The the the the the the the the the the the I think the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the do 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 do why Hello and hello to all of my
beautiful discord listeners. Today I'm wearing a very soft Pastors Cartigan, perhaps something
a Calvinists pastor might well, Perhaps someone say Peter mc wilson might well.
I'm a humble pastor for the year of twenty twenty four, and that's because
I have been so maligned magnant by the Internet for so many years as a
mean man. I want to demonstrate to everyone that my ways have changed.
I am no longer a mean Internet debate man, but I am, in
fact a very humble, pious, praying lover of the Lord Christian. In
fact, I might even be the pastor of my own internet church. Perhaps
you may all like to join and tithe immediately the maximum amount of tithes possible,
because I'm very pissed, I'm very humble of the loveving, I'm very
loving, I love you so much. I'm a pastor on the Internet.
We're the card again. It's Clark Griswold style, but it's a card again.
I'm either a douchebag professor or very humble piles pastor man like Fdr sitting
by the fireside jets helping you to understand the world. In fact, I
rolled in here on a wheelchair and it wasn't even necessary. I just did
it to feel more humble. I can walk fine. This is the year
of love, and don't worry, pies. Pastor man Peter McWilson is here
to help you on your journey. Just be sure to put a little extra
in the gift box, if you know what I mean. In the tithe
plate as it comes around. Brother Hensley in the Mad Chat will be passing
the tithe plate around. Feel free. I'm gonna be very hum but to
everybody today, nobody will get their feelings huh, because it is the Western
Papal fake Christmas Eve, according to the papal Apostate Inti christ calendar. Merry
Christmas to all your Apostate Heltics out there. I wish I could say I
truly enjoy the season, but as a pious pastor man, it is my
duty to warn you of these paper abominations known as the Western calendar. So
is it Christmas Eve? It's Christmas Eve for the millions of heretics out there
that I want to help today. Truly, I hope that you will come
share your disagreements and so we can find peaceful, fake reconciliation where we pretend
to be friends, but we passively, aggressively still hate each other deep down
from our hearts. Did you think you were really gonna get Cardigan pastor man?
No, you all got trolled. Now you still get me on papal
Christmas Eve, A debate open to what the evil of this man? Oh
day? He choose to debate, putting himself up as a pious pastor man
in a card and yet he wants to debate on paper on Christmas Eve.
Mean as ever, I'm still mean, I'm still mean. I still believe
I'm still mean. It's gonna be open for him, and you're not gonna
get pious pastor man. You're gonna get the same old mean jay. I
was already mean to a Protestant this morning, and I feel good about it.
I feel good about being me let me be mean to your mom and
you'll spleen. I said, I feel good about being me. I'm gonna
be mean to your mom and your stepdad, and you'll groll and your cousin.
It's gonna be a mean Christmas Eve. You all fell for my trolling,
my joke that I was gonna be loving, and it was all mobile
calling villain. No, what the heck is happening. I said the word
villain, and Sirih thought I was telling her to call villain the Armenian dude
in DC. Get out of here, Siri, and not merry Christmas to
you. Shut up, Sirih, look at that. I'm being mean even
to the robots. Thank you, Chase Haguard. The call in lines are
open, and uh, there's really no point in me rehearsing the rules because
no one who calls in actually knows the rules or will follow the rules unless
they ask questions. The people who ask questions follow the rules. The people
who want to dub eate his name's villain, not villain, So sir thought
of something about vilain. I said the word villain. That's funny. The
people that actually want to debate, of course, will not follow the rules,
so we really there's not any point in you in rehearsing this is there.
I mean, we know what's gonna happen. We're gonna get repeating of
my name many times. The delusional guy this morning at least didn't repeat my
name, so I guess he gets one point for that. Carding and swag
baby, carding and swag baby. I'm LARPing as a pastor, man.
But guess what, every pastor's LARPing as a pastor man. Ah. The
mean is coursing through my veins at the moment, and I'm just loving it.
I don't I literally can't have a good day unless I'm mean to people.
Don't worry, though, I've come stacked with cob drops. I'm prepared.
We're gonna open it up so that people who claim that they would like
to a debate can come on and say ridiculous things and I can lose my
patience. Just kidding. You noticed the last time is that people came on
and said ridiculous things, and within a few minutes of me determining that they're
not rational people, I just simply exited the discussion, and yet they still
said it was me, not only was it mean to exit the discussion so
that I didn't get angry every person I saw that I exited their discussion.
Then went on to Twitter to explain that the only reason I exited the discussion
was because I couldn't answer their low tier questions. So you keep telling yourself
that, keep telling it, even though it's questions that have been answered probably
one hundred times. On the channel. Some other guy was like, give
me the video where you never did it? No, lazy, use a
search engine. I don't owe you anything. We've become so soft. Everyone
is so soft and so so passive aggressive. So I'm gonna ask the Americans
stop eating the diets they're eating, because that's a huge part of it.
America, stop eating your garbage diet. It's making you all into soy men.
It's making your women grow peeps, and it's making your men grow tatas.
Please stop. That's a big part of it. So if you are
interested, you can call in, and the way you call in is Twitter
spaces, and you can now call in on Twitter spaces on a computer then
used to be that way, but you can do it. So if you
don't have the app, you do have to have Twitter. You simply join
the space and you request to speak. We already have many people, many
people already requested to speak, many beautiful, many beautiful parishioners in my humble
online pastor's chapel, ready to come and ask the questions so that I may
give them helpful spiritual guidance as an online Internet pastor, so that they may
then place their life savings and the memos life savings into the offering plate.
Yes, we are very humble here so that we might build the Calvinist cigar
club and golf course out back of the parish, even though we don't call
it a perish in the Calvinist churches. I'm very humble. Did y'all know?
I may, in fact hop on the Internet later tonight and tell everybody
how much I'm praying and tweet how many prayers I'm praying. Every time I
pray a prayer, I will tweet that prayer out so that everyone may understand
how much I'm praying publicly on the internet. Because Jesus himself said, when
you pray, go into the widest spaces of the Internet and tell everyone publicly
that you're praying and fasting. That is what Jesus said to do. It's
open for and the topics are as you can imagine, as you probably already
know. Catholicism, papacy, history, contradictions, Protestantism, logic, laws
of logic, universals, logie, church fathers, councils, transcendental arguments,
tag atheism, agnosticism, empiricism, epistemology, metaphysics, Koran philosophy, conspiracies,
bitcoin, geopolitics, feminism. Of course, no one ever calls in
on those topics, but they are open. The only requirement is, please
make arguments unless you have questions. An argument is not where you rap.
I know that's hard for some of you slow boys and girls out there and
slow wine moms. Rapping isn't an argument. You could theoretically wrap your arguments.
That is possible, I suppose if you are skilled enough, I will
let you wrap your argument at me. But slam, poetry and rapping is
not an argument itself. And I was gonna unmute the guy that I had
the debate. I wouldn't call it a debate, what would we call it?
I don't even know what to call it. The brief discussion with this
morning, but I can't remember his his handle. I blocked him at lightning
speed. Everyone knows I'm a master lightning speed speed blocker. I'm probably block
more people than there are blocks in Minecraft. I don't know. I mean,
I've blocked half of the Internet, and I don't know. I'm happy
I've done that has made my life a lot better. In fact, I
wish that I had learned to block people many years before I've blocked the thousands
of people I've already balked. Someone wants that's arrogant to you to black people,
to which I say, twenty twenty four will be the year of love
and public humility displays. I will display my love and my humidity non stop
all of twenty twenty four. I will tweet every prayer and so that you
can share my tweets and share with the world how humble and pious I am.
It's very easy to get blocked by me. Just say one thing dumb.
It's pretty much it like it's a low bar of what it is to
qualify to be magnificent, magnificently blocked by me just to basically just say something
dumb and then where I'm out, it's over, goodbye. So the way
it works, as you guys know, and as you guys won't do even
though we know. We all know it, and I'm saying it, but
we all nobody's no, nobody's gonna do it. I'll give you the microphone.
You can make whatever arguments you want. You can stay whatever you want.
That are actual arguments. We don't need to establish whether I'm a KGB,
a Cabala wizard sorcerer. We already know that. We already know I'm
a Panamanian KGB operative drug lord assassin in a Cardigan, So we can move
past that that's been established. You're expose that. I can see you've exposed
me. Now what is your argument? Right? Maybe I should put vegans
in there. Remember the vegans. I haven't seen them coming around in a
long time, and they're an insane cult, so maybe the vegans can pop
up. I forgot to put vegans in there. If you want to convince
me of your atheist veganism, you can also do that as well. What
is an open debate? You come on the Twitter space and I give you
the microphone and you make whatever arguments you want. Where do you talk with
people? It is linked in the show description. It amazes me. People
don't know what the show like, what the descriptions are on YouTube. It's
like people don't have never even heard of this. Here all put it in
the chat for you. You're in the YouTube chat and you don't know what
a show description is, call in right there, come on the Twitter space.
That's how you It's very simple, is this whole audience? Boomer?
I don't get it all right? First up is James Lindsay lookalike. His
name's Ricky. And by the way, if you get your feelings hurt then
I make jokes. Then don't come on if you get your feelings hurt because
I make jokes about people's names, profiles. It's normal, it's it's what
guys do. So if you're super effeminate and you're gonna get your feelings hurt
about jokes, then just don't come on. Very Christmas evetube M what's up
with you? Yeah? So I was raised, to give a little bit
of context, raised Roman Catholic, and in college I got baptized in Church
of Christ h I c OC ICC cult And then thanks to Sam Schun you
said, yeah, the ICOC Church of Christ, don't that's not the Campbellite
Church of Christ. Is it what do you mean a cult? Yeah?
Yeah, so the there's this ICOC branch of the Church of Christ and it's
a pretty pretty massive cult. But yeah, in the summer, thanks to
Sam Shimon and I kind of returned to Catholicism and then I discovered you and
uh, inquiring into Orthodoxy right now, And so most of my debates I've
been with the Church of Christ people. And there's just one guy who argues
that for the episcopate that I try to argue for. He uses the Ethiopian
eunuch as an example of someone who wasn't joined to a physical church and he
just went on his way rejoicing. I guess, So what would you say
to someone that uses that argument? Right, So Jesus says in Mark that
when the guy's doing can you mute your puppy dog side of things? Yeah,
so Jesus says, when the guy's casting out demons. Right in the
Book of Mark, the disciples say, but he's not amongst us, And
Jesus says, there's no one who does a miracle in my name who will
not who will not eventually be amongst us. So I think the assumption is
that just because in every situation an actually don't see them immediately pointing out the
episcopate doesn't mean that that person didn't join the episcopae. In fact, a
couple of times in Acts, they actually when the missionaries find people like the
Disciples of John or the Disciples of Apollo and Apollo's Shimi Apollos, they tell
them that they need to come into the church. So that's a unique time
in the Book of Acts when it's called the transition period, right, it's
the inter the it's the period between the death of Christ and the destruction of
the Temple. The destruction of the temple is the definitive end of the Old
Covenant administration. So there's going to be unnatural or abnormal, or maybe unnatural
is not. There's going to be anomaloust situations during that time period that won't
be norm normative, or they won't characterize the norm after the destruction of the
temple. So once the church is established and the Temple's destroyed, it's very
clear that's supposed to be the definitive sign that that that the Kingdom has come
and that it's no no longer the Old Testament Jewish administration. So yeah,
there were many people in the Book of Acts who were reading the scriptures and
coming to believe and may not have yet even met the apostles like you're talking
about. But typically when they do meet the apostles, they are also instructed
to come into to the church. And so I think the assumption is that
the Ethiopian unit will come under the episcopate. And just because it doesn't immediately
state that in that section, it's not like everybody can just go out and
do what they want, because other places in the scripture tell us that you
can't do that. In the Book of Timothy, for example, Paul says,
I laid hands on you, Timothy, I gave the depositive faith to
you. You lay your hands on men after you who will be faithful.
So Timothy is the only legitimate authority in ephesis, not anybody else, not
anyone running around doing whatever they want. So in other words, you can't
take It's just like when Paul decides, out of pragmatic reasons to circumcise Timothy
in the Book of Acts. Technically he doesn't need to do that, but
it would be less there would be less problems for him. Doing that with
Timothy than if he hadn't done it, right, So we wouldn't take that
one example like Judaizers do and say, well, look, pol still circumcised
Timothy, so you have to always continue to do circumcision. It was what
he chose to do at that time in that inter transitional period between the death
of Christ, the resurrection of Christ and the astabshim of the Church Pentecost and
then the destruction of the Temple. So again, the key here is to
understand the big picture of redemptive history. Not everything that happens in the Book
of Acts is normative for the entire history of the Church because it's a transition
period. Yeah no, that makes sense. By the way, don't the
Church of Christ themselves think that all these things that happened in the Book of
Acts, like all these miracles and whatnot, that that's not that doesn't happen
anymore. Yeah, yeah, So they have their own position of oh,
well, we don't continue those things from the Book of Acts till now.
But then they're picking and choosing, oh, but this one we do,
we want, we want that one because that goes against the historic church,
right right, So two more quick questions when the Father says, this is
my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, but that be considered an
energetic manifestation of the Father. Yes, okay, And now each person in
the triad is still involved in every action of God, because every action of
God is triadic, but the actions can still be unique to individual hypostasis.
So just like Christ dying on the cross, right, that's a unique action.
It's still triadic, but it's a unique action that the son undergoes.
The Father and the spirit don't die on the cross or they don't experience death
on la crosse right, right, And yet the action is still triadic because
the Father sent the son to die on the cross. Right. So likewise
it's not the like actions are proper to the whole triad, but the actions
can still be actualized by individual hypostasies. Right. In other words, each
person has a unique role in any action. Yeah, got that all right?
So final question, And I always love the argument you make about Nestorian
sacramentology, which Protestants seem to have. So what's a good book on U
sacramentology? I would just read something like Nicholas Cabasilas's book on Ortho Basic Orthodox
Theology. He'll give you a good Orthodox Cristology, I mean ecclesiology there in
sacramentology, all right, awesome. I mean also, Orthodox books kind of
just tie everything together. They don't typically unless you get into the academic stuff.
They don't typically just write a book on sacraments or just a book on
because they all go together. Like our theology of the Church is dependent on
Christology, our sacramentology is dependent upon Christology. Christology depending upon our trinitarian theology.
Right. Yeah, I love that argument, and it's one that really
got me to consider Orthodoxy because Catholicism I just find it like really all over
the place when it comes to that. So yeah, yeah, exactly.
By the way, to the people in the Chat that are saying Christmas is
pagan, that's idiotic. Christmas is the feast of Theophany, right, It's
the it's the birth of Christ. Right, it's not the baptism Christ.
It's the it's the feast of the coming of the of our Savior into the
world. And it has has its origins in the Orthodox Church. Has nothing
to do with sol Invictus or anything like that, and that's why the traditional
Orthodox date is January. Right, It's in January, so we'll be celebrating
Christmas January, you know, six seven eight. We're not celebrating Christmas in
the Orthodox Church typically on the papal calendar. So the irony here is that
all these dumb Protestants that are trying to make this argument in evangelicals and whatever,
these people are that Christmas is pagan. They're totally ignorant because they don't
even know that Easter is Pasca in the Orthodox Church. Pasca is passover right,
and the date the dates in the Orthodox Church has nothing to do with
Sol Invictus or Tamas or any the bullshit. You guys, You guys have
no idea what you're talking about. So you can call in all the Protestants
that are asking these silly questions in ignorance. You're free to call in and
make these arguments. But if you just here to spam stuff, uh,
then yeah, celebrating Nativity in January doesn't even match up to the stupid pagan
arguments that you're making Christmas because December stolen victors fumbles. If you're not gonna
call in, then just you're just gonna get booted. Nobody has time for
your low IQ spamming. And you guys are you're not even You're just spamming
crap into the chat anyway, fumbles, Hello, question you're cutting out?
Question is maybe try it? Okay. My short question is by the essence
of God like man related to absolutely divine simplicity that kind of stuff is is
the unity of God as in the monotheism? Right, because we believe one
God? Right, is that the idea that we get one God from three
persons, is that rooted in the person of the Father or the essence?
So that for the essence of all three of the persons, right, So
the monarchy of the Father, which is what's expressed in the Creed. We
believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and the source of that unity
is the person of the Father. But it's also you can still it's still
correct to say that there's one one God because there's one nature, right,
Okay, So what makes God one God is the person of the Father,
Yeah, and that he possesses a singular nature. I say, okay,
so because I for a long time I thought it was the essence of God,
and I was telling people that and I thought to myself, I might
be wrong about that half pass. We'll just go watch doctor Branson's lectures on
the monarchy of the Father. And it's true to say this that God is
one because there's one nature, but that flows from the fact that there's one
Father that communicates the nature. So the Creed itself, and even Paul right,
for us, there's one God, the father of lights. Our James
says, the one God, the father of lights. Paul says for us,
there's one God, the Father of Christ. Right. So the terminology
of Paul is the same as the terminology the nice Creed, which is that
there's one God because there's one Father. So that places personhood as the first
category for which we know God. And Palma says the exact same thing in
the triads. So the essence is what the person has. And so it's
true that the triad has one essence. But it's more true to say that
there's one God because there's one Father, because that's the ancient Christian creed,
and that's the biblical theology, and that's why the Old Testament speaks that way.
How does the Old Testament consistently speak of the one God as the Father.
That one Father has sent his angel, who has the name of Yahweh
in him has a spirit. So it's more consistent with Old Testament theology than
it is to say, as becomes really popular in the medieval Latin West,
to say that there's one God because there's one essence, and that one essence
is Father, son and spirit. No, there's one God because there's one
Father. This is just the classic Cappadocian approach. Okay, I understand.
So you can go watch doctor Branson's lectures. He has a whole series of
lectures on his website on the monarchy of the Father. Right, So somebody's
saying, oh, but the Russian Orthodox calendar. Yeah, The point is
that the argument of the Protestants is that you're celebrating a day. You're doing
these rituals to commemorate the birth of Tamus. Okay, so it doesn't matter
that it's still believed to be the end of December. The point is that
they're saying that the celebration of the liturgy is pagan because you're celebrating the birth
of Tamas on December twenty four or whatever. So thank you for your nitpicking
when you're really just missing the whole point. By the way, why are
you here to nitpick? Just nitpick somewhere else? Are you were nitpicking the
other stream? So go nitpick some other stream. Holly. Let's see,
Holly, let's see. We've gotta have somebody. We've got the same people
that always calling. I'm not knocking your big chief, but Kaiser Collins,
that's an interesting name. Hello, what's up? Man? I have read
this scriptures. The scriptures deliberate to me that you have the anti christ sense
to destroy the world. Is that a joke? Nope, I'm the anti
Christ. Yes, that is the way you're giggling and your thumb for an
accent. You can't even hold it together. You're gonna troll you again?
Giggle dummy. That wasn't even the original guy that came on? Don what's
up if you're gonna troll making your jokes good? That wasn't even funny.
Do you like my European accident? Come on, dude, can you hear
me? Okay? Cool? Sorry, I'm a little bit sick, so
forgetting Hey me too, man, that's why I'm eating cough drops. Oh
man, I'm just dying over here. But anyways, so I'm a cad
of human and Orthodox Church, have been for about a year and a half.
Hey, Jamie, did you hand me a coffee? Go ahead,
I'm listening. You've been a catechumen, and I know I'm getting stuck up
on some glow level stuff. But one thing I'm getting stuck up on is
kind of like this Marcianism train of thought, where you know, the Old
Testament God was, you know, an evil God, and then you know
vice versa in the New Testament. So for someone who not stupid, but
I am a slow boy when it comes to this, so I kind of
get caught up on some Yeah, I understand, I did a whole h
I did a whole three hour stream just on this topic. So I'm not
trying to bypass the questions. I'm happy to respond to specifics and summarize here.
But I am going to link this three hour talk that I did on
this topic because this is an issue that comes up a lot in Orthodox circles
because a lot of people struggle with the Old Testament or something like that,
and there's just sort of this assumption that, well, God was a lot
meaner in the Old Testament. But if you look at the New Testament,
it's all peace, love and hippie Jesus or something like that. But actually,
every principle that you think about God having in the Old Testament that characterized
him, like being a warrior, being involved in providentially sort of ordering historical
battles, you know, this kind of stuff, it's all continued in the
New Testament for the person of Christ. So in the Apocalypse, for example,
we see Christ as a conqueror who literally destroys his enemies. That's very
much the idea of present in the Old Testament. For example, in the
Book of Revelation, we also see the principle lex talionisked eye for an eye,
right when the martyrs are praying, they pray for God's justice and vengeance
upon those who persecue the Church on earth. So again that's eye for eye
principles in the Book of Revelation carried over into the New Testament. And I
mean, you can keep going through all kinds of things like the death penalty.
The death penalty is very clearly continued over from the Old Testament into the
New Testament. Paul and Romans thirteen makes it clear that the state has the
authority to put people to death. So and you know, people who disagree
with that just have a problem with the Bible itself. They want to have
their own ethic, they want to have pacifism, they want Marcianism to be
true. I mean, you could go to the very first apologetic work or
systematic theology after Justin Martyr. I mean, obviously Justin Marty's an Apologists,
but the first systematic theology in the history of the Church is Eronaeus is against
heresies and against heresies. Therein as is a giant section against marcian and he
makes the very arguments I'm making that the God of the Old Testament is identified
by Jesus in the Gospels multiple times over as being his father. And in
fact, when we go back and read Exodus, when we read Exodus three
and Exodus twenty three, we find out that it's Jesus that is the Angel
of the Lord that went before the Jews into the to the Promised Land.
So that means Jesus is the Ange of the Lord who went before them to
cleanse the promised Land. It's Jesus who's the Angel the Lord that appears to
Joshua before the battles. It's Jesus as the Angel of the Lord that appears
to the judges who go out and kill the enemies of God. So all
throughout the Old Testament you have the identification of Jesus as the being doing all
this. So the very idea that it's a different God in the New Testament
is absolutely counter to the New Testament's argumentation itself. In fact, all throughout
this is the key argument, by the way, that I make against the
Muslims, because over and no, and ohere this comes up because the Muslim
assumption is that there's some sort of different the Trinity and the deed of Christ
for a New Testament invention. And that's why it's so important to stress and
to demonstrate to the Muslims that no, this is all throughout the Old Testament,
throughout the Torah, right, And that's why it's such a powerful apologetic.
But most of this rests on people's ignorance of the Torah. People don't
know the Old Testament, they don't know the Torah, they don't know the
law, they don't know the prophets. And I really like those texts.
So for me, I'm very much into those texts. I've been into them
even when I was a Protestant, I was a Reconstructionist, and reconstructionism is
all about the Old Testament. So in God's providence, I guess it gave
me a love for the Old Testament. And I'm not even saying I'm like
I'm the master of the Old Testament. There's people who know it way better
than me. Sure, But the point is that the Old Testament very clearly
teaches Yahweh has his angel messenger who is also divine and his spirit. This
is like dozens of passages all throughout the Old Testament that have this structure,
and so therefore it's not a Unitarian theology. If it's not a Unitarian theology,
then when the New Testament appeals too. For example, John five through
John nine, Jesus says I was on Mount SINAI I'm the one that Moses
talked to. That means Jesus gave the law to Moses. I'm the one
who went before the Israelites. Moses wrote about me. Abraham believed in me.
That means Jesus is the one who went and eate with Abraham in Genesis.
So we see then that Martianism can only rest on certain presuppositions, like
the idea that there's a different deity that's presented in the Old Testament and a
different deity in the New Testament. Now, that's why Marcian is the first
person to draw up a canon of scripture. Do you know the first canon
in the history of the Church of the Bible is actually Marcians. And can
you imagine what Marcian's canon was? While it's a bunch of gospels sections and
he cut off like the synoptic Gospels. And the odd part is that I
think he left the Gospel of John, which doesn't make any sense because the
Gospel John is actually the one that most affirms the Old Testament. I mean
John five through nine is like literally the destruction of Martianism, and yet Marcian,
in his delusion included that. So but there's other by the way,
there's other reasons why Marcianism had the view that it did. Martianism is actually
based on abolute devine simplicity. All of the Rodagawis thesis, which most people
don't know, but that required God's goodness being smushed into his essence, and
that meant that there could only be one kind of goodness at all times,
according to Marcian, because of absolute divine simplicity, and so that meant that
there couldn't be In other words, he read it as if there was a
change in morals from the Old Testament to the New Testament, and since God
is absolutely simple goodness, there could never be a quote change in morals.
I'm not saying that God changes, and I'm not saying that there is a
change in morals. That was Marcian's reasoning on the basis of actually his view
of divine simplicity. So there's a lot of different errors involved in Marsianism,
and a lot of Protestants who converted to Orthodox, who become priests and pastor
excuse me, priests and teachers, they still retained a lot of their Marcianite
higher critical presuppositions. For example, I did a video six or seven years
ago about Father Stephen Freeman as an example of this. I'm not trying to
be mean or rude, but this is a fact, and I'm not calling
him out. I don't know if he still holds these views. I've never
talked to him, but the fact of the matter is that he consistently has
argued over on his blog for many many years at Ancient Faith Radio that the
Old Testament God is a different God than the New Testament God. And he
says, well, I learned all this in my Anglican academic career. You
know, nobody cares about your England academic career. That should not come into
orthodoxy. But that's the basis from which those people are arguing that it's a
different God in the Old Testament, the ones that are in the orthodoxers.
I just it's kind of crazy, like I wasn't a raised Protestant or anything
like that, but that that version of Christianity is so ingrained in my head,
in other people's heads, even though you know they weren't even raised like
that. It's just I don't know, it's just kind of there. And
then people think a certain way because you know, I get hung up with,
oh, well, you know this type of sacrifice and you know God
wanted him to kill that person, and it's just like it's hard to let
it go, even though I don't even know where it came from. Yeah,
I was raised Catholic, but even stiff well, but hard to let
what go because if when you get into actual text, it doesn't present a
different deity. Right, But then I guess my point is like my my
moral relativism. Oh well then yeah, that's the problem, right, you
got to let that go exactly. I mean, I appreciate the honesty,
though. One more quick question. Are you still doing cardivoor pretty much?
How do you? How are you able to? Uh? Yeah, because
the fasts are made for men, not men for the fast, right,
so you get a dispensation or you talk to your spiritual father, that's how.
And we've done many talks on that. Let's see David Reid. What's
the David Reid. M David Reid. Gotta ummute, man, Come on,
guys, gotta ummute as soon as I what's up? Jus. I
just had a quick question for you. I was listening in the Daniel hoku
Ka Chew de Bait and when he started asking about the incarnation and does that
constitute basically a change in the divine nature or did you you know he was
making some kind of critique like that kind of an ormy Muslim critique, and
your response was that it was that basically the hypostasis of the sun entered into
a new mode. And I was just curious what you meant by mode.
I've understood mode to mean like Michael Humor, to find substance. I've heard
him define a substance. He said, this is how he analytic philosophy generally
defines it. That No, that's a different way, right. Mode he
was saying a substance was a thing with basically properties, and a mode is
a particular instance of a substance. Well, so when we use a lot
of terminology for theology that is from the Patristic and medieval era, it's not
the same thing as the way that these terms are used in modern analytical philosophy.
So that's the first thing. For example, person or hypostasis is not
the same thing as the way that we think of person in the modern world
as just a guy over there. Right, person has to do with I'm
serious, I mean so so specifically to talk about Intristic and medieval philosophy,
the word mode motifers to the way a thing exists, or how a thing
exists in what way is that thing existing? Right? So, for example,
thoughts, what ontological status do thoughts have? Or numbers? How do
those exist? Well, numbers have a unique mode of existence that is not
material, so they exist in an abstract mode. It's the type or the
way that that thing exists. So when you talked about an instance, that
would just be a particular, that would just be an instantiation. So when
we talk about the Son, the Son existed from all eternity as the second
person in the Godhead, right, he's the logos. He is the eternally
begotten offspring of the Father, from all eternity, as the second person of
the Trinity. That's how he always existed, and he still exists as that.
But there's a change in that he stepped into a new way of being
that it didn't compromise his prior way of being, It didn't shed his divinity,
it didn't empty out his divinity. But if you look at the Pasad
in Philippians, when it talks about kinosis, it says that he willingly stepped
into our mode of being, and that means that he willingly chose to not
exercise all of the powers that he possesses. So, for example, in
some way, because God is above time and space in creation, the second
person of the Godhead, and not the Father and not the Spirit, were
able to enter into the mode of being that we possess. As humans.
So he became man, he became flesh. He the second person that God
had adopted and took on impersonal human nature. It couldn't be a personal human
nature because if it was, there would be two persons, because there's already
a divine person. That's an Astorianism, the idea that there's a dual subject
in Christ. So what he assumed was manhood or human nature, and the
divine person of the son is the person to that human nature that he assumed.
But he did step into a new mode of being without compromising his divinity
or his sonship. So what do we mean when we say that there was
a kenosis or something unique here? Well, the thing that the Muslims aren't
grasping is that God has the ability to be in time and space in a
unique way that doesn't compromise or isn't identical to his omnipresence. And we see
this, for example already in the Old Testament Theophanes. So that Theophanes are
all proofs of Orthodoxy as well as proofs of the incarnation, because they're unique
manifestations of God himself in time and space. This is where the essence Inergi
sinction comes in, because how is that possible if God's absolutely simple outside of
time and space. The manifestation is fully divine, but it's not equivalent to
his divine essence. So there's a personal presence of God in an energetic way
that still hides and still guards the unknowable essence of God. And so when
the Sun becomes incarnate, much like in the instances of him appearing in the
Old Testament Theophanies as the Angel of the Lord, when he becomes incarnate.
The difference here between the Old Testament Theophanies and the incarnation is that now he's
appearing in human nature, in a fully human body, will, mind,
and soul, not a human person, not a human hypostasis. So as
he's present in that mode, he willingly limited some of his attributes. Doesn't
mean that he lost his deity. It means he he exercises his energies as
he wills. Same principle with creation. God didn't have to create, He
willed to create. Stop spamming the chat, good grief, guys, Please
just just mute these people spamming. So just block these people spamming stuff,
all right, So let me last point here, So motive being just refers
to stepping into a new state, and that doesn't require that the previous state
that his substance itself underwent change. So he's not changing the existing nature.
He's adopting a new nature. So that's the difference here. And so it's
like the analogy that afthenations some of the Eastern fathers make is that imagine it's
like a man putting on a cloak. Right, putting on a cloak does
not change the existing human nature that put the cloak on, and so they
actually will. Athanasius likens the human nature to like a cloak. Doesn't mean
that the human nature is just a cloak and that it's like a that it's
not fully human. It's just making an analogy to help explain that the adding
of the new thing doesn't alter or change the previous nature. Because God was
never bound to actualize every one of his powers. God could have created a
universe without a moon. God could have created a universe without Thomas Aquinas right,
he has that potentiality, that power, but he didn't do that,
did he know? He created this universe. So God doesn't have to exercise
all of his powers at once. So when Jesus was president walking around in
a body in a new mode of being. The Son of God is present
in a new motive being as a man when he's walking around in Jerusalem.
He's uniquely present in Jerusalem in a way that he's not present in Capernaum or
in Sodom mcgamora. Right, So how is that though, because isn't the
omniscient. Yes, so both things are true. He's omniscient and present everywhere
in one mode via his omniscience, but there's a unique mode in presence that's
not identical to the omniscients. That's a special presence like that the Oftenes were.
Special presence is in Jerusalem. So both things are true at once.
And all the argument that you're talking about from like Muslims and people like that,
that's all based on dialectics. It's either or either he's present everywhere in
an absolute way or he's present nowhere. And by the way, Muslims don't
believe God is present in time space. Well, it's interesting because you'll hear
I hear these arguments most commonly among social trinitaries that are evangelicals. They kind
of make these same similar arguments, meaning you mean Muslims. Well, basically
this, this constitutes a change. It must constitute a change, because if
if the sun goes from not incarnate to incarnate, that's a change. That's
uh is now, Yeah, that's why the church father That's why I said
substantial change. So it just depends on what you mean by change. Yeah,
entering into an entering into a new mode of being is a kind of
change. It is not a substantial change. And that's the terminology that many
of the church fathers use. Right, he underwent uh, he became man
and yet underwent no change is the phraseology of Maximus, right, right,
And what constitute a substance substantial change a change to the essence or substance of
God. Substance is equivalent to essence. So if sorry, I'm just trying
to think about, like the again, the analogy of putting on the analogy
of putting on a coat. My human nature didn't change when I put on
a coat. I added a new nature. So some kind of change occurred,
but it wasn't a substantial change, right, Okay, okay, yeah,
as long as that's I see, Because maybe what's being targeted to is
largely the absolutely divine simplicity. Maybe is that why this is? Well,
it's part to deny that he could even be in time at all. Right,
that would be part of the argument, you. I mean a lot
of those those critiques rely on a reductionist view of God's properties or traits.
Then they'll they'll say that every property or trade is basically just God. But
no, we don't believe that. I mean, we don't just believe in
the essencenarious sinction. We also believe in a nature person distinction. Right,
So would that be a personal change? Is that? Is that appropriate to
say that the hypostatiss can change the divine hypati That is, they know they
don't change. I am God, and I do not change. There's none
like me. God himself says he does not go change. So what's changing
again? Do you understand things can change in different ways? Yeah, yeah,
but I'm asking what is changing? Is my question? The mode of
being? Okay, from not being incarnate to being incarnate. So who's what's
going undergoing the change? The second person that God had is adopting human nature,
taking on adding a new nature. Right, that doesn't change his essence.
I'm not saying essence. I'm saying person. Yeah, but when I
know that, but so hold on, it's him becoming incarnate still doesn't change
his personhood right in itself. Right, That's why we say that he underwent
no change. He is a reference to person. Person equals he, Right,
he underwent no change. When I put on a coat, do I
no longer become Jay because I have a coat on? Does my nature or
my person I'm not Jay anymore because I got a coat on? Yeah?
Yeah, okay, okay, I see, Like basically the bed substantial was
referring to both the person and the substance. Basically, like that's it doesn't
count as a like significant change. Well that would again, Yeah, I
mean, it just depends on how you define significant. Because it is significant
that he went from not being incarnate and from and what Philippians calls kenosis.
So he emptied himself in the sense of limiting and choosing not to exercise every
possible power that he could, right, I mean, for example, when
Jesus is going to one of the villages and he says that says that he
could not heal them there because of their lack of faith, is that because
he he didn't have omnipotence. No, it's because he willed to be in
a state where he would make his miracles contingent in that case upon their faith.
Right, So he willed to limit himself. That's what Philippians is talking
about in certain ways and in certain and then and in the exercising of certain
powers. For example, could could Jesus have destroyed the world when he was
walking around on on the planet if he wanted to? Sure? Okay,
so he he chose not to. He willed to limit the power of conflagration
at that time. Right. So that's what the meaning of the kenosis is,
and Philippians is that it's based on the essence center distinction. It's based
on God not being absolutely, strictly speaking, pure actuality in his essence.
So there is an essence center distinction which means that you can't collapse them in
the pure actuality doctrine of Thomas Aquinas. Okay, I'll off that point for
now. I'll look that's helpful, yes, sir, Yeah, great questions,
great questions. Thank you. I'm sorry, I thought you were done.
I didn't mean to boot you. Feel free to come back into the
quay if you want to. But really good questions, got too sub j
can you hear me? Hello afternoon, So very very quick question. I've
been lately in some low tier debates with some communists and people with materialist background,
and I was trying to demonstrate to them that even communism has some metaphysical
foundations. So what is the best way to show that secularism is not devoid
of metaphysics? But I don't want the long answer, just just you know,
one, two or three points that I could make. I could start
my argument with, like to show them that secularism, for example, is
it has metaphysical foundations and maybe that we can view it even as religion.
I show one great them uh one gate thing you did with Dion And yeah,
here's two easy things. Right. So the first first thing you can
point out is to ask them, you know, anytime that they state what
is the case. For example, a lot of a lot of atheists are
as seeming, a lot of communists will say that they believe in either dialectical
materialism or dialectical or historical materialism. Right, that's the two main metaphysical principles
of communism. And if you ask them like, well, those are statements
about you know this is basically metaphysics borrowed from Hegel. Every communist believes in
some Hegelian thing that they've adopted into, either historical materialism or dialectical materialism.
That's the two metaphysical principles of all communists that exist that I know of,
And those are metaphysical positions. So you simply have to ask them, how
do you know that all of reality is in historical uh flux working towards something
or a dialectical flux working towards something dia matt or histemat because those are metaphysical
claims. And if they won't admit, like with that idiot Hawes, that
those are metaphysical claims where they're making universal claims about what exists and what doesn't
exist, then you're dealing with a stupid person and there's nothing, there's nothing
you can do. And then the other thing I would say is another way
to approach this debate is the critique that I did last night or whatever it
was two nights ago of the debate between Alex O'Connor and Ben Shapiro. Because
every Communist who ends up saying that they believe in some form of dialectical materialism
needs to. If they believe in free will, then they are already in
the domain of metaphysics and they're gonna have to give an account of the will
and its freedom. Those are metaphysical. That's the domain of metaphysics. And
if they don't, if they want to admit that, then you're dealing with
stupid people that it's not worth wasting your time. But thank you. Yeah,
you're dealing with dishonest Bill. So the Kaiser wants to come back.
He's the guy I clicked earlier and we got the troll. But let's say
maybe i'll click the right person on stop. Definitely in James in a majority
position, there's a little lack always. How you doing, I'm doing good.
I was calling you and I had the conversation the other day about the
PAPC changing doctrine, and I was arguing that they never changed their doctrine because
it's always just been kissed the paper feet and what he said. I've been
thinking about that a lot lately, and I was about the certitude. And
then when you put politics up as one as one of the possible talking points,
it occurred to me that I was seeing himself like perhaps the only real
sertitude is really offered is political certitude, in the sense of when you look
at the liberation of Christian lance from Muslims obviously thought of an empire, the
majority of those people, the majority of those nations doing that, were Catholications.
And it seems to me that there is some merit to that argument,
but it still doesn't apply theologically at all, which should be the main domain
of the papacy. But even when you see the papacy going around the world,
go France, around the world, he mentioned religion early at all.
He just talked about politics all the time. So yeah, I mean this
is this is an old critique that when the papacy took on this you know
Dictatus Pope, Gregorian reform era, you know, Franco Papal and then Borgia
Papal when they became a geopolitical world power, that this really enmessed them in
putting politics first. And so this is why we get, you know,
in the last century, so much CIA interaction with the papacy throughout the Cold
War. I mean John Paul was meeting with Kissinger, and you know Colby
and excuse mean not Colby, the other one. I always get this,
those two mixed up the other c the trad cat CIA had during Reagan era,
right John Paul was meeting with these people all the time because it was
essentially a geopolitical power, and religion and theology, I would argue, became
second way long ago. I think I'd agree with that. I think that's
that was just something that came to my mind as a way to kind of
explain because what do people always bring up is the earthly aspects of the religion.
Oh, it's successful in this kindom appealing to the masses of people whatever
they want to believe, doesn't matter when the theology is relevant. But I
don't really think the papacy has ever done that or really focused on that aspect
of its religion. I mean, it's most of the main accomplishments. You
find that the Papacy are almost all political. I guess the other thing I
did, I'm just done. I agree it on that one. The other
thing I was going to bring up is I've been kind of there's a big
movement obviously now to almost like feel like recontextualized Protestantism. I think there's deeply
conservative all it is. Hold on, Okay, I found it all right.
So, so, yeah, you were talking about the papacy being I'm
just catching the chat up on. Basically, he was making the point that
the papacy is kind of a committed geopolitical institution and that's led to a lot
of corruption and basically the only accomplishments that they've ever had in the last a
few centuries, over in the last thousand years has largely been a lot of
geopolitical accomplishments. Yes, that's true. And then you were saying, well,
why are so many Protestants whose denominations are only five or ten years old
they claim to having this quote traditional idea of morality, And I was saying,
well, the Protestants are just ignorant for the most part, but there's
also NGO and foundation and government influence in Protestant churches as well. And this
is a lot bigger than people think. I think this is really and overlooked.
Thekraine, the Ukraine to Bakla has been a big window into how the
deep state, how the State Department, how the CIA, how the Jesuits
and all these entities are really instrumental in influencing what's happening in that sphere.
Religiously for the behests of Uncle Sam and the Anglo American establishment. So in
the same way, I think that if you go back to like ten fifteen
years ago, remember the emergent Church movement was I went, this is several
years ago, but I remember reading about, well, who's behind this,
like who decided? Who decided that there's just suddenly this emergent church in the
present world, out of nowhere, And that was all dreamt up and created
by think tanks and social engineering groups. So you bet the what should we
call it, sort of like a it's not even a shadow government because they're
not hidden. It's in the public, right, go ahead. Absolutely,
They're not even in that. They're pretty blatant with their manipulations openly at this
point. I mean, the Ukrainian government is throwing Orthodox priests into gulags and
God doing God knows what to them right openly and being and being praised by
Protestants and Catholics and also in some Orthodox people as well. It's rather insane.
Sure, yeah, I mean, hasn't the state always wanted to control
the church? Absolutely? I mean this is literally the whole history of the
iconic asm controversy is the state trying to control the church. All right,
let's see who's the next playoff? What's up? Playoff? Jamie Russell,
Christian Middle Earth. Either you come to the VC and stop spamming the chat,
or you're gonna be booted. So you're not the first person in the
history of the world to deal with this metaphysical problem has been dealt with for
too thousand years in the history of the church. So either come on and
chat or just leave playoff. What's up dude? Hey man, can you
hear me? Okay, yes, sir? Best thing? Can you hear
me? Yes? Oh, okay, good deal. Man. Hey,
I just wanted to hop on here. I've been following you for probably a
better part of a year now, love all your commentary and all that stuff.
And so anyway, I'm a recent Catholic convert myself. I was a
Protestant for twenty eight years, you know, one of those I guess non
denominational types, and love hearing you talk about you know, just religion from
many different aspects. But I was curious to get some commentary from you on
where you think the source of misrepresentation of the Catholic Church comes from, and
just so I'm clear, I'm not coming from an angle that the Catholic Church
is this two thousand year old perfect being that is now ever, had you
know any mistakes or anything like that, fully aware, there's some things that
go on that are not great, as in a lot of places. But
to me, there seems to be a deep seated misrepresentation that even kids from
a very early age are being taught things that are just plain not true about
the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Church. And so we'd love to
get your thoughts on that well. I mean, I guess it's a combination
of different things, so it wouldn't be like one simple answer as to why.
I mean, does the mainstream media or the education system sometimes lie about
the Roman Catholic Church. Sure, but that doesn't mean that that vindicates the
Roman Catholic Church because it's opposed by the mainstream media, right, I mean,
for example, mainstream media of mainstream education, they oppose a lot of
fundamentalist Protestant church churches and sex. Does that make the Protestant churches in Sex
true because the lefties and people like that oppose them. No, it has
nothing to do with whether it's true or false. Right, So you can't
take things that are indicators, in other words, the truth. You could
say the true faith will be persecuted, but the fact that there's persecution going
on doesn't mean that necessarily have the true faith. That's just one of the
things that will happen in the true faith. It doesn't automatically become an indicator
of the true faith because there's every group's persecuted somewhere. Right. Doesn't the
Chinese government persecute certain dissidents or does that make the dissident group true because the
Chinese government persecutes or whatnot. That's a fallacy, right, So I think
that that does occur, like where you have people in the mainstream media that
they don't know anything about theology, or in mainstream academia or whatever. They
don't really care about the theology. They just see the Roman Catholic Church as
this institution that symbolizes or represents the Bible and Christianity and all of it's supposed
to you know, colonizing or whatever. Their nonsense is based on it.
So that's part of it. But also a part of it is that that
maybe they legitimately are right that the Roman Catholic Church and the institution of the
papacy became a giant organized crime structure that fosters and funds all kinds of nonsense,
and that their criticisms are correct. I mean, people are freaking out
about Francis. It's like all the stuff has already been in the papacy for
a long time. So what are you talking about. Francis just making stuff
more public. Yeah, I'd have to agree on the Francis criticism. I
don't think he's brought anything new to the table that if you followed any of
the other popes and what they kind of preached, you know, is materially
different. I think where I was going with it, though, is more
so on the belief systems versus you know, Catholics and Protestants. It seems
like that there's just like almost a boot camp out there that's anti Catholic and
we're going to teach you things that are just you know, not true about
the church to almost get you in our church. And my experience in Catholicism
has been and again this is just my experience. We don't really care about
what you're doing at your church. Here's what we do, here's why we
think it's correct. You know, we're not here to really we'll talk and
we'll have discussion, but we're not here to disprove what you're doing or tear
you down or anything like that. And that was a really positive aspect that
kind of drew me in. All right, well man, that might have
just been your local experience of Catholicism. So, I mean, Roman Catholicism
is what you want to make it, and it's all over the place.
I mean Roman Catholicism at the time of urban The second was we need to
call a military crusade to fight Islam. Roman Catholicism, according to Benedict and
Francis, is that you can go pray in the mosques with the Muslims towards
Mecca. So you tell me which of those is the real Roman Catholicism.
Yeah. I don't know enough about the history to comment one way or another.
I think it's uh, you know, history has a has a tendency
of changing people's minds. And then to your the first part of your comment
just there. You know, from what I do know, I think there
was some Christian persecution by you know, Islamic people back then, and maybe
that's why there was some no, I agree. I agree with that,
but that that's not the point. The point is not can you give a
justification for the Crusades. The point is that the papacy now goes in and
prays towards Mecca in Moss with other Muslims, right because Christians are still being
persecuted today. And you know, no, no, no, do you
not know that. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but you
understand that that's a fundamental rejection of the Christian faith that Christians are No.
Come on, man, I'm I'm trying really hard not to get mad to
pray in a moss towards Mecca. Okay, I see what you're saying.
Gotcha, Okay, gotcha. I was jumping ahead a few steps. Yeah,
I would agree with your statement. Okay, and that works. How
How does that make sense? I don't think it does. Well. That
might be a source of why people are mad at the Roman Catholic Church legitimately.
So maybe it's not all one side of the Oh, it's all the
libtards or lying and they're creating Protestant groups to boot camps to come after Catholics.
Maybe the Roman Catholic Church is doing things that legitimize a lot of the
criticism, and that doesn't make the Protestant goobers correct. Yeah, I don't
think it vindicates one side or the other. So I mean, look,
it can't be true in nineteen twenty eight that it's a postasy to pray in
other groups meetings, right, and then now it's the work of the Holy
Spirit. Hello, sorry about that, I got a call. Look,
how can it be true in nineteen twenty eight that it's apostasy to pray with
other faiths and other religions together in a liturgical setting, and by the nineteen
sixties and up until now it's now the work of the Holy Spirit to do
the very thing that was apostle. How can that be true? It's a
fair criticism, not a criticism. It's a contradiction. The only I guess
parallel I could draw to it. Again, this is me only being Catholic
for about a year now. Is you know before Vatican two there were no
masses conducted in anything but Latin, And you know that's a fundamental part of
the faith that changed. And so I'm not saying that that means, oh,
everything can change and everything is subject to change, but that's the only
frame of reference I would have on the first of all, the language that
the liturgy is celebrated in is not a fundamental of the faith that's unchanging.
Well, unless you wanted to argue that Pious the Fifth at the time of
Trent argued that you could never change the Latin Mass. But I mean,
from an Orthodox perspective, it's always supposed to be in the vernacular. I
mean, but the point is that the Roman Catholic Church is unchanging in faith
and morals, and praying together with others and apostle heretics heretical groups is a
moral failure that puts you outside of the Roman Callolic Church and your canon law.
That's an action of apostasy that removes you from the body of the Church.
So it's not just saying that any kind of change. We're talking about
changes in morals. For example, the death penalty was always seen as a
part of natural justice in the traditional Roman Catholic moral theology, and Francis says,
we don't do it anymore. It's changed. So we're not just talking
about any kinds of changes at all. Everybody will admit there are some kinds
of changes. We're talking about fundamental moral natural law changes and changes that now
were apot Something can't be apostasy from the faith in nineteen twenty eight and be
morally good. Now, how could apostasy flip to be good? Right?
Yep, I'm definitely going to dig into that more. Yeah, read more
Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius the eleventh from nineteen twenty eight. So I'm not
trying to be mean. Just when you make these points. If I feel
like somebody is going off into some other thing and ignoring what is the point,
got to call them back to it. And that's just always how we
are not being mean to you. Man, I'm meeting my cough drops.
You gotta when you go down to the bottom of the Q, the Q,
the quay, whatever, and you got the people with no with no
profile picture, that's like usually the most crazy uh trollers. So Coco Ben
looks like he's got no profile. Pick weird names. I feel like I
got a troll. We need a little troll to break the to break the
spell here what I say? What did I say? I can go?
Am? I not good at spot in the trolls. He's on here playing
his trying to learn he's trying to trying to learn black Saba the riffs,
right, The dude wouldn't be so funny if like I got it in the
stream, Like what if I was practicing base or like what if I was
practicing like my blackstop of the risks? We got him do anytime it's the
name at the very bottom with no profile, picture and just a bunch of
gibberish. It's going to be a troll called it. Look, we got
another one too. Let's save this a troll leth what's up, jay?
I'm not a troll. I know I don't have a profile. Pick what's
up now? Yeah, So I left Islam pretty recently. I'm going through
catechism in the Orthodox Church. I just had a like a simple question.
I'ven't gotten the answers about it. Okay, So about like self defense in
times of war? What is the Orthodox Churches standing on, Like if you
were to go serve in the army to defending country. Yeah, the traditional
stance is outlined in the recent Russian Church statement on the Relationships of Church and
State and social teaching. And you absolutely have a right and a duty to
defend your homeland. And it's a virtuous action of love to do so,
and that would include defending your family and anybody else who says otherwise is lying
or they are subverters. Okay, yeah, no, and that makes sense
because you know, personally so like my mom is a Protestant Christian, but
she interprets where Jesus says those who fight by the sword shall die by the
sword. I'm probably butchering that, but yeah, that's talking about people who
want to live a criminal lifestyle. I'm talking about people like you know,
mobsters who want to commit themselves to living a gang lifestyle. And the point
is that live by the sword, die by the sword, all right.
It's not talking about whether it's always wrong to be a soldier. In fact,
this debate came up at the time of Nicea because there were errant Christians
in the first three centuries who were trying to tell people that you couldn't be
saved if you've been in a military or if you were in the Roman military.
And the Council of Nicee you said in the Canons, there's nothing inherently
wrong with being in the military if you're a soldier, and so there's nothing
inherently wrong with any of that, and it's Marcianism and people misunderstanding and not
putting what Jesus is saying into context with everything else he says, because in
another verse he tells him to go grab a sword, sell your quotes him,
buy a sword. So and I was confused about that too, and
I was like, that doesn't make any sense. That was to fulfill the
prophecy. Okay, yeah, because you know, people like to just I
don't know, from the outside, it looks like Christianity is like a pacifistic
religion. This is how I personally I used to interpret it. Yeah,
And it's a legitimate criticism because in the last two three centuries, you know,
Protestism is this degenerating, devolving thing that does turn into pacifism. And
it's a legitimate criticism because as we were arguing earlier with the Marcianite guy or
the guy attempt to mark, like Marcianism is the same pacifist emasculating tendency,
right, And so I don't know where people just assume that that's what Christianity
is all about. Not knowing history, not knowing the Old Testament, and
if you look at the history of the Church, there have been countless warrior
saints, countless kings who were saints who went to battle, countless there were
entire brigades of soldiers in the Businessing Empire named after different saints. And so
people are just lying because a lot of people want to turn the Church into
a tool for ngeo and geopolitical powers. And that's why people like out of
Fordom and all the Liby idiots they push pacifism and skittles. It all goes
together because they want to change Christianity, want to change the Church into what
they want it to be as a tool of the state department, as a
tool. And it's not an accident that Francis did the exact same thing to
say that death penalty is no longer viable. Well, it's contrary to the
Gospel. Again, Roman Catholics, clear as they change. It's not lying
when you said there's no changes. Francis says that that's always against the gospel.
Yeah, go ahead, Yeah, yeah, that's fascinating man. Uh.
And it's good to know. I mean, when I first started coming
into Orthodoxy learning about the church, because personally, when I used to go
back and forth with my mom, I thought I don't know if I'll ever
become like a Protestant, like you know, they stand in church and you
know, it's it's kind of like a concert and then the preacher kind of
gives like a you know, like a I don't know, it's just nothing
felt religious or traditional. So but yeah, that means, yeah, it's
a it's a it's a it's a feel good self help lecture is basically what
Yeah, yeah, well, I'm glad to hear that you left Islam,
and that's good to hear. Praise go glad you're an Orthodox church. Yeah,
you just have to watch out because uh, you know, there are
unfortunately, you know, sections of the Orthodox world that are liberal too,
and they're going to try to tell you that. I mean, I've heard
all kinds of stories. I've myself seen people tell me in the Orthodox churches
at times the old good is different good. I was told that in two
thousand and seven is part of the reason I didn't become Orthodox. So it's
so fundamentally stupid, and that they're telling me that Marcianism is the true Orthodox
position. I'm like, dude, I've read against heresies. I read it
back in the two thousands I know there's a giant section refuting Marcianism and you
guys Orthodox people, oh we fall we love her and I so we were
as you don't love her, an as you're a liar. You're contradicting a
giant section of the book which says Marcian is a heretic. Meanwhile, you're
telling me there's a Old Testament God's a different God, Josh, Hey,
Jay, I was just wondering on your website, your Orthodoxy study, but
isn't connected for a hyperleink. I was wondering if you could fix it or
suggest one. Yeah, are you talking about in the book section or on
the main page. He's not on the main page anymore. It's on your
book section. It should go to Amazon. Does it not go to Amazon
because that was the only place you could get it? No, I it
just says the link's broken. Okay, well I'll try to fix that.
Anything else? Uh? Yeah, I was wondering if you have a thing
for a book of Enoch What do you mean a thing like I have a
love? Like? Am I secretly attracted to it to have a thing for
it? No? Like like just something to like learn more about it,
like a suggestion. I haven't gone into depth on it. I mean,
Jamie did a podcast on it, but they were just kind of looking at
the contents of it. But I mean, I did a podcast years ago
about Nephelim and all that. So, but I don't really have I don't
really have any anything specific to the Book of Ennich though, good question there.
Maybe I should do it. I should do a thing on the Book
of Ennic eventually. Hey, Jamie, could you made me one more coffee?
Thank you? Shout out to everybody on Papal Christmas Eve. By the
way, I've just been joking controlling all these the spurgs in my chat are
are trying to correct every little thing like this is this is this technically is
blah blah blah blah, and I'm like, I'm just joking, man,
It's just jokes, okay. And yes, I know that there are Orthodox
churches on the Western calendar. Yeah, it's a joke. Man. We
got a lot of people in line. But that's like I got a lot
of coffe drops. So let's see Austin. Now, I gotta pick a
name that sounds like they're ready to talk smack beyond polarity. Then that's that
sounds like I do. That's ready to set you straight on philosophy. Yes,
sir, all right, thanks for the opportunity to chat about this stuff,
because it's very interesting. I like to do a lot of research and
think about it. Things like this, Yeah, bout Marcian. It's funny
to consider whether or not, you know, God is consistent through the Old
in the New Testament. It's a it's an interesting question, and you know,
I would like to I like to remember that the part where you know,
Jesus is talking to a bunch of people and then there's these kids that
come and he looks at the kids and they're like, no, get away,
and the kid goes, you're you're ugly, and then he like summons
these bears and the bears slaughter the children, talking about that's not Jesus,
that's I'm gonna Liijah. Right. Oh yeah, that's right, that's right.
That would be silly if if Jesus, instead of saying let the children
come, had him slaughtered. Oh oh, he put a trap on me,
right, because he think have you looked at any of the extra Jesus
of that passage. I've I've looked at a lot of the scriptures, and
but I I just want to talk to you without going through you know,
theological lingo, just like rational and reals and like how do you you're Orthodox?
Kind of Okay? Who for you has authority on truth? Like where
do you get your truth from? Ultimately it would be divine revelation, So
that would be the totality of the depositive faith committed to scriptures and to the
tradition of the church. Okay, but you're you're making a lot of critiques
about the church, right, about the Roman Catholic Church, about the Orthodox
Church. So sure, but how does that that that doesn't negate the position.
Well, I'm just trying to understand how you come to your conclusions.
Like, if I am going to be alive with truth, should I just
like follow everything that you believe. No, you follow whether the arguments are
solid or not. Right, So you're confusing me with the arguments. So
no, it's not about following me. It's who has the better argument.
Okay, So that's it's more about like us and our logic and reason rather
than the scriptures and the tradition. Well, I don't believe that the logic
and reasoning is out of accord with scriptures. I think that the scriptures are
I think divine revelation is itself the basis and the grounding for how we can
have logic and reasoning at all. Okay, but you you also were critiking
people that take the Bible as like the foundation is it? Do you believe
that it's No, I was critiking people that believe the Bible alone is a
foundation. That's the Protestant you Okay, I got you. So it's the
tradition, so they get both. How many popes like, where did it
go off the rails in your opinion? Well, I mean the Orthodox Church
dates the schism to in fifty four officially, but the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically
teaches error at the counts of Lions in twelve seventy four. Okay, So
in that case, I mean back back then, before that that riff.
Do you think that everything that the church was doing was good and that we
should go back to that? Well, you say everything that the church was
doing because the church is a lot of people, So everybody in the church
is I mean, people individually make mistakes, but we don't I'm not talking
about individually. I mean just like the church you said everything and everybody.
So well, let me just let me tell you what I mean. I
mean the church, what they espouse, the higher the head of the church.
But the doctrine was, well, we're not pope, so we don't
have a head of the church. I'm not asking, I'm not saying you're
the head of the church. I'm just saying, no, we don't believe
that there's heads of the church. There's not a we're not papists. So
you're saying what the head of the church does is bad and there is no
head of the church. Okay, what's the difference in the rift? What
is the main rift about the role of the pope and the doctrine of the
philioque? Okay, so what went wrong? In your opinion? The papacy
became lustful for worldly power, and over many centuries conceded more and more to
grasping at worldly power, and by eventually, say eleven twelfth century, the
Gregorian reforms, they pretty much proclaimed themselves to be god emperors. If you
look at something like Dictatus pape in twelve seventy four. So that's I think
the root of it is pride and grasping for geopolitical power. Fair enough,
And you mentioned earlier capital punishment, and if I recall correctly, the church
was burning a lot of people. Do you think that was a good thing?
Yeah, So you're talking about the Spanish Inquisition, which burned a couple
thousand people in the Midy in the late Middle Ages in the West, because
that didn't happen in the Orthodize Church. Okay, So before ten hundred they
didn't burn anybody in the stake No, okay? Interesting, And so your
authority comes from different? Where does your authority come from? So you've asked
me about my position? What's your position? Yeah, it's it's evolved over
time, basically. I The first thing that kind of like woke me up
spiritually, I would say, was jesus teachings right the gospels m hmm.
And one of the things that repeated throughout, you know, is the love
of the truth. And that always resonated with me. So what about when
Jesus identifies what about when Jesus identifies himself as the one who's the God of
the Old Testament? How does that fit with how does that fit with your
argument earlier about elishaw, which you mixed up with Jesus. Well, tell
me where he says that in which gospel and which So you're spiritually awakened by
the teachings of Christ, but you're not aware of any places in the gospels
where he identifies himself as the God of the oldest. I want to hear
your argument. I'm familiar. I just don't know, like where you stand
believe? Okay, John five through nine he identifies himself as the God at
Mount sign I talking to Moses, and as the God of Abraham who ate
with him. Okay, So well, I don't take every scripture and every
word is in errant, right, So it's ad hoc. It's the places
that you don't like you throw out that's called ad hoc. Right. Well,
I mean, yeah, yeah, that's right, it's ad hoc.
Right. So I like that you admit you're at hoc. No, I
cher everybody cheering pats your cherry pick? How did I? I don't.
I don't think everybody I don't. But you're just asserting that what's your proof
that everyone cherry picks? Where did I cherry pick? If you're going to
give a sermon, you're going to choose scriptures. That's not the same thing
as cherry picking. Do you know what you're talking about, what you're going
to talk about and which that's not the same thing as cherry picking. Inconsistently
to ad hoc create a position, Those are two different things. Look again,
I'm telling you my position. My loyalty is to the truth. Okay,
what is the truth? And as you said, it's ad hoc picking
the scriptures you like and don't like. That's not truth. It's outside of
you and me and our thoughts. Okay, what is it? God?
It is God? Your truth is God? Okay? How do you know
that it's God and not your delusion? That's a great question. Is something
that we're all aspiring towards and we're working on. Okay, So how do
we how do we judge between so between my position and your position? How
do we judge between what's true and what's false? Which gospels were written?
I don't think you have any idea at all what you're talking about at all,
Like literally no idea what you're talking about? Which gospel was written?
Last? What scholars are you relying on for the dating? Okay, you
don't know. It's John and I know what scholars? I don't know how
you know that you're saying that, how do you know that? I know
what scholarship says about the datings of the gospels, right, I know that
they think John is the last right, So do you think it is or
not? I don't even think it's relevant to this question, because that has
nothing to do with whether you know it's true or false and how you know
which things to choose. That's the question I'm asking an epistemic question. Yeah,
and I'm trying to elaborate on why. Okay, but you're relying on
things that don't answer that. You're saying, well, the dating of the
Gospel? What does the dating of it have to do with how you know
which parts are true and false? What's the epistemic principle? Here's the logic
on it, right, let me elaborate. You have four Gospels written at
different times most credible scholars. I asked you an epistemic question. No,
you're not. I don't think you even understand what that is. You're just
telling me questions that don't answer the You're answering with things that don't answer the
epistemic question. You don't know what I'm answering. It's not an answer,
because I can already tell where you're going. You're talking about most scholars.
That's when you cite most scholars as your next sentence, who's begging the qu
you understand what begging? The question is? How do you know you've chosen
the right scholars? Yeah? How do you know? That's a two quoque
way. I'm asking you the questions I already answered, So fallacy, fallacy?
Can you stop with the fallacies? I what is the episody? I
know? And I'm asking a specific question about epistemic principle as to how you
know what you're choosing? What is that? And you said the scholars that
are reliable begs, that's not an epistemic question. So I can just you
understand. I can just say the scholars that I like? Does it?
Would you accept that? Hey? Logic and reason? That's what you do
too? You think you think I just sit here and say logic and reason.
So the response is just to say logic and reason. Wait, that's
what you said, Oh my gosh, are you serious? What can we
help you in some way? Like? Is there a facility nearby that we
could help you to? Do you even understand the questions what do you know
what an epistemic question is? What is that? What is the principle of
believing what is true? Well, it's right. The principle as to how
we would know western and false correct correct? Being very competitive, it's called
a debate stream. What is the what is the first word in the sind?
Well, I'm not upset. I'm not upset. I just put it.
I don't put up with stupid answers. Yeah, because you tried to
trap me with your first question about Elisha, Right, you think it's funny.
So here you're giggling. You can't answer a basic question. You're over
here giggling. Now you're trying to act like you're all primed questions. You
didn't answer anything. You just stated that we rely on certain scholars. That's
begging the question. Saying certain scholars is not an epistemic principle. It's connected
with using logic and reason. How do you know you're using the right logic
and reasoning. I'll answer if finish, you just keep staying go, okay,
so there are I mean, yeah, so you exactly that's very childishaw
you Yeah, because I don't put up with your arrogant condescending gnostic bull crap.
Dude, I'm asking you a question. The gospels all written. My
question was, what's your epistemic principle? Has not been answered? You're asking
me a question. Okay, so yeah, you're not a very good debater.
I'm not a good debater, right so, you who has never debated
anybody. I've debated the top people in the world. I'm not a good
debater. You don't even know what you're debating. You're lost, you're flustered.
I'm trying to help you out, but you think I'm just being mean.
You're so arrogant that you can't understand. What's that root here? What's
that question? Do you understand that? Do you see that? What's your
epistemic principle? What's your epistemic principle? Don't interrupt me and I'll tell you
what's your epistemic principles. If you don't answer, I'm gonna boot you because
I'm asking you this about twenty times. What's the epistemic principle? What's the
epistemic principle? If you keep bitching, I'm gonna boot you all. This
is a time waste, this is filibustering. What's the epistemic principle? What
is it? It's like you said, logic and reason Just saying logic and
reasoning is not a justification exactly. This is what you get with the idiocy.
This is what gnosticism gives you, idiocy. Next up and merely this
sounds like a treasure. Hi. Hello there, Yeah, oh my goodness.
Happy Christmas to everyone. Although this is a partisan festivity that I'm not
agree with, but anyway, it's just for say hello to everyone. I
want to take a point, which is I think the most important. Look,
it's very simple. Is there golden rule that Jesus Christ show us with
his actions? By the fruit you will know them. Jesus Christ was there
all around telling the truth, going in and out of prison because he was
a leader of anarchists that will not believe in any power. You are totally
off, no idea what you're talking about. You're completely listen to me.
Listen to me. Wait, wait a meaning, No, I'm not going
to listen to you. What are you talking about? Jesus is an anarchist?
What are you talking about? Jesus Christ? You've never read the gospels?
What are you talking He's not an anarchist. I read everything, You've
read everything. Yes, I was kidnapped and I was raped with nine years
old, and I sought for God with nine years old. I know what
trauma is moving on. It's almost like that's why I've agreed to just accept
the mental illness of all of this, because we know we're not going to
get an actual debate, so we might as well just have the mentally ill
people just saying just gibberish. The gnostics just flustering and giggling and yelling.
Let's see. And I'm trying to choose the craziest looking It's working so far,
Like I'm trying to choose, like looking at the profile, like,
all right, that's going to be a Gnostic goober. Let's see, Let's
pick another. What's the most goofy looking something? Over here? Here's another
pictureless profile. These are always the best, can you hear me? Yes,
sir, Hello Jay, I'm a really big fan of you. I
just, first of all, excuse me if I sound a little bit off,
but I'm a little bit tipsy because I just got back from a family
m like dinner because it's Christmas Eve even all, so I just want to
well, First of all, I just want to say that I'm a Roman
Catholic, and I just want to tell you that I agree with a lot
of what you say when it comes to Roman Catholicism. I feel like when
it comes to our faith in particular, I think I think Vatican too.
It's my whole thing with Vatican two is that I think it was just a
complete another like it wasn't even part of the church. Like I think it
was just a experiment done by elites. It's not even it's not a part
of the church, even though it was confirmed by the Pope for the entire
church with full Apisolic authority on faith and morals. Sure, but it's not
part of the church. Yeah, exactly, Sure, good job. That's
why tradcats have to drink to cope. So moving on, I want to
remind you guys that we have a mini sponsor here. Why is this not
working? You got me to I'm sassy today. I'm sorry, I'm sassy.
I don't know what you want from me. I said I was gonna
be humble Protestant pastor, telling you everything you wanted to hear. But I've
turned into a mean man again. I tried within how long have we been
going? Within one hour, I got mean, within one hour of gnostic
nonsense, gibbering, flustered incoherence, and then we had a drunk foreign whatever
she was woman yelling at me that Jesus is an anarchist. I'm immediately a
mean man. So I guess it's just time to give up the Year of
Love twenty twenty four. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. I'm gonna
keep striving guys to listen. People who are always fussing about what I do,
like they don't know what it's like to have an actual debate. And
the reason that people think I'm interrupting people, they think that I'm being mean,
or that I just don't want to answer their questions, or I'm scared
to let them have a chance to answer. And it's none of that at
all. It's because when I ask a person a question in an exchange.
Now you notice in that exchange, I let him ask me about five questions
about my views, right, and I answered all of his views or all
of his questions. Then I asked him like one or two questions right,
And when he started to answer, he was immediately going to an assertion a
claim that doesn't answer and avoids the question I'm asking. So, if I'm
asking for an epistemic principle and he says, based on the scholars that are
reliable that I know that's not an epistemic principle, or if he thinks it
is, it's very easy to refute. Do you understand? And I when
I ask him, what do you think an episomic principle is? And he
says, well, it's like logic and reason. Like you say, yeah,
but now you're gonna have to give an account for logic and reasoning.
It doesn't You can't just say, oh, I appeal to logic and reason,
like there's some dudes over there that helped me out. Like I'm in
the middle of the debate and I'm over here, like, hey, hey,
logic, come over here, dude, bring your friend reason. Tell
me what the answer is. Oh, my appeal is to my buddy's logic
and reason. The rap duo logic good reason. Right. You can't just
say logic, how's to give? You have to give an account good grief.
By the way, there's actually a really good Extrajesus of the Bearer's passage
in James Jordan's book where he covers the fact that the word that's used there
is not infants, right, It's like it's like forty infants. We're just
rolling around the streets of Jerusalem, and Elijah was over there like just calling
out bears to mall infants. The word is like young youth, gang like
teens, troubled, evil teens. And to mock a person who's a known
representative and voice of God is to mock God himself. So we're basically we're
talking about the sharks and the jets here dissing God prophet, and the bear
comes out and destroys the evil teens, not a bunch of babies goo goo
ga gay crawling through the streets of Jerusalem. And then the prophet is out
of nowhere. Bear get them. That's so stupid. There are a bunch
of young punks, dude. But he that wasn't even gonna go. Yeah,
it wasn't even go. And I go there. I mean that was
like we are speaking different languages. I think, like because when we when
I talk about what it like when we ask people for a justification for their
beliefs, for their principles, like they have they still have no idea what
we're talking about. By the way, if you want to support us,
we have a new mini sponsor here with Lower Coffee. This is an organic
coffee company and you can purchase Lore right there. Go check out their stuff,
use the promo code. Actually, I think you just use that affiliate
link right there, and you support also FDA as well if you would like
to get some coffee. Good grief. So again, people don't People don't
even know what debate is. They have no idea how it works, how
it functions, and they literally think when I'm calling people back from trying to
use red herrings, that it's all just tricks and tactics and I'm being mean,
man, it's just super stupid, like you really. So let's say
that we're playing chess, and let's say that you guys are watching me play
chess with somebody online. It's a live stream of a chess match, and
I'm over here doing chess things, and then the other person comes and says,
oh, here's my checker piece, and I'm going to knock over your
king with my checker piece. I win. What would you all think about
that? You would think it's ridiculous it's an invalid move. Checker pieces don't
work in this game. That's a violation of the rules of this game.
Likewise, debate functions on rules. You don't just make them up. They're
not arbitrary. You can't pick and choose. Well, we all pick and
choose. I mean, like he's confused. Picking and choosing is not the
same thing as picking verses to talk about. I mean, it was just
like unbelievable. But yeah, so again, why why you not debate people
who literally have absolutely no knowledge. It's like you have no knowledge of what
you're talking about people in the chat. It was ridiculous. I mean,
you don't know what you don't know. That's what I'm trying to convey to
you. And you just want to sit there and giggle like you think,
like you think you're winning or getting something over on me or something. It's
it's not harming me, dude, it's harming you. I want you guys
to call in that are fussing in the chat. Just call in. It's
an open forum. It's his golden opportunities here. Let's see Jean Sant JJ
page. Uh. Oh, anybody that's got an old eighteen hundreds looking dude
in their profile. We know that's going to be trouble. You gotta I'm
mute, man, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. What did you
say? I'm mute. What's what's on your mind? Interesting? So,
Jay, I'm not really familiar with you. I'm I just kind of stumbled
upon this space. I was interested. What is your what is your view
on God or what is your religion? So to speak? Orthodox Christian?
I believe God is a trinity and I affirm the traditional Orthodox Catholic view.
What about you? I am inquiring into Catholicism right now. I'm not Catholic,
but I tend Mass regularly. What what would make you choose Roman Catholicism.
Well, I'm just kind of inquiry into it right now. I do
believe that the pope and the structure of the church is like descendant from the
early Church fathers. What would what would you say in response to someone who
believes that, like, why would someone choose Eastern Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy rather than
I would say that the post second millennium papal superstructure that we see in documents
like Dictatus Pope in ten seventy four or absolutely nothing like the way the church
functioned in the first thousand years, and so it is categorically false that the
papacy exemplifies the Christianity the first thousand years. I would say that there are
numerous contradictions and change and dogma that also proved the papacy to be a fallacious,
ridiculous position. And second lastly, the last several years of Francis has
only borne this out one thousand fold. Interesting, thank you for that.
I'm not really a theologian. I don't have anything to argue for, so
you can send me back down to listeners. But Merry Christmas, you two,
and I'm not trying to be mean to you. Have you heard of
Dick Tatus Pape as an example, No, I have not, so just
real quick and I've got it pulled up on the screen. Here. This
is the Pope Gregory the seventh. He's the famous pope the time of the
Gregorian Reforms, and he listed out these what he called the dictates that were
entered into his register in ten seventy five, and it continued to be there
for many decades later. And actually the pope after Gregory, I forget which
one he was, but it's in the Mayandorf book that I've been talking about
in great detail. There's a whole there's a whole chapter in this book on
how even Gregory the seventh didn't actually accomplish a lot of these dictates being accepted.
It was his successor that did. But regardless, the dictates are things
like the Roman Church was founded by God alone. Well, you can go
reader in as where he talks about the Roman Church being the church of Peter
and Paul. The Roman Church alone is universal. Well, ever since the
Econmenical Councils, the patriarch of Constantinople was also called universal. The pope alone
chooses the bishops in the world. Well, that's not how the pope operated
in the first thousand years, because any metropolitan or three bishops could choose to
ordana bishop, so the pope didn't decide all the bishops in the world.
The pope alone can use the imperial insignia. You think in the first thousand
years of the church, the pope alone could use the imperial insignia, right,
Well, I mean that right. Well, I'm not trying to be
mean to you, but I would take a look at the dictatus pope because
it's a great example of what you're signing on to. And although the papacy,
uh you know, post Vatican two or whatever, has definitely shied away
from a lot of these outlandish quiza tadarak god Emperor, claims, it's still
there. I mean, it's still something that they mandated. In fact,
they said, if you don't accept the temporal supremacy of the pope all lot
when I'm sunkedum, you are damned. And now you don't even have to
believe that. So this is a religion where the innovation stemmed from the papacy
itself. Austin, Austin, Kay, I'm mute. Are you there?
Moving on, Brandon, let's go Brandon. Thank you guys for those super
chats, much appreciated. We will get to the super gester in a second.
Brandon, I'm mute, Yes, sir, did I hear my name?
Yep? I was over here practicing on this broken guitar. That's all
you do? Good? What's up? Uh? Yeah? Uh so I
was just wondering, do you do you have like a a special Christmas dinner?
You guys make over there? Yes, we make long duck dong.
Let's see. Moving on, modern Native what's up, dude? You gotta
I mute. When are you going to debate the Jews? Uh? I've
had one Jewish guy offered a debate in four years and he want to debate
freemasonry. So brand no, not Brandon, dude, I gotta. I'm
mute, man, guys, mute, it's up. Hey h. So
you were talking earlier about epistemological principle, like, how do we even have
a meaningful conversation? I think that's key, right, Like, if we're
going to have a conversation, you have to create to terms. Sure,
if you want to talk about formal argument, I think a good place to
start off with is scratching off the list of things that are not true and
then narrowing it down to things that are specifically, using the law of non
contradiction and modus tolance, I think you can kind of tear apart most of
postmodern thinking and throat to the wayside before you can have a more objectivist approach.
Specifically, you know, the whole idea that everything's a construct except for
apparently the construct. That everything's a construct, that's obviously a truth claim in
self negating, right, It's a basic pre sup critique right, or everything's
a matter of perspective, except for the perspective that everything is a matter of
perspective. It's absolutely true. There are no absolutes. We know that you
can't know anything like all these things muggle in truth claims while pretending not to,
or maybe the most morally bankrupt grupped of all of them, that there
are no greater metinariors or truth claims. There's only power, which is a
low key admission of moral bankruptcy, because if you believe the only thing that
is true is power, you're gonna lie, steal, and cheat to get
what you want in the name of the quote unquote greater good. So that's
obviously you know, someone like that can't be trusted and shouldn't be debated.
So I think just by narrowing it down to that, I think there is
actually a logical principle for talking about an objectivist position. Yeah, that's the
direction I was going in if we had continued in a rational discourse. Yeah,
I'm curious what you think about this specific argument. You know, in
all of language, a lot of terms are subjective. To be fair to
the postmodernists, to play the devil's advocate, but they're not all completely subjective,
Like the word absolute is pretty binary. You know, something can't be
sort of absolute or kind of absolutely either is or it isn't. So the
degree of the claim to stay within the claim itself, which is, you
know, absolute. So we know that it violates the law of non contradiction
to say that it's absolutely true. They are not such things absolute. So
therefore there's only one, by a virtue of modus Tolan's one argument that remains,
which is absolutely true. But a lot of people push on back,
push back on this and say, like, well, who cares, because
in order to say what the absolute truth is, you'd have to be standing
from an absolute dvantage point on knowledge and right. So you know, I'm
not trying to be rude, but this is the pre subsitional transit argmentation,
internal critigue that we do all the time. Sure, So my question is
if you have to be standing from an absolute vantage point to say what the
truth is? And since no mere mortal has the luxury of saying that what
it is, because no one has absolute knowledge or data except for maybe God.
Yeah, God God serves that function. God serves that function in the
world view. Sorry, God, serves that function in the worldview and in
the argument. Sure, but arguing it from like a position of non faith
to someone who is you're debating, isn't the point to win over the debater?
Not necessarily to win the argument now the point is Sorry, Well,
I mean, I've been debating for twenty years, and in my experience,
the point of debates is for the audience. It's not too rarely will you
convince the opponent? M Well, how about this? If you can say
that absolute truth exists, but it's forever beyond our reach because no one has
the absolute vantage point, well, that would be antext then infer that,
like there must truth that is transcendental, that is outside of our vantage point,
outside of our perception, and independent of our perception and even existence.
Well, I mean, I just think the statement itself would be meaningless and
unjustified because how are you you can't how are you gonna claim that there's truth
that's outside of our you know, reach? Just phrase itself doesn't make any
sense. You don't then you cannetologically ontologically, just like you can't prove beauty
or human rights or anything. I think I think you can prove those things.
So what do you mean, how would you prove them through the transcend
no argument? What do you mean? Yeah, so I guess you mean
other than other than an appeal to like some sort of absolute vantage point akaa
God. Then you have to narrow it down to like, you know,
I don't need to narrow it down because the argument is the trans and argument
for God's existence, so it includes those things you're you're talking of out specifically
a religious vantage point are you talking about revelational theism? Is the argument I
would make, correct, Okay, if you start off with, like,
if you do a lot of public debates, I can see why you would
not be interested in winning over the debater. And to be fair, a
lot of times people come in deeply digged into their positions, so I get
you know why that would not be primarily your goal. But I used to
be an anti theist, an atheist, and I was won over by a
Christian minister. Yeah, sometimes that can happen, you know. Yeah,
And there are those of us out there, so I think, you know,
it's it's worth trying to make the effort, even if it seems silly.
Because I used to be one of the most opposed people you could possibly
meet, you know, but I, over the course of seven years,
changed my mind. So yeah, I think your right to say too there
that it's not Typically it's not one debate that's going to change people's minds.
Usually it's a series of events over a span of time, Like you said,
many years. I mean, it's not going to be one thing.
But if you're hopping into the middle of this, if you're not familiar with
what we do, I mean, we've been doing this for years. We've
opened it up. I mean, we what I usually do, and I've
said this for many years on here is that when people come on, they're
going to it's kind of like debate school here. They're going to be held
to certain standards and the purpose here, and we're going to have fun along
the way and joke around. But the purpose here is to call people back
to invalid moves. Right, So when people think I'm interrupting and being mean,
I'm calling them back to an invalid move. Just like if we were
playing chess and somebody took the queen and or the pawn and moved it all
the way over there to take down my king out of nowhere at the first
move that wouldn't worry to be invalid move I said, no, no,
go back, start over. So that's what this is. This is like
debate school in a way. So yeah, so, and it's it's informal.
This is not a formal debate, but a lot of people are always
asking me. They're like, help me to debate better, help me to
I want to learn to do better in rhetoric and in this kind of stuff.
So that's partly what we're doing here as well. It's kind of helping
people understand and hear bad argumentation and hear it called out. So there's a
lot of different purposes as to what we're doing here today. And it's not
primarily to necessarily convince the immediate opponent, because I get a lot of trolls,
and there's a lot of bad faith people that hop on here and they're
not interested in being convinced or learning the truth. They just want to be
silly and they will get silliness back. So again, it just depends on
the context of who hops on here, gotcha. I do think that one
thing that's like sorely missing is this whole idea of quantity and quality of evidence
generally speaking, in our public discourse, Like if there's a lot of quality
evidence, probably true. Not a lot of quality evidence evidence probably not true.
And if it's a mixed bag of like mixed quality or mixed quantity,
you know you have to parse it out. But it seems like there's a
lot of stuff that just gets thrown out there and there's very little evidence for
it whatsoever, and it just goes by. I'm completely unquestioned that. I
mean, if you're talking about general discourse in modern society, yeah, most
people are not able to operate in a coherent logical discourse way. But I
don't know what you're talking about throwing out stuff without significant I don't are you
talking about the context of religion, what are you talking about just in the
context of really anything, Like if you go to court, you know you
can have some solid evidence, but if there's just a little bit of it,
it's only going to have so much sway. I guess it depends on
the evidence. But if you have a lot of evidence and it's solid,
you know you've got a strong case. And I just sometimes I hear people
say just throw out meager evidence, and it's really incoherent and discombobulated I'm just
like, why would you think that would fly? You know, like,
yeah, you know, like, I don't understand why we sort of discount
one for the other. It seems like both quality and quantity should always be
considered in conjunction, but that doesn't seem to be the case a lot of
times. Right. Well, I'm not an evidentialist, so I don't think
that evidences ultimately do the work that most evidentialists think that they can do.
But we do have to use evidences for sure. But I agree with your
overall points. Yeah, because it was the fine tuning argument that really caught
my eye back when I was an atheist and also trying to come up with
like a logical, a sort of a secular a universal setler secular ethic.
I tried to undertake that, and I very quickly realized how impossible that was,
because you can't be divorced from your time in place, your socioeconomic sass,
your parents, your DNA, the schools you went up to, the
language, and then even the choices you make are made through a sort of
a cultural grid, which is a set of incentives and punishments, and people
always tend to gravitate towards the incentives and shy away from the punishments. And
so we're really just sort of a snapshot of our time and place. And
you know, how could you how could you privilege your Western individualism over someone's
Eastern collectivism? I read exactly. There has to be like an absolute vantage
point to like Martin Luther King Junior said in Letters from Birmingham Prison or the
Nuremberg Trials or William Uberforest. You know, there has to be God's law
to call out man's law when man's law becomes unjust. So and I was
like, well, it's just it's impossible, or it's nihilism. I mean,
it's either God or it's nihilism, because everything else is just sort of
imperialistic ethnocentrism. Mhm. So yeah, well I agree with those points,
Wentz. Thanks man, Modern Native got some good philosophical insights there. Let's
see who's next, Jose or no way, let's I'm trying to I'm trying
to see who from their profile. Viedu looks meaner. Tyler looks pretty mean,
looks like he's ready to beat some butts, better whip some butts.
What's up, Tyler? I'm here, Jay. I I found out about
you to you know, Alex Jones, and I I became a Christian,
uh about three years ago. I was technically non believer. My the mother
of my children, she ended up getting into getting into witchcraft and uh prostitution
ring, like a freemason prostitution ring, and I was came face to face
with with real evil. And from that day forward, I've realized that if
there's evil, it's that I know that God's reel. But that's a little
bit of my background. But I just asked some questions for you. I
ended up getting baptized in a Seventh day Adventist church and I have a very
open mind. I don't you know. I'm open to any and that's why
I wanted to talk to you. So just a few questions for you.
This is all what i've uh you know, determined in my in my thinking,
in my opinion. But would you say, is is Satan bringing about
a self fulfilling prophecy through revelation? Because it seems like for everything they'd be
going down that exact way that God he was going to do that no matter
what God had written in the Bible. Is that correct? I think you
know Paul says that the mysteries of the Church and the Incarnation were hidden from
the powers and principalities of this world. So I think that that we don't
exactly know what Satan can and can't understand, or how deep he understands or
sees things. I think that regardless when he made his choice in the Aon
at the beginning, when the angels fell, he confirmed himself in this perpetual
movement towards evil. So what exact degree of knowledge he has of the overall
plan of God? Scripture seems to speak as if there's things hidden from him.
He's not omniscient, So I don't know if I would say he's intentionally
fulfilling a self fulfilling prophecy or he's just sort of like a madman berserker guy
hell bent on, you know, just destruction and chaos, because that's what
he chose to do, right, And that's kind of what I thought initially,
But the more I think about it, it's Is it possible that he's
trying to call God's bluff in some way like Jesus's bluff. I guess you'd
say that he's going to convince the people that there will not be a second
coming, and he's going to bring about all the pups. He's a revelation
and when they when they they come about, and and Jesus doesn't appear,
then they would make everyone, you know, a non believer, even though
he would know that, you know, eventually something's going to happen, but
our judgment would come down. But you know, he's trying to you know,
get as maybe hell as he can. So that's just something I thought
i'd Chad. I'm not sure, I mean, as to what degree like
his plans are to try to trick people about the incarnation, I don't know.
I mean, it's it's hard to say exactly what I mean. We
have basic ideas in the Orthodox Church about the things that are going to happen
as we move towards the end, whenever that is. But I don't know
if we know exactly all the details of the Satanic plan. We do know
things like there will be a great apostasy of the church, there will be,
you know, an attempt to rebuild Solomon's Temple, an attempt to have
a one world religion, all this kind of stuff, one world government,
the worship of a single political leader, as God anti Christ. I mean,
we know those kinds of things are coming, but as to the specifics
of like it'll be Ai and Satan will has this plan to like make everybody
believe that it's the second Coming. I mean maybe I just don't know,
so it's it's very speculative. Father Deacon, are you there? Did you
want to chime in at all? Do you have a couple of things to
say or do you want me to do you want to just keep going?
No, I'm just hearing. I enjoyed that last tentleman with the epistemological questions,
and you know, I'm throwing out for people to give me their best
objections attag. Yeah so, Father Deacon, if you go over to his
Twitter page, is asking for people who have serious objections to the transcendental argument.
I think he's wanting to kind of collect those and then respond to them
and something he's doing. Yeah so, I mean, I don't mind arguing
here, but the thing on my Twitter acts, I'm not challenging people.
I've just I really just want to know what people think and how they've kind
of experienced tags hang ups. Some of the best objections and you don't even
have to agree with the objection. It's just objections that you think, Hey,
I think this is worthy of responding to because I'm collecting that and writing
a paper, So any feedback that anybody has isle and even on here too,
I'd love just to hear what people think. Thank you for that.
I am going to briefly do this while I go to the little girl's room.
Chad Mode is your ultimate natural pre workout designed to take your performance to
this level. Chad Mode is for natty beast alphas only. Whether you're hitting
the gym, invading a favella, conquering a small village, gambling, burning
the midnight oil, mogging on your coworkers, or getting banned from Facebook,
chad Mode gives you the competitive edge you need. It's as simple as mixing
one or two scoops of our fine powder into water or juice, providing you
with a delicious, energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor.
Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave. Chad Mode stands
out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes.
We've even avoided so called natural flavors ensuring a clean and effective formula.
Only soy boys and Beta's guzzle blue dye and sucralose further tanking they're already low
testosterone levels. Chad Mode is made in America. Unlike your common TikTok peasants
prework out powder, it does not contain Chinese lab made caffeine and artificial sweeteners
that soyboys so often crave. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode with Blue
Magic registered trademark organic blue spirillina extract, organic lemon cherry and organic maple crystals.
Forget synthetic caffeine. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract.
Each dose of chad Mode mirrors the caffeine kick of a cup and a
half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy. Alongside essential vitamins, minerals,
amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire
your boss and mog on anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will give you
a dominant and aggressive edge, like a lion hunting a gazelle, where the
gazelle is a TikTok Jim zoomer macro guzzling sucralose on the daily, edging to
TNF videos. Whether you're seeking a high potency, junk free pre workout or
a better way to kickstart your day, Chad Mode has you covered. It's
not just for men. Dad Mode is a solution for anyone ready to conquer
their fitness and life goals, dominate their coworkers, and aggressively show off something
that we're all proud of. I've got a browser here. This is Jay
Dyers, much vaunted, much sought after philosophy one oh one. Now he
just got this page up. We are just testing you give him the first
people know. I want to say, for my part, it's not philosophy
want oh one. I think this is a mis mistitling. I really think
is as like philosophy unleashed, because a philosophy want on one course, they
give you kind of some useless information that you can't make sense of. Jay
actually lays out over twelve weeks, dozens and dozens of hours put into just
the presentation of this, let alone the hundreds and thousands of hours of research
that it takes to have a coherent evolution and history of the origins of philosophy,
the uses of philosophy, the different ways to look at it over time,
and how that has been brought about to what we have today, which
is almost an absence of philosophy on the objective, logic and reason side in
an overabundance of woke philosophy that is irrational is made up day by day as
people are like, I think we should bring racism back, and then here's
a justification, and then it gets wokeified and spread out, and then all
of a sudden you have a bunch of communist socialist ideas where you become the
property in action. You need to be able to stand on your own ground.
It helps to have a foundation in philosophy because it's a method define truth
when you get down to it. Philosophy is there because you, and it
is as far as the notes and the type of coffee, it's a balance
is sweet. So that means you don't have to put your industrial waste cream
or your satanic sugar in it to enjoy. So if you're on a keto
carnivores, hey, great, get it. Consider supporting patriistic faith and Jay
Dyer work coffee by purchasing that. And also I want to remind you guys,
too. Thank you for other Deacon, I've got the link. As
I said to the lower coffee there, that's his affiliate. You can also
support me via heading over to talk dot com. You just saw the ad.
Use the promo co Ja fifty. You get fifty percent off not just
the chad Mode pre workout, but all the excellent products over there, including
the Talk Eataly, including the Action two point zero, including the Daily All
of those are excellent products over at Chalk to enhance your performance at the gym
and any other masculine activity. That's also for the ladies. It's not just
for duds. So heading over to talk dot com, remember you can also,
as you've seen in the background here get this book right here. I
got multiple stacks of copies of meta narratives in. You can get those over
at the website. In the shop you can also get the Red Book,
Essays on the Alga in Philosophy, as well as all the other old classic
books Esoty Collie one on two in the shop at Jason Alys's Choices. For
five dollars, can you make a video tour of the library. We already
did that, donut this five dollars do it? Ji impression where he says,
imagine that the computer simulates your brand being are aped by a monkey,
and then there you go, mind hacked since ten dollars, says Merry Christmas,
Thank you mind hack much appreciated. Haven't seen you around in the super
chat domain for a while. Glad to see you back ten dollars, ten
cents, eleven dollars. What if alien Yoda was twerking Ooh, I don't
know. Would that be would that make you a perv? I mean?
Or would it be cute? You tell me? Colloquolav bang five dollars.
Did the herrowing of Hades happen outside of time? I don't think we know
the way that the spiritual realm, or the realm of the dead, and
the no edic realm, the way it seems to interact with time but not
be bound by time. So in some way things happen instantaneously, or the
correlation between the movements are different between time of space, so we don't know.
But it seems to have happened in some way relating to time, because
it happened between the time of Christ dying, descending, and resurrecting, So
in some way there was a temporal connection there. Can you point me to
fathers on the subject. Hilari and Alfaev has a whole book on the heroing
of Hades, so that would probably be the most expansive book on the subject.
Ganner sixteen, five dollars and two cents, Jay Mary Christmas, two
questions. Do a review of Altered Carbon? Maybe I just haven't really committed
to a lot of these more recent kind of seems like everything post twenty sixteen
and sci fi is just all woke, and so it's just unwatchable. Do
our analysis because it's a super revealing dystopia. Unblocked me on Twitter? I
don't know. I usually find that the people that I've blocked were blocked for
good reason, no idea why I blocked you. If you unblock me,
I will finally take care of the way that you cough. So does that
mean you have the antidote to the T virus that you gave me? Alexander
Soldier needs in ten dollars, I want to say thank you, thank you,
Alexander. James Feji for three dollars, can you elaborate what arianism is?
Arianism is the doctrine that Christ is the first that Jesus, the son
of God, is the first thing that the Father created before the foundation of
the world, and then he moved on to create everything else. So Jesus
becomes a kind of demi God, and then Jesus and then salvation consists in
a kind of a moral realignment where you become like Jesus in the sense of
being more and more of a moral person. So then explain to me why
penal substitution and toonement is Rian because the idea that the sun is damned in
our place would require either a Nestorian Jesus or an ary in Jesus, because
you can't damn the second person of the Trinity. He's God from all eternity.
You can't split the Trinity. So very simple, that's the simple presentation,
Mary, Christmas, Mery Christmas to you, glitchy three dollars. Some
people think that you owe them time because you do this show. Thank you
for your work. By the way, have you heard the uri vestment ofv
clip Just kidding exactly, glitchy five dollars. In other words, entitle people
think that you owe them because you're doing this. Merry Christmas, Mary Krimbas
to you and your Queen. Shout out to Tim and Eric krimbas there.
Thank you, Eric arenas twenty five dollars, Thank you so much. Arena.
Well we did, we did get a white mom yelling at us tonight,
didn't we? That was a sweet surprise. That was a sweet wine.
So sweet cherry wine, sweet red right like Steve Rules, says sweet
Cherry Writt. She sat us straight, yalled at us, told us that
Jesus was an anarchist and her justification was because she had been through trauma.
Well, I'm sorry for your trauma, but that doesn't have anything to do
with whether your views are correct or not. So got a few more minutes.
I'll try to make this last bit quicker, mister Victor. One of
one, I can't doctor one of one or something. Gotta one Mary.
Christmas and happy New Year. So merry Christmas, do you. I'm more
excited for the New Year part. But you know, there's a lot of
money going in and out right now, going in and out of what are
you talking about? The Well, Christmas, you know, is like the
last Q four holiday that you know a lot of people are spending money.
Okay, did you have anything related to the topic or what's up? The
topic is we're moving on Crusader. Hey you got you got Crusader in your
name and you got an Orthodox cross. How does that work? Ye?
Barely perfect. I just wanted to lead off and today Mary Christmas, I
started watching your channel for months ago. Orthodoxy, I'm an inquire right now.
That is want today. I appreciate it, and I called politics one
of the topics. Yeah, it also relates to Orthodoxy. But where do
you think the churches fit into the street or like, what's the dynamic there?
Uh? Is there like an ideal maybe state that you have in history
or contemporary history? Yeah, I mean we addressed that many times in live
streams, probably ten different livestreams five or six years ago. So I mean
monarchy is the ideal political system that's nowhere near anywhere on the table of what
we can really expect. So that really only makes sense when the majority of
the people in the society have the right Orthodox faith. Otherwise it's really it
doesn't it doesn't even matter. But I do have many old streams on what
the best form of governance is emu uriarte. This sounds wild debate of emu
Hello, yes, sir, I'm sorry, can you hear me? Well?
I can, Okay, thank you very much. I just want to
say I'm a big fan of you, J Dre and I actually, I
actually did want to focus on that thing you just got done saying the monarchy
versus lack democracy and those types of world systems. I guess I can see
how the monarchy system would function like better in a way when you have like
a complete, like a faithful society. But do you think that leads to
like the actual better flourishment of the people that participate within it, or do
you think that's just more sort of a like it's a setup to maintain the
moral framework of the society rather than the actual like prosperity of it. Maybe
I'm not saying that right. I mean it sounds like a utilitarian argument,
like, well, we're going to choose the system based on what gives us
the best, what monetary or social gains, Like I mean, we should
just have theoin bitcoin society because that's going to give us the most gains.
So what I don't understand your question, like you're saying, is monarchy true
because is it the best? Because it is not. It's not the best
because it's not going to give us the most gains. Is that what you're
saying? Well, I mean I would think it would be ideal, but
I just don't think it. I think historically monarchist societies have like naturally kind
of eroded to more of like a parliamentarian's, especially in the West. Where
Why do you think that erosion happened? Though? I mean, that's not
the that's not the most societies in history haven't been parliamentarian or republics or democracies.
They have been monarchies. I mean, I understand that, but you
don't think the most like powerful and effect I get, yeah, powerful and
effective doesn't necessarily equate to good, but you know what's helpful. That just
caught me off guard. I don't know why I even mentioned that was about
the reason even join I'm sorry Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Pause one second, Let
father did I was gonna say the Hans from a hop Uh so I was.
Can you not hear him? No? I can? Okay, can
you pause this one second? He's talking the Hans from a hop article from
Aristocracy the monarchy is really good and it shows the change in the corruption that
led to kind of parliamentarism that you mentioned. But one thing that's really important
you have to understand it. It's a fundamental because, like Jay said,
because of fundamental ideological and philosophical changes that occurred, specifically in modernity, the
way that man related and thought about the state, change the state, and
antiquity was there too the laws not to prevent them and give them these kind
of libertarian rights and prevent them from killing each other, but to actually encourage
and establish a framework in which the citizen could acquire virtue. So, as
Jay said, there isn't this kind of notion of like monetary success. The
most important thing in the mind of the an ancient was acquiring virtue and becoming
a better person. And so you'll see even in that article, the Hongs
from hop thinks, even though he's in you know, an anarchom an anarchist,
he thinks the most natural form of government is a monarchy. But these
ideologies came in and corrupted that and changed it into kind of parliamentary monarchy,
and then democracy in it further kind of devolves. So I just point you
there as a helpful article. All right, let's check out. Thank you
for that. Let's check out Zed Wagner. I'm trying to hurry through a
lot of these together. There's like twenty people in it, Zed Wagner,
what's up? Zed? Hello? Sure? Can you hear me? Hey?
Thank you for doing what you do. Jay. You let me the
Orthodoxy I have a question. I'm not here to debate. I'm totally on
you know, the orthodox position and the tag position. But I was a
question about specifically Catholicism and the Jesuit society. Has it always been corrupt or
was there a time in which it was trying to hold true to what it
thought the Catholic teaching and doctrines were as as flawed as they are, or
has it always been like this, uh, free Masonic organization LARPing as a
Christian organization. That's a good question that would probably require somebody who is more
of a specialist in his history of the Jesuits to really give you a solid
answer on that, because as time progresses, as we get up into the
twentieth century, with more and more books being written about the Jesuits, you
get a lot more lore, a lot of gibberish, a lot of conspiracy
nonsense that sort of becomes an accretion on the story and the history of the
Jesuits. So we all know that Ignacious Loyola was a part of some kind
of sort of esoteric group before he became a Jesuit. It is possible that
when he was amongst this iluminous type of group, he maintained some of those
ideas as he went into forming the spiritual exercises and whatnot. And there is
an overlap of certain groups and people. I mean, even the writers quickly
talks about in the Anglo American establishment that the Royal Society elite, the Cliveden
set and others utilized the spiritual exercises as a manual for how they would kind
of run things in a cell structure for their their power block. But that
doesn't mean that they were doing it because they believe Jesuit philosophy. They just
thought that the tactics and the techniques of having a confessor and the way that
the confessor might potentially manipulate you through the Jesuit practices allah Ignacious Spiritual Exercises could
be a technique that they could use. And I think a lot of the
low IQ conspiracy crowd thinks that that means that the New World Orders run by
Jesuits. No, No, they took the Jesuit spiritual practices that handlers use
or the spiritual confessors use, and that that gets transferred over into like the
intelligence world of like a handler and then his operative right. So so that's
part of it. But is it possible that the there is actually secretly and
esoteric thing that the Jesuits are into. That's definitely possible. But I don't
know enough about like the whole the actual history of the Jesuits to say for
sure. But I think it's very obvious now that they're completely co opted their
their corporate logo the Black Sun, you know. Uh, I've seen some
writings where that ties back to the Cobpa Stone and those kinds of things.
Once again, thank you, and you can go on to the next color.
Yeah, thank you. Good questions. Yeah, I think it would
really take somebody who probably goes deep into the actual history of you know,
the founding of it and what Ignacious is really into. And I just don't
have the knowledge of that to say for sure. David Reid, So,
David Reid, Hey, what's up, Jay, Thanks for letting me back
on. Hey, So, another question I had was there was a point
in the discussion with the team Zoomer where he kind of pressed the idea that
if somebody has the potential to shin or not sin, that would entail the
fact that they could have stained from sin indefinitely. Yeah, but he we
didn't. I didn't want to go into the Mary talk because it's a whole
other issue to talk about the sinlessness and the ever virginity of Mary with a
Calvinist. Even though John Calvin believed in the ever virginity of Mary. The
point was that Mary is different because Mary was at every point in her life
given grace and aided so that she wouldn't sin. And I just didn't even
feel like going down that route. So that's because we believe that people can
have the effects of the sin and still not be guilty for the sin,
and the Calvinist doesn't believe that, right. So Mary is somebody who,
for us, she felt all the effects of adam sin and yet herself still
did not sin, and so she's a proof against inherited guilt. So that's
the strong point of Mary. But Mary is not identical to us because we
uh for the most part right do not concede to grace. So what he's
ignoring. He's thinking of in a Pelagian way, like Mary was sinless,
like Pelagias thought about it. Mary was sinless because of grace, right,
And so it was a tremendous amount of grace that helped and kept Mary from
being a sinner in terms of actual sin. But the rest of us are
not going to be free from actual sin, right, Okay, So there
was a provision given for Mary in those situations where she might have sinned as
in that grace. I think we could say that, Okay, okay,
interesting, and so I mean she's the most grace, She's the most grace
of all women in all creatures, right right. And for the record,
coming into the church, I've had a Pallagian background, and so that's why
that was still something I was kind of thinking about, you know, trying
to work through. Well, remember that we're conceiving of grace. We're conceiving
of grace as different things between us and a Calvinist. So a Calvinist conceive
of grace as God's dispositional attitude towards you changing. So you're in grace when
God's no longer mad at you and hating you, right right, that's after
regeneration. So, but we don't think of grace as merely this dispositional stance.
Grace is an actual living power within you, that is an uncreated energy.
So Mary always had that uncreated energy and power within her at work,
and she was supremely graced above all of the other human beings. So and
so the Calvinist is missing the synergenzing as well. There, yes, and
they because they conceive of it entirely different. Okay, all right, yeah,
that makes that makes sense because it's a simple act of God's will correct
to change his disposition towards you. Okay, all right, right right,
okay, that's very helpful. And then just one more question if I may
sure, Okay, sorry, I'm trying to put this. So in the
p s A model, the penis substitution aerotiement, they say, I've heard
William Lane Craig's articulation that they don't that. Basically, he says that the
Christ felt the separation of God. Yeah, well again that's anti trinitarian,
right, Jesus is a divine person. A divine person cannot be separated from
God or from the Father. And he said, in an economic sense,
you particularly use that. It doesn't matter whether he qualifies it. It doesn't
It doesn't matter whether he qualifies it as that or not, because that he
but he refers to the divine person of this. There's no human person Jesus
Nazareth. That's the Aryan or the Nestorian view, who is separated from God.
He equals second person of the Godhead. So the second person of Godhead
can't be separated from the Trinity. Right to be separated from God means that
the Holy Spirit no longer dwells you. It would mean that the Father's will
is set against you. So that would mean that the Trinity is now no
longer the case. Because Jesus doesn't share the same will as the Father,
the Holy Spirit no longer resides within him. There's no by the way,
there's also by the way, it would also undo paraquis the dwelling. The
Father would no longer dwell the son. What I believe. I believe he
denies para Creesius. He doesn't believe in operations or anything like that. Yeah,
but he's also an apollinarian, So I mean, I don't know why
anybody listens to William Lane Craig anyway. But right, okay, yeah,
yeah, that's fair, that's fair. So okay, good questions, APPI
it. I think this would be the last one I'm gonna have to head
out. So I'm trying to final Let's see who looks like they're ready to
set me straight? Who looks nasty and mean? Let's try flame, Flame,
Flame looks like he's gonna set us straight? Hello, yes, sir?
Is the scream ending soon? Or how much time do we have?
Well, it depends on what you want to talk about. What what do
you want to get into? Okay, So I want to talk about biblical
morality specifically, So before I start, I just want to talk about intuitive
I just want to talk about where I based my root it because that's the
question usually that you don't So it's one on intuitive morality. So I think
people are born with an intuitive morality and then its changed or repressed through cultural
and propaganda and stuff. Okay, what what is like? Is what's the
just a biological drive? What is the intuitive morality? Well? I think
it's God given specifically, what God? What God? Whoa I'm not well,
I'm not exactly sure. But what I do want to say, Well,
how do you know it's God given if you don't know what God it
is? Well, because I think you can get people from all sorts of
cultures, so you can get people from every culture and they would know that
murder, lying, is stealing is wrong. They may have different ideas what
it means. But well, but what if my God that's intuitively giving me
my morals is the devil and I think that those things are not wrong.
Well, I think you would know, But I just want to get to
my main argument first. So, because my argument is a critique. So
you say that you based your morality on on God in the Bible, but
you said you buy your morality on God too, but then you couldn't tell
me what God it was, So I'm not sure you're going to have a
good basis for a critique. Yeah. Well, because I mean it is
mainly my own. I mean, it might not be a good argument for
me because it is a subjective. Okay, there we go. So yeah,
so it's objective, Nice, go ahead, But my main argument is
a critic of a critic of biblical morality. So my I would go,
Sorry, I don't usually do talk, so I'm a bit rvous. I
just want to, okay. So with biblical morality, when we go back
this, it just seems it seems like kind of okay, it seems very
arbitrary to me. So for example, when when it says that the son
won't pay for the sins of the father, but then for example in the
Bible, God kills all the first month sons of Egypt, or when he
kills David's son for for a sin that David did, or when he tells
Abraham to sacrifice his son even though he stops him, I still see it
as like the act itself is basically still done in that way. So from
the way I see it, the way I see it is that how can
I how can I really worship someone like that? When it's just it seems
like the morality changes us to depending on what God says. So murder is
wrong until it isn't. And like, no, murder is always wrong.
Murder is different from killing, So those are two different things. So murder
is always wrong, killing is not. So when God orders the Israelites to
murder like the children of this or that tribe, isn't that technically a sin?
I mean, I know there's a sense of a collective morality, So
if a group does something, they are punished as a group, even there's
members of that group that didn't do anything wrong. So like the infants and
the children, and then there's like was it the Book of Samuel, I
mean, when God was differentiating between the children and the infants, start are
still suckling, and he said kill them both, and he said kill all
the animals. And then he punished Samuel. He punished was Saul, King
Saul. Yeah, he punished King Saul because he didn't kill a cow,
but he wanted to sacrifice it later. But then he punished him anyway,
and I think that was the reason why he replaced him with David. Correct.
And then I mean, and then there's other questionable things that God did,
like for example, with Job, Like in the Old Testament, you're
constantly promised that if you never a righteous life, God will reward you and
stuff. But then Joe was specifically punished because he lived the righteous life,
because he was it was this idea that he was being tested by God.
So I mean, it just seems that whatever you do, you just end
up losing enough. And with God, it just seems that he's constantly like
he says murder is wrong, but then he commits murder on inn Like when
I say murder, I mean killing of innocence, right, But I know
there's a difference between killing and murder. Well, but the difference is that,
right, But the difference is that God has the right to decide when
life and death can be ended or when it can be postponed. Right.
So in other words, every system will have to have some ultimate sort of
lynch pin or some ultimate authority by which you say that it's wrong or right.
Right. So if God decides that in those cases it is right to
do that, in our view, it's not out of a chord with the
rest of God's morals and his ethics, because God knows infinitely more than we
know. And so like in the book of Job that you mentioned, the
thing that the decision at the end is that, well, God says to
Job, how are you going to judge when I make these judgment calls?
If you can't even figure out the cred order, how much more would you
be able to figure out and understand the uncreated order. So the point is
that every system will have to have some point at which you can't appeal any
further right. And so that's where it becomes right or wrong is not in
some arbitrary, abstract standard of invariant and personal laws, but in an actual
personal being who can make the decisions as to win that is correct and when
that is not correct. In other words, God would, for example,
know all future contingencies. So had this people group been allowed to live,
they might have exterminated the seed of the Messiah. Right, we don't know,
right, all of the different contingencies that could have occurred, had all
of the what we could say are tainted or infected people that lived at that
time, that had engaged in extremely brutal and wicked practices. So if when
you read Leviticus, the reason the Promised Land is cleansed is because the people
had become extremely degenerate, and so in God's wisdom, there was a need
to get rid of all of that people group for the purpose of the furtherance
of the Messianic line that lineage. Right, So it was ultimately it wasn't
just because God wanted to just worship the Dna of Jews. It was because
they were to present and produce the Messiah that would be the one that would
save the world. So to say then that, well, but God is
wrong for making decisions as to win its right for him or for me,
Because if you look at when this discussion comes up in Is, it's Hannah's
prayer. She says, he's the one that rises up and makes others low.
He has the right to light, to life and death right, so
he has the power to kill and to heal. Right. So, in
other words, if we're going to say that it's wrong for God to do
that in these cases, we need a basis, a moral position from which
to say that it's wrong. And I don't think that it's a contradiction to
say that in some case, like for example, Exodus says you can engage
in self defense, right, so in those cases self defense isn't murder,
Okay. So I mean my basis is like intuitive morality. I believe everybody
is born with that, like for example, like you say, but you
already said that's subjective and you don't know where it comes from. So how
is that that's not going to work as a as an argument against a Yeah,
I said that before, but honestly, I believe that we will have
the same morality. I don't think it's subjective. Well, you know what,
but even okay, hold on, but even if that were true,
that doesn't tell us whether it's right or not. Okay, So, for
for example, I can give a very a specific one where we can't like
so for example, when it comes to rape, like do you need God
to tell you that rape is wrong? Or don't you just into it?
It doesn't that's not it. But that's missing the objection. So the objection
is not, like I said to James Sexton, could I, as a
secular person decide to choose the morals of the Ten Commandments without God? Yeah?
But that's not that's that's avoiding the objection that what's the justification for choosing
that? Why would we Why do we think that that's true? And if
you just say well, because it works, that's arbitrary. So that's not
a good reason to say, well, I can have the morals without without
the deity. I mean, I know, I think our intuitive morals comes
from God. Now, but you couldn't tell me who that God is or
why that's the case. And you can't. Just saying that there's intuitive morals
doesn't tell me what those morals are or whether that's even right. What if
my moral what if my intuitive morals are wrong? M Yeah, I mean
people could be born with different kinds of intuition, but I still think that's
slightly better than I mean, for example, with biblical Marati, like when
Moses says that you have to kill what was it? Was it the Medianites?
I think I'm not sure which tribe it was. I think it was
Medianites when they says like you have to kill all the people and boys and
whatever, but you can keep the little girls alive and you can like have
your way with them, Like if this was like a corrupt people and a
corrupt blood. In this instance, God didn't say you could have your way
with the women of the He said that when you conquered the tribe, there
were laws of marriage. He didn't say you just have your way with them.
Well, it was the virgin little girls of the median Kites, I
think. I think, yeah, they they became what they had their hair
shorn and they become brides. Right, you can't just have your way with
them, Okay, yeah, yeah, I've worked out before. I mean,
yeah, things like that. And I mean with this idea that God
just knows everything, So in this idea can, So whatever God does,
it's always correct in that sense. Yeah, but I mean that's not it's
not inconsistent because that's who is the ultimate standard in our worldview. Right.
But like, if he is the ultimate standard, he could pretty much break
all his rules and still say this and then tell people no, that's all
that's a Calvinist view, that's theological voluntarism. So no, he can't just
do anything and break all his rules, right, So for example, God
cannot lie, Paul says, can God? Can God like manipulate or force
people to do things that he wants? No, he doesn't force people to
do things, but he does, like for example, with the Pharaoh and
ex of this, he hardened his heart. Yeah, and if you read
the other verse, it says how he hardened Pharaoh's heart by letting Pharaoh choose
giving giving Pharaoh up to his own desires is what it says. So you're
just you're missing the other passage which explains how that occurs. Are you a
Muslim? You sound like you've got like an Islamic sort of Calvinist argumentation going
on here. I mean those I mean, I've I've studied a lot of
religions. I mean, I've been raised in a I've been raised in a
Christian family. But I mean the closest thing I'll call myself right now would
be okay, now, I actually do't want to talk about it. But
why would you not want to say? I mean, if your position,
if your position is right, why don't you don't you want us to believe
it? Well, because I think people have different ideas of what it is
and what I have an idea of what it is. Okay, well,
what's your idea of what it is? What is it? And what's your
idea of it? Well, my idea of it is mainly well, some
people consider it satanic. I don't think it is like hermeticism, Like I
think that we are meant to transform ourselves into like good people in that sense,
because this idea of turning lead to gold means like from what I've read
about it is you turn good, not good like you this idea that it
is through alchemy, personal alchemy, so it's basically changing personality, you become
good over time. Like I'm still a lame and I should read more about
it, and what is the good? Well, the good in that sense,
I think it could relate a lot to the Golden Rule. Why is
the Golden rule? The good sounds arbitrary? Hold on, so why isn't
it lex talionis eye for an eye? Why is it the Golden Rule?
Well, I mean, is there something that is there, like a good
action that you would do that you would want done to yourself? Asking me
a question, and I'm saying, this is your view, So you tell
me why the good is the Golden rule and not lex teleianness? Well,
the goods mm hm, well hm hmm. Well you know what. How
about this? You think on it and then come back to the next stream
and then I'll let you back on. I've got to go to a Christmas
Eve Western papal dinner tonight, so but thank you for coming on. I
appreciate it, not trying to be rude. I do have to leave,
and I want to remind you guys to head on over at chalk dot Comu's
prom COJ fifty to give fifty percent off. Timple hat Girl says for five
dollars, I have a question. I'm sorry I didn't see this until just
now. You can go ask father Anonius on Twitter, what is the relationship
that we have to kids after we die and go into the Escaton. I've
not had a good answer this question. Well, I mean, what do
you like, we're all you can ask him this, but I mean,
we all have the same bodies in the resurrection. I don't think the resurrection
is going to be People think that, like I'm not saying you say this,
but people think Heaven is like we're all these sort of balls of ghost
dust floating around and staring at ideas in Heaven or now it's a bodily resurrection.
It's like Jesus came out of their tomb with a body, same body
that he had before. So we'll have a new heavens and a new Earth
with bodies and we'll move around and do stuff. Heaven isn't Heaven is the
Escaton. New Heaven's new Earth. It's not like it's like Eden was supposed
to be, and it's the whole