as the Emperor of Ethiopia. I'm aware of that, that Haley
Haley Selassie is the Holy Spirit. I'mware of that. You all right,
thank you, thank you for letting me on at a good time. Yeah,
some people say that that's not actually true. I don't know whether it
is or isn't. Are got on mute? Are you there? He's that
hard time connecting father deacon? Are either Yeah. I was gonna say.
After I graduated high school, I was in UH. I took some classes
a quick community college before I went to Thomas Quinn's College, and a friend
of mine gave me a book on roster Fororianism, and I was already in
the apologetics by then, and it was the dumbest thing I've ever like.
Yeah, it's really low here differend wi fi real quick over here on on
the live stream, so it'll come right back don't worry. It's not it's
not going anywhere. It just takes it a second to hop over to the
other. Uh. And usually if I go to this other this other band,
it doesn't have as many problems. So try that here, wa go
ahead? Hello, uh huh, what's up? Ari? What's up?
Hello? Yeah, what's up? Man? I can hear you. I
know it's sometimes it just doesn't work. Drew, Oh, hey, yeah,
Jay, what's up? Man? Hey? Uh yeah, I was
just curious. Can you can you explain exactly how Roman Catholics understand original sceny?
Okay? Well, I I would say that the more modern you get,
the more the Roman Catholic position just strictly on original sin moved closer to
the Orthodox position. So if you read like the Vatican Clarification on Limbo,
it discusses this in the first I don't know half of the of the essay
that the period from Augustine to Pope San Gregory the Great, that period was
really the dominance of the strict Augustinian view that all men are in Adam as
in an archetype, and so in that way all men share not just in
the effects of Adam Sin, but also in his guilt. I did a
whole podcast, a three hour podcast on Augustine and the City of God where
he discusses this topic and he makes it very clear he makes this Neil Platinum
type of argument that we're all in Adam as in an archetype, and that's
why we share that guilt. And that's because he had a misreading of Romans
five idea that all men sin because all men were in Adam and therefore all
sin. It's rather the Greek is different Meandorf has a good response to this,
where he points out that the effects of Adam sin come upon all men
because all men eventually sin, not that all men actually literally sin in Adam.
So after Augustine, the Roman Catholic Church, by the early Middle Ages
itself begins to soften this position, and they bring in the notion that no
infants are not automatically damned, like Augustine said, and Augustine clearly taught that
it's called the mass damnata. Everyone in Adam is a damned mass mass damnata,
a big ball of damnation. When they soften this with infant limbo,
they say infants are not guilty of any actual sin. The only thing that
they have is the deprivation of what Ramakatas call original grace. I think,
as Orthodox we could agree that all men have the effects of adam sin,
and one of those effects is the deprivation of grace or the life of the
Holy Spirit. So we agree there. But over time the Romancallity Church then
eventually even says and confirms that, well, there's infant limbo. And I
think around that medieval period too, when they talk about infant limbo is when
they also say it's because they're not guilty of actual sin. That's a specific
rejection of the Augustinian position, because Augustine believed that infants were damned if they
weren't baptized, and that's why the limbo doctrine is a softening of that.
Anyway, the Orthodox position does not argue that there's any taint. It's really
the only meaning of taint is of original sin, is that there's a deprivation
of grace. But we don't and never said that infants were damned or anything
like that. And also, the Augustinian notion of original sin is intimately tied
up with the Augustinian view of anthropology. So Augustine, because he collapses nature
in person the Trinity. He also collapses nature in person in human anthropology,
so all men are just manifestations of the nature of Adam. He doesn't have
a consistent distinction between nature and person and humans, and so he doesn't understand,
for example, recapitulation, that all of our nature is recapitulated in Christ
and that's why all men are resurrected, for example, instead of God.
He struggles with why the reprobate would even be resurrected at all. They have
no connection to Christ, which shows us that he doesn't teach recapitulation. So
the Orthodox view is pretty much all the fathers in the East teach recapitulation.
Since Aeronaeus that Christ recapitulates our whole nature. That means that what determines our
experience of the escaton as to either ill will or ever well being or ever
ill being is based on our personal mode of willing. So even though our
nature is restored, each individual person, each individual hypostasis, will determine their
experience of the escaton based on how they willed in this life. So even
though nature is restored, guilt is hypostatic or personal guilt is not attributed to
nature. So Roman Catholics still tend towards thinking that our nature is guilty,
even though they're not Calvinists and they're not even Augustinian, there's this holdover of
this idea. And that's precisely why they would even think that Mary would have
to be immaculately conceived for Christ to be born with the holy humanity that he
has. I was just about to ask a question about that exact thing,
actually, because like, like, because you brought up how Christ came and
he recapitulated our nature for it. So, but it would sound like from
a Roman at least from a Roman Catholic view that with Mary being born well
conceived with it like, you know, because it's essentially that she's you know,
not born with the stain of original sin, right, correct, So
by default, if Christ came to recapitulate, you know, our nature,
what exactly would that imply for the nature of uh, you know, the
theotokos first, So I guess I'm trying to understand their part as well,
at least from well again, So the key, the key element here is
that you know, we think she did die, she did if she experienced
the same effects of original sin as everyone else, which is which is to
undergo death. So right, So even though she was graced in terms of
the presence of the Holy Spirit from from out throughout her whole life, it
doesn't mean that she had to be preserved from death. And that's why they
will even though they have in the in the Uniate churches the feast of dormision
like dormsician means she she went to sleep, means she died. If you
die, that means you're a son or daughter of Adam. So wouldn't that
so if she was already born without that particular stain from their perspective, then
wouldn't that essentially like what wouldn't that in blood that she's not like she's not
necessarily of a human nature in the same is that we are, but rather
like some kind of like a I don't know whether to say, like a
divine or quasi divine nature. I guess you could say maybe. I don't
think they intended to mean that, but I do think that the reason that
you get these very odd, uh modern pushes within the Roman Catholic sphere for
Mary to be co redemptrics to be given these higher and higher and higher titles
ultimately goes back to these issues. Mm hmm, So like that would they
all? Do they also believe that like she was not because she didn't have
that staying that she's also not capable of sending either. I don't know what
I would say about the possibility or that if there's if there was any real
potentiality, but I just think they would say that there was consistent operative grace
or or whatever or sanctifying grace in Mary that she would not sin. I
don't know, okay, okay, because I've heard like mixed responses to that
from various people. I heard some say that like Mary, you know,
it was effectively incapable of being able to sin in herself because of like her
being born without that particular stain in their understanding of such at least. And
I guess they kind of had me questioning the notion because it seems like I
guess you could say, in at least by that very belief of the immaculate
conception for itself. I think even though I think that when people try to
say like old calfulars worship Mary, etc. I think they might I think
what they're at least trying to say when they say it towards Roman Catholics.
Would you say that maybe have more to do with the particular dogmuth the immaculate
conception, rather than its just purely being based upon like you know, the
veneration of the Blessed Mother. Yeah, I think it's more so those things.
And again I think ultimately the Maculate conception stuff is all about up with
the traces and the remnants of the Augustinian tendency towards that view of original sin.
Oh yeah, guys, good thanks man appreciation. Yeah, great question,
and I did do There is a fuller, longer treatment of this discussion.
Now Here is the famous Irena As quote about recapitulation, which again you
will not find this. I mean, it would be an interesting experiment to
see if there's any Latin fathers after Augustine that do believe in recapitulation. I'm
not aware of any. It could exist. There might be something that we're
just because there a lot of stuff still hasn't been translated, so maybe there
is something out there. But what you see that's very common in the East.
We find it in Cyril of Alexandria, we find it in John Damascus,
we find it everywhere in Saint Maximus, this idea that Christ recapitulates all
of human nature and that the redemption of Christ is cosmic and scope because of
Romans eight. This is a really strong argument against Roman Catholicism because even though
it might technically sort of be there, how would something that's so fundamental to
Christology and the Seven Councils be forgotten and lost in the West Because this is
related to the Heroine of Hades too, right, which Roman Catholics maybe they
technically confess it, but it doesn't really have any relevance to their theology beyond
just some sort of abstract speculation in some manual somewhere. Quite Yeah, I
was going to add concerning the imact conceptionally and Mary's free will from the Roman
Catholic position, they're probably influenced by Augustine. Yeah, and he's kind of
definition of free will that you find nature and grace, which is totally foreign
to Orthodoxy in terms of how we define will and choice and things like that.
So yeah, Augustin that I cover that in that in the three hour
august and Original Sin taught because Augustine's view of willing is very similar to Libido
Dominondi. So he thinks that fallen man is sort of even though he's not
he's not a Lutheran or a Calvinist. He thinks that the will of man
is directed invariably in two directions. It's either directed towards creatures and therefore sin,
or it's directed towards God. So there's this dialectical that's the only options
in Augustine. This is why, for example, he thinks that the marital
bed and marital unions have to contain some venial sin, because there's no way
that you could be enraptured with God if you're enraptured with your wife, who's
a creature. So he himself says that he struggles with understanding how marital relations
can be sacramental, and he says there has to in marriage be some benal
sin and sexuality. Well, how can you have a necessary sin in terms
of a sacrament. It doesn't make any sense. But it's all misunderstood because
Augustine has a dialectical view of willing. So he thinks that you will either
for God or for creatures, and that's the only only options. And so
it's a dialectical willing that's either for virtue and grace in God or sin.
That's it. So he doesn't have a conception of free will defined as the
ability to will multiple goods. So the rest of the Church, when they
talk about what it means to have free will, it means to have a
choice amongst options. So, for example, in the Garden of Eden,
Adam and Eve they had free will, there was no fall. So how
can we define free will as dialectical willing in terms of good or evil?
It's not so that Augustine and I imagine the Roman Catholics would fall on this.
She would never just like in the Escaton the Saints wouldn't choose yes bad.
Because Augustine defines a free will is a perfected will that only chooses the
good, which is God. Well that and he also thinks that you wouldn't
even want to will anything else because in the Beativic vision, your intellect would
be satiated, because he does teach basically Beativic vision. So for those that
are interested, here is the the talk that we did a couple of years
ago on Augustine and original sin. So we're looking for Rum Catholics principally today.
I mean, I will entertain or take Islamic arguments Protestants if they want
to chime in, but primarily we're trying to focus on tonistic Roman Catholic argumentation.
If we have any Catholics, Dion, Hey care, Yeah, there
we go. Okay. So I've been studying different arguments against Taoheed, and
I've heard you give a few arguments, and I've heard I've been studying a
few different articles too. So I was talking with a Muslim about does the
law possess eternally different type of like interpersonal attributes and qualities, And he was
saying yes, but he was appealing to like Cambridge Cambridge properties and things like
that. So I'm just curious, like, how would you argue against the
Muslim making those type of appeals? Would you even do that? Well,
I mean, you can appeal to modern philosophical argumentations. I guess I don't
have a problem necessarily doing that, But how does that appeal like really solve,
for example, the issues of the relationship of Allah to his attributes?
Right? So, if, for example, if you watch the the Bo
Branson Jake debate, have you seen that one a lot a bit ago?
I probably have to watch it again though, Yeah, I mean, the
debate then centers on if you say that Allah really is distinct from his attributes.
Then the question that arises is, Okay, are the attributes do they
possess a sayeity? Because Jake's argument was that you as a trinityranary consistent because
divinity equals a sayety. The father has a sayity, but the son lacks
a saety. Therefore the son is not fully divine. But doctor Branson shows
that not even you believe on your position and that divinity equals to siety because
the same argument applied to the attributes is refuted when Jake says that the attributes
do not possess the saiety. Right, and then so it really depends on
the Muslim that we're talking about, so right, and then Jake even seems
to try to bring up like an essence energy distinction argument for Tealheed. And
that's what like the Muslim I was talking do he seemed to do. He
was trying to say that a lot of attributes are extrinsic. Yeah, that
most of the as I understand, unless you're doctor Khalil and you're a Neil
Playton as Shiah. Pretty much the Muslims believe in a real distinction between all
in his essence, I mean between all and his attributes. Okay, so
what I guess what would be your your you know, what's going to be
your first argument against tao heed Hm. It's going to depend again on which
type of Muslim is arguing. But I mean, the first thing I would
just simply say is why should I believe that your position is in any better
position when your main argument is something that you yourself have to deal with and
have a double standard for. But I might, but again depends on which
Muslim it is, because you know, if they it depends on like,
do they believe in divine eminence or not? If they don't believe in it,
then I might go in the direction of arguing like, well, then
how do you know a lot at all if there's no eminence? Because it
begs the question to say it, because you know, the chron says,
got all, it's not like anything in the created order. So I'm gonna
wait and see how they if they believe in analogy or not. If they
do believe in analogy, then I want to understand how Jake went hardcore for
anthropomorphism, right, because he thinks that Allah has an uncreated foot and an
uncreated shin. But what does that mean? Well, you, he says,
you look at the context. Okay, Well you can say, look
at the context. What does it mean to say Allah as an uncreated foot
in the context? And he says, or an uncreated hand? Or what?
Oh, it's all a grasping What does that tell me? All a
grasps things. I mean, this is why Sam Chumun, for example,
always brings up with those types. Wait a minute. It says Allah descends
to you know, of he moves from the throne and descends to the heavens
or whatever in the hadiths? What does that mean? And Jake will say
it means what it says, okay. But to move and to descend means
that there's spatial, temporal, spatial relations and perhaps temporality. So space is
something other than Allah. Right, So if Allah has eternally descended from his
throne, then there's spatial relations which are also eternal. So now you have
Allah and space, So you have two principles that are eternal exactly. Yeah,
that's a good art. So it's more of an epistemological army man,
and I think that's right. Would you would you ever make any type of
arguments that the only possible god that can exist is a you know, triune
god, a god that is not only one person. Yeah, we argue
that all the time. Okay, do you have any videos on that I
can go back and because I watch all your lives? Oh yeah, I
mean I just put up one not too long ago. Why the trinity is
necessary? Okay, that's on dire eclips. And then you could watch the
critique that we did of Ed Faser. It's called like universals something critiquing Ed
Phaser. That video argues that I'll check it out. Thanks you great questions
fortnite. All his foot is orbiting in space. Well, remember, for
even Tom and Jake's tradition, the argument hinges on perfections, and clearly it's
more perfect for all uh to laugh than to not laugh. But I made
the point of saying, well, isn't it more to eternally laugh and to
laugh? Once on that line and forget it. And by the way,
if having a foot is more perfect than not having a foot, then isn't
having more toes on the foot more perfect than having less toes? You see
how silly this is? Literally this is the silliness of how they argue.
And do you notice the what's the commonality between say a Tomas in a Muslim
in Allah's perfections the metaphysical assumptions. The assumption is, well, we all
know what perfection is, and perfection has to mean that having six toes is
better than five toes. We all know that Allah laughing is more perfect than
not laughing. So there's this silly metaphysical assumption about perfections. By the way,
Thomas do the same thing. They have these metaphysical positions that they think
are self evident and first and primary, which is why they're all melting down
every time we ask them. Why are we supposed to think that that's the
case. You believe that your system is built on that. But what if
I don't accept the first principles of your system, Well, just grant me
my first piss. Basically, they're doing the same thing every other system does
of system building, which is, grant me my assumptions and let me convince
you of my position. That's what they do, Father Deacon, or either
let me tell you a really cool fictional story that I made up. I
don't question that fictional story because it'll lose the argument. Well, let me
play the Let me play the devil's advocate, Tomas, Why on earth would
you think that being and the good in metaphysics is a fictional story. You're
just being a coping ortho bro by daring to think that my philosophy of being
is a fictional story. You have to start with metaphysics. Okay, why,
Yeah, that's missing the point, right, They just assert? But
look, hey, in a position based on on papal authority worship, why
wouldn't we expect them to just assert authoritative, dogmatic positions that they don't think
have to be justified or given any coherence. And it's so strange that people
can't even grasp what we're asking for justification that that's and what do they do?
They just restate their story And I mean either it's low IQ or like
we have talked to, certain paradigms can be like operating systems that don't even
allow you to yes, to recognize what's being asked, so they can't process,
they can't hear the question that's being asked. Well, it wasn't that
the same thing, even tho it was a different topic. When we were
asking the Muslims, can you restate the hypothetical about the Qur'an's relation to prior
revelation And it's like their defense mechanisms wouldn't even let them reset the hypothetical.
Yep. And we've seen this happen before in what was it? First of
all, I noticed reading it in Eric Voglan where he's talking about uh tiny
mustache Man's Germany Stones Russia, like different kind of neo gnostic kind of systems
that were built in which remember it says that during the trials they said,
well, we couldn't disobey orders like that. Yeah, we weren't capable.
And I always interpreted that that they were unwilling, And Foglan says, you
know, they built into the system that that wasn't even a question. You
couldn't process that. And you even see this with like trying to translate words
after the fall of communism and stuff like that, that they had translators had
a really difficult time translating words that had anything to do with the individual because
there was such kind of a hive mind that they didn't have an operating system
that they can understand that. And a lot of this kind of goes into
the philosophy language that Quin was talking about with indeterminacy of translation. That doesn't
mean that, you know, there isn't some sort of overlap. And I
think what he was saying is that and kind of a coherence holistic sense in
terms of semantics, is that there's no what was Quin's position, he was
going against an arguing against the classical few of corresponds that words have kind of
a one to one they derive their meaning through one to one correspondence with the
property entity which they're referring to. And he goes through his whole kind of
critique of that and basically shows that no, there's there's a sort of indeterminacy
unless you're immersed within the paradigm. And he uses the Gavia guy right like
it's a rabbit running and that the point is there is no one to one
correspondence. It could you know, it's all kind of interconnected within the paradigm.
That could be ancestor it could be food, it could be all these
different things. And so it makes sense that if your paradigm has constructed such
that it has no concept to process some sort of reality or understand it,
it has no meaning. They can't a person can't understand it can't even understand
what's being said. Yes, suh, are you there fortnite? Do you
want to talk? Oh? Yeah, yeah it So I got a question
relating on your position on the essence and energy distinction. Right, so you
firm right, it's a real distinction between the essence and the energies. Well,
real distinction is a later term, that's a late scholastic post even Aquinas
term. So depending upon what you mean by that. If you think that
real means composition, partition or division, no, But if you if we
mean a real ontological distinction, yes, and so the orthodox response is that
the same level of distinction between the persons is the same type of distinction between
essence and energy. Are you there? Yeah? My bad, I'm back.
Okay, do you have like a like said definition you can give out?
I mean, the cap of Docians did all this without scholastic distinctions.
So what do you mean? The definition is that just as the father is
distinct from the son, so also the essence is distinc from the energy.
Right, But this this varies across interpretations. Right, if your Scotist you
would say that's simply a formal distinction. Which is widely different from a real
distinction, right, and so the way to different interpretations off that. So
how would you understand the real disis? Right? So that's why if you
fall, if you follow the debate when it gets to the point of Palamos,
the way that it would easily also just cancel out all the Scotist arguments.
The argument isn't ultimately about distinguishing the attributes amongst themselves, but rather what
do we participate in? So the Scotist could never answer what precisely we're participating
in. And that's why, quite literally, the debate with a barley of
mind just shifts right into what it is we participate in. So even if
you wanted to say these distinctions are quote formal, that doesn't do any good
to talk about what we participate in. So do we participate in a formal
conceptual distinction? Formal or conceptual? Formal? Formalities? The wall Scotas will
simply tell you formalities are not purely mental conceptions, right, I meant to
You're correct, I meant to say formal or conceptual, Like, it won't
matter how you catch that out, because the debate ends up being do we
participate in God's glory or not. Right, but I'm still okay, So
I guess you now, okay, So what would you say if I simply
say that it can saptual distinction is a distinction with a basis in the thing
itself or a basis in reality. Right, Why do I need to draw
a big onto logical division so to speak, between the essence? So just
you just you, just you just are you just said the very thing I
reject. So distinction does not entail composition or division. That's fundamental to art
theology. So the fact that I say that there is a difference between us
and and an energy does not until division. So you just imported the Roman
Catholic type of or the thing is though I'm asking you because you need to
divide the essence and the energies for you participate in my aspect. I know,
we don't have to know. That doesn't entail division. Distinction does not
inteil composition division, just like right, No, that's but that's just that's
okay. The just listen, how you participate in one aspect of a different
ontological being. It's not a different it's not a different ontological being because the
being of God let me, let me explain between the same being in the
same way that there's a discision between the father and the son. That's ontological,
right, But we wouldn't say that's an ontological distinction. Well, there
are not three beings, right. Ontology is not only related to the word
being. So again you're you're assuming your metaphors. Well, again, the
being of God is an energy for us, it's not his essence. So
you think being is simply the energy, right, You don't think you can
predicate that energy. You can't predicate anything of the divine essence. You can't
predicate the essence exists. The existence of God is also an energy. That's
the cappation argument is wrong when he said that that the glorious right. He
says that the energies in the essence of God are united in one existence.
Would you say he was wrong, Well, the way that they're united is
in the mode of the persons that have the essence and that the energy.
And by the way, if you recapass his essay, he shows that Scolarios
rejects the the tomistic view of saying that the distinction is conceptual. He says
it's a real distinction. Sure, I never said Sclorus was a thumbis thum.
My point is that the essence of what Scolarius rejects an Aquinas is what
we what I reject that there's no real essence in ury distinction. Right,
So have you risk would you understand him to affirm a real distinction between the
essence and the energies? No, I understand that for him, formal distinction
is his own category. Understand that, right, So if we take his
category, you know he's an actual saint, right, and we understand I
don't acception. No, I don't accept that he is. He's not a
saint. So you wouldn't accept laws is a saying, right? No,
no, no, no, I thought you said, excuse me, I
thought you said I thought you said Scots chill out. I thought you said
Scotus my bit. Yeah, scalauris my bit. There are very similar names.
I understand. Yeah, now we understand he is, Yes, he's
a saint. Yeah, yeah, okay. So would you say Scalaorius would
affirm a real distinction between the essence and the energies. He affirms the palamite
position, right, But you would not would you say that's a real distinction
between the essence and the energies. Yeah, because that's the whole purpose of
the whole teakon Po thesis. Well, yeah, so did you did you
read the t on p thesis? Yeah? I've read his being a naming,
Essence and Energy of God and then his second later work what are Divine
Energies? Right? Which is which must small a dissertation because I want to
talk about those two things there. So first of all, well, I
have a question for you though, right, Can I ask you a question?
Sure? Yeah. By the way, so if you've read that much,
then you've probably read the Capus essay right on essence energy, in the
in the in the Theology of Saying Gnatus Glorious. I've read the half half
the introduction, like the historical aspect. Yes, I haven't read his Well,
this is just a paper theesis, right, because I don't see the
relevance in his thesis. Well, this is just a paper from a Uni
eight arguing that huh. I know, yeah, capsure is a union.
I am more of that. No, but I'm saying that this is just
a paper where he makes the point that all those Scolarius likes a lot of
what's an aquinas The chief thing that he disagrees with is Thomas's position on equating
attributes with essence. Yeah, I'm aware. The thing is, I'm not
positing Thomas Aguainance's position though, Okay, so if I'm if we're going to
argue the Scotti's position, then it's going to turn because even Bradshaw says,
yeah, I'm not even positing the disposition. I'm positive in Scalorus's position,
but Scolaris's position is I would argue the Palomite position, right, and then
we go back to it's a real distinction, and then I'm simply asking,
and then we go back to the same topic of discussion. I don't really
see the relevance and talking about Schloris was on the Thomas. I don't understand
why you're trying to argue the Scolarian position. Then what's the point? Because
my right, if you read if we understand Schalorous right in his third tome,
in the sixth Tone, right, his commentaries on the Condoyos the barlum
quinas, Yeah, I can dinos. I pronounced things wrong, my bad,
but yeah, so we would understand. He specifically writes that a real
distinction between essence and energies between creatures is because of their deficiency, and that
does not apply to God. Right. And if we read later on in
this third tone, page two hudred and twenty six, he said that a
foam of distinct neither makes a division of reality or a composition. But it's
yeah, and that's everything I've been saying the whole time. That this distinction
does not intel composition division. That's what I've been saying, right, But
that would not apply for what's understood to be a real distinction. That's why
I said at the beginning that using the terminology real distinction is really confusing because
that's a later scholastic definition, that's post aquinas. So I said at the
very beginning that the level of the distinction is the same for the energies as
it is between the persons. Yeah, but that differs among positions, like
I've said. Okay, so let's make it really clear. Then, in
Leviticus nine, we have the manifestation of the glory of God in time and
space, and the Israelites bow down and worship it. What is that?
Sure? We say that's the energy. Okay, so it's not the essence,
right, Sure, But with your decent on A thirteen fifty one has
to be contemplated with it. What has to be contemplated with it? The
essence always has to be contemplated with with I didn't. I didn't say that
it's not contemplated with it. But you're not participating in it. Yeah,
sure, I'm simply saying that you need to clarify you're not but not participating
in the identity. Yes, it's not right. So you're participating in the
energy, and that's why the fourth of the Palomite Synods condemns the tomistic position
of Precoreos Prokeros. Right, but you wouldn't say that Barlum himself was a
Thomas. No. I think he was a Greek monk or monastic, or
I forget exactly what is. He might have been an aut