The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the All right, welcome to another open live stream never gets
old. Only in the Escaton will we no longer have to rebut all the
goofy heresies out there, which seemed to be infinitely expanding in their very variations.
There's not actually an infinite number of heresies, but they seem to appear
to expand infinitely. But there are always deviations of the same kind of basic
assumptions, the basic starting points, which then down the line lead to a
lot of innovations in variations. What's up, Shout out to everybody in the
chat, shout out everybody over here on YouTube and on x I want to
start off with this A couple of points here, As Tim correctly noted,
anytime Francis makes a concession to the Trads. And this is something I've said
for many, many years, because it's the move of the Vatican. In
terms of bureaucracy, it's a classic bureaucratic move. Anytime we see a bone
thrown to the trads in the Roman Catholic sphere, you can usually expect that
Francis is about to drop something heavy, and that is, of course what's
going on. We have, as Luigi noted the other day, this upcoming
announcement tomorrow, a new preparatory document where the Vatican claims at least this is
the buzz. We don't know exactly what's going to happen. Sometimes these things
turn out to be nothing burgers. Sometimes they turn out to be pretty devastating.
This is from mainstream news in Germany Catholic German website. For around one
thousand years, church leaders in the East and West have been arguing about the
role of pope. Now the Vatican has drawn up a proposal of how the
papacy could be seen as acceptable to other churches. This could have far reaching
consequences. The document is expected the article is arguing to make a proposal for
a renewed form of the papal office. Why would we need a renewed form.
When Vatican One argued that this was always the ancient view of the Church.
Some believe that it is possible the Vatican could meet regularly with the other
patriarchs and be basically meet with him on a quote equal footing in accordance with
this upcoming proposal. Now, this is again a total contradiction from what Vatican
One says. Vatican one says that anyone who rejects the Vatican One definition is
excommunicated from the Church and thus loses their salvation. That's the classic traditional teaching,
which everyone knows and everyone in the apologetic field has always argued is the
case. Thus the idea of revising this is itself a contradiction. Now,
remember we don't actually need another document admitting this, because the document known as
the Alexandria Synod document already admitted this. This document that came out June seventh
of last year under the Papacy's Eastern Theological Commission already admitted all these points.
But of course, as we know, Roman Catholics don't really care what their
documents say. Every document that doesn't work with their system is handwave. They
just handwave it and then when Francis approves yet another document, they'll just appeal
to the next level of cope that, well it wasn't acco. Theater doesn't
count. So really, the only things that count are the things that each
individual Roman Catholic wants to count. And it doesn't matter how many times this
system contradicts itself over and over and over in its dogmatic pronouncements and its changes,
and its catechisms and its liturgical reforms. So called what we see is
the very thing that we saw with the Aryan guy the other night. Did
you see that Aryan debate? And we were not sure that he was Joe's
witness. We were trying to decipher that FDA and I, I mean,
he could have very well been Mormon. It just sounded to me like the
first few arguments he went to her classic Joe's witness arguments, but then he
went to you know, well, you're all gods, and that must mean
that God the Father was once a god. And but you know this Mormon
idea of apotheosis stuff. So I don't know what his position was ultimately,
but regardless, what that demonstrated and a lot of people who read my comments
on this didn't understand what I meant, and it's just really frustrating to,
you know, constantly deal with these arguments about paradigms, and so many people
just cannot get this. And I'm more and more thinking that, unfortunately,
there is there's a kind of an IQ barrier to this argument. Of course,
there's not an IQ barrier to being orthodox or anything like that, but
understanding what we're talking about does seem to have an IQ barrier. And I
think that's the biggest challenge of the transcendental argument, is the IQ barrier.
Because I was reading some people's posts a few days ago about you know,
certain levels of IQ and the inability to think in abstract and hypothetical ways.
For example, people with one hundred IQ can only abstractly think at a certain
level, right In other words, to entertain hypotheticals appears to be very difficult
for people with an IQ under one hundred, and even at one hundred,
they can only entertain a hypothetical or an abstraction to a certain degree. So,
for example, when I was reading the comments underneath the yar on Brook
debate, I would say ninety five percent would say that I won the debate,
but the five percent of the atheists that were contending that I lost the
debate. I know, reading through those comments, they seem to be unable
to understand what a hypothetical is. In other words, if I use an
argument from David Hume, they assume that I have the David Hume's skeptic position,
which is just absurd to me. I mean, it's just so bizarre
to me to think that people can't distinguish between using an argument and having that
person's entire worldview. It's very similar to the Dave Smith Andrew Wilson debate from
the other night, which if you noticed a lot of the fans of Dave
Smith couldn't understand what Andrew was getting at with the objections about familial relations.
We'll say, I mean, obviously Andrew wasn't arguing for that, so dumb,
right, And the purpose of a defeater in an argument doesn't mean that
you believe that system. It's just a defeater. That's how argumentation works.
But I mean, we're dealing with like masses of people who don't they don't
understand any of this, so that there's just gonna be I guess, this
perpetual, eternal challenge I just don't. There's just I don't know that there
is a way to make this kind of stuff easier or more more understandable.
It's just it's just I mean, even the intelligent people who are Roman Catholics
and or even Evangelicals who want to defend, for example, evidentialism, I
mean, it's just like talking to a brick wall. So we're going to
open it up today. The topics are listed. They are Catholicism, Protestantism,
Islam, Hebrew roots, Black heber Is are like Mormons, Gnostics,
shows, witnesses, Unitarians, arians, pagans, cults, libertarians. If
libertarians want to call in, you can know the floor. You can make
whatever arguments you want. Remember to make arguments. Arguments is not the same
thing as arguing. Making an argument means that you have a thesis with supporting
evidences, arguments, or syllogisms, something to back up what you're claiming or
asserting. Merely asserting things is not an argument. Reasserting your position is also
not an argument. Justification is not you giving a psychological report. Justification means
addressing how your position is quote justified, true belief, and why we ought
to accept your position not do you have the position. See, those are
two different things, you guys understand, And I hope that we get some
Arians, some Unitarians, some Jode's Witnesses, some more men and Muslims,
because I again just went through every Theophanic reference, and I did miss four
of them, as we saw in the live stream that followed upon the Theophanes
and the Torah. We went through every theophany, and particularly the one that
I missed was very powerful, the one of Leviticus nine, because it actually
says the glory of God appeared to all of Israel. And God's glory is
not a creature, okay, So that can't be an angel meaning a created
angelic being like Michael or Gabriel. So it has to be an actual Theophany.
This means that the entire Romancalolque position is undone by that right there.
Because Roman Catholicism eventually adopted a very strict position that the Theophanes are not Divinity
itself. They can't be because it would quote compromise divine simplicity in their view.
So because of their metaphysical presuppositions, they sacrificed one of the key principles
in the Old Testament that foreshadows the incarnation. If the Theophanes may make it
impossible for Divinity itself to be present in time and space, then it logically
follows that the incarnation is not true, because the incarnation is the hypostasis of
the Sun, who is divine in time and space, in a unique mode
of being in a certain place in a certain time. And you notice that
text and Philippians too, which is very important. The Kenosis text also refutes
the idea that God is reducible to pure act in a sense of essence and
person being reducible to pure act right, So certain church fathers do say that
God is pure act in contrasted creatures. They do not say that his essence
in itself is pure actuality or that the persons are identical to the essence,
which is pure actuality. If the persons are identical to pure actuality, then
the canosis text of Philippians two is not possible because it specifically says that the
Son, who is equal to God, limited himself willingly to step into time
and space and to not actualize all of his powers. Well, guess what
that means. He's not pure act The Son is not pure act in that
case, in that sense and that example. Otherwise there's no limiting of his
powers, there's no canosis. The words cannosis itself refutes their stupid position.
It shows their whole system as heterodox. That's why the whole Roman Clic system
has devolved into perennialism and a religion that is intent on nothing but demonstrating that
we all worship the same generic, unity, unitarian God, with the Muslims,
with the Jews and everyone else, the Trinitarian revelation of the Bible.
And that's why the easiest rejoinder to that is to stress that Theophany's in the
Old Testament and that Moses and Abraham and David worship the Trinity. And you
notice when we mentioned what's obvious to Orthodox it blows the mind of the Roman
Catholics. Trent can't understand how in the world could the Old Testament saints worship
the Trinity. And Sam Schmoun, who I love dearly, is going to
have a really hard time when he if he goes into Catholicism and he learns
what Vatican two teaches and he learns he has to throw away all of his
Trinitarian arguments to adopt the natural theology of Nostra tat and Lumingentium sixteen. I
mean, this alone is a is a deal breaker. You understand, This
alone tells you that you don't get an option to reject Nostre Tati and Lumingentium
sixteen. And they're precisely the basis for why Trent and others would deny that
the Old Testament saints worship the Triad and this Torah Theophany Triad thing is so
crucial because it destroys the Muslims, the Jewish interpretation, the Rabbinic interpretation,
I should say, and the Tonistic Roman Catholic interpretation. Have you noticed that
whether it's Youran Brooks or stuff on Malinu or Trent Horn or shake Azra Rashid
or Jake or any of the goobers that we've debated, have you noticed that
they all believe in self evident foundationalist basic doxicality when it comes to their epistemology,
and that none of them have yet addressed or even understand the objections.
Remember when I asked this to Trent, and Trent said, well, the
Kogitos is absolutely a solid argument, like as of no one has ever.
It's like a famously devastated argument in the history of philosophy after Descartes. So
we're dealing with people who have literally never had their epistemology challenged. And that's
why it's going to be very difficult to actually have a debate with doctor Tim.
Is he doctor Tim Gordon? Tim Gordon almost doctor Tim Gordon because I
noticed in the discussions the dms were having that Tim's just going to have his
metaphysical dogma. And now I understand even more so why Kant, for example,
And this does not mean cont is right, So don't misunderstand what I'm
saying. The Enlightenment philosophers were correct in this point to say, wait a
minute, if I grant you all these metaphysical starting points, then you're able
to construct an entire system which arbitrarily allows and doesn't allow for X, y
Z. And maybe that is the case. But the problem is, how
do we know that your starting points are correct? And it doesn't work to
just say because they are, And that's literally what these people are doing.
Can you imagine notice how vehemos everybody's criticisms were of Yaron brook in the comments,
but yar On Brook is no different than atomist or Tim Gordon. I'm
not saying they have the same views. Obviously one's theist, one's atheist.
Obviously that's not what I'm saying. They're no different in their epistemological presuppositions.
And if all of this was self evident, was there were brute facts,
then how come you've got people using the same self evident brute fact starting points
to go into atheism, the same brute fact starting points to go into tomism.
How did the same brute facts take people into these ridiculous positions? And
why would we not have seen, for example, the Aryan dude the other
night after an hour of solid, clear as day evidence from the scriptures,
a mountain pile of evidence proving the deity of the sun, and literally every
passage is reinterpreted and well it doesn't mean what you say, No, it
means this. So do you see that the evidences for the Aryan heretic are
all interpreted according to as paradigm? And somebody was trying to get smart with
me the other dark on Twitter. Well, if everybody's evidences are a corner
of paradigm, there's no point in debate, were you even beating dummy?
It doesn't mean that you can't change people's opinion or views. You can,
but it helps to point out and diagnose, like a doctor, what's actually
going on. So, in other words, evidentialism is like treating the symptoms
and it's not addressing the actual disease. The disease isn't the intellect. This
came up in the comments when I put it on YouTube the community post,
I said, did you notice how every piece of evidence was interpreted by the
Aryan guy to re to basically twist and butcher it to make it fit his
Aryan presuppositions? And somebody said, well, maybe you just didn't show him
the right amount of evidences. And the problem there is that you know you've
missed the whole point. The point is that man's problem is not his intellect,
more evidences. What if I find a thousand pieces of evidence that can
help back up the possibility that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Yeah, but
have you not noticed that you can pile on a million pieces of evidence and
that the tendency is for people to reinterpret evidence is to fit their paradigm.
So how do we get out of this conundrum. Well, one thing that
we do is point out that man's problems aren't actually evidences. It's their heart.
What Yeah, romans One says that in their hearts they became idolaters.
It doesn't say they had an error in their reasoning process. Their heart turned
away from God, and then their intellect built a wall around their heart to
guard against it being wrong the world that they have their idolatry. So all
of the inte intellectual gibber jabber is like a wall that's built to shield man's
hardened heart from actually being addressed at a fundamental level, because man wants to
pretend that the problems are all intellectual. Shaw, all the endputs of the
algorithm, and I shall give you the correct algorithm by which I can just
probe the existence of any deity because of my life. And it's like,
no, no, all of this is smoking mirrors, dude. So ironically,
while it might appear that tag or something like that is this high IQ
intellectual thing, and it is at a certain level, the actual point of
the argument is that your problems aren't ultimately intellectual in nature. They're spiritual in
nature. They're this other component that's the heartened man. And that's why the
Tummus laugh at this, because the Thomas or idolaters who worship their ideas,
and that's the root of their problem, not all this intellectual stuff. So
perhaps a better apologetic approach, and I know it's Thomas isn't gonna accept that.
They're just gonna laugh at that, which is they're just laughing at their
own and be like when the doctor says, well, you've actually got terminal
cancer, the doctor things, I've got terminal cancer. There's not even a
thing called turbinal cancer. That's how they're acting as their entire edifice collapses in
on itself. Talking about Francis and the whole superstructure, right this Thomas r
over here LARPing like it's the Middle Ages and they're in some sort of you
know, scriptorium, studying of Plato and Aristotle, and dude, the Vatican
is like an organized crime structure based around compromise and you know, blackmail and
money laundering. They don't give one hoot about Tomism, and they haven't for
one hundred years. So that's two different people living in a fantasy world.
And the more you try to debate and give Thomas the appearance of being like
these intellectual these important intellectuals. It's actually a disservice to the whole thing because
they don't even deserve that, because their whole system isn't even about that anymore.
The thing that they're defending has moved on from that one hundred years ago.
I don't care about Tomism. You think Francis cares one whit about Thomas
Aquinas's philosophy? Do you think the Cardinals give a damn about medieval gibber jabber
disputes? It just shows the idiocy and the naivety of a bunch of online
dorks, which is like their version of magic, the gathering. It's like
dungeons and dragons, but with medieval scholastic dictionaries or whatever. Nobody cares about
that. You don't even know. You're not even smart enough to figure out
out that the institution itself is an organized crime structure, as has been well
documented in multiple PhDs. By the way, how come the evidences the PhDs
that have been written about this kind of stuff don't sway your opinion? Roman
Catholics? I thought the evidences is what took you to the truth. Well,
how come when I present countless books and evidences proving that the Vatican,
at least in the last one hundred years, is an organized crime intelligence structure,
you dismiss handwave and don't care about any of those evidences, even though
they're from your own trad cat scholars. Ah. You see, the whole
point that we've been making is that evidences are chosen and interpreted on the basis
of the paradigm. So we don't know what tomorrow's document from Frank will actually
say, but ultimately doesn't really matter because the Roman Catholics don't They don't care
anyway, We've already had countless documents and demonstrable contradictions, and it doesn't matter
if Pope Frank uh, you know, sacrifices and eats zygotes in Saint Peter
Square, it's all gonna be. Well, he didn't do it ex Cathedral.
It wasn't the traditional mola ram right of the thuggie he did. He
did it improperly, so it was invalid. It was an invalid thuggie right,
so it doesn't count. Shout out to everybody in a chat. We
got almost up to one thousand live here on YouTube. Glad to see you
guys. Welcome. All right, we're going to open it up. Today's
again. Today's acceptable topics are what we've discussed. I'm not really interested in
the whole in the whole tag thing, although Father Deacon is here if he
wants to address TAG questions, I'll let him do it. I'm just kind
of we've did We've done TAG so much for the last six seven years of
open debate that I'd like to focus on the other topics that are here listed,
mainly because I've really been focusing so heavily on theophanies in the Old Testament,
and we just completed the three hour talk going through all of those.
I hope you guys make use of that, right. So the first half
was free, we got all the way through Genesis. The second half is
all of the rest of the Torah references up to Deuteronomy of theophanies, which
of which there are many. And that was for members to my website or
to my rock fin So you get access to that by subscribing to Jay's analysis.
We're going to open it up here to questions, answers, debates.
I give preference to those who would like to offer opposing positions. If you
have a lot of frequently asked questions for beginner orthodox stuff, you can easily
find those elsewhere. So this is not really the show for that. So
again, I know most of you guys are one of them, and to
ask me a much of like, you know, where do I go to
church? What's the right jurisdiction? Like, We've answered that many, many,
many times, so I'd like to give a preference to the people who
disagree. If you want to call in, the link is in the show
description here on YouTube. It's the Twitter link. Everybody always says, call
you. It's literally linked for you right there. It's literally linked in the
chat like every ten minutes for you guys. Come on. It's not that
hard. Now when you come on, Twitter automatically mutes you, so that
means you have to unmute yourself. Otherwise I have to sit here and tell
you guys to unmute. So first up today, First up today is from
a point of view, even from a what just point of view? What's
up? Dude? Yeah, yes, sir, good, thank you for
letting me speak. I just want to speak with you about a few things
related to libertarianism. That's a wherever you that's in the list libertarianism ahead.
Well, the thing is, I'm not a libertarian myself, but I would
like to speak with you in a few things pertaining to it. For example,
at least in my youth, I did consider myself a libertarian because I
just figured that it was very just a very like common sense ideology to have
you know that. Yeah, myself too, I did as well. Sure,
yeah, that people should have the individual liberty to do what they want
so long as they don't harm anyone. The belief in limited limited government,
the belief in the free market, and all that stuff. But as I
grew up and started looking at libertarianism in a more critical lens, I started
seeing a lot of cracks in the ideology, and it was mainly in that
like, when you apply libertarianism to a society, let's take the United States
for example, When you apply that kind of ideology with the current culture that
the United States essentially represents and encourages, you kind of start seeing where libertarianism
just kind of enforces and encourages the same kind of degeneracy and just lack of
more ethics. Staff for example, that the left and the elites promote yeah,
and that's why the Libertarian Party always ends up caving and electing these degenerates
to be their representatives. Yeah. Yeah, And if it was and if
we were in a time like back in like the nineteen fifties or sixties,
there may be such an ideology could work because back then the majority of people
were oh, morally ethical, majority Christian, and the kind of ideas she
could have worked. But nowadays, I would label myself as more populist because
I see it as a more effective way of, for example, reaching to
the people, especially to people who not only criticize the current government, but
also aren't super obsessed with trying to shrink the government to the point where it's
non existent, but instead utilizing it to to ensure that it benefits the people,
the maturity especially and not the elites or the left or any other group
that is against the interests of the maturity of Yeah, exactly, I think
that. I mean, you've you really hit at one of the crucial essential
critiques of libertarianism. I'll totally agree with all that. Yeah, But here's
my next question, and I would just like to and this is just my
personal, a personal question, what is your opinion of representative of Thomas Messy
because he considers himself a libertarian. I haven't actually followed him much. I
know that he had, didn't he at one time promote skittle stuff? But
now supposedly he's moved away from that, And then, of course that's what
somebody was saying on a stream. I don't know that that's true because I
don't usually keep up with these people, but I know he's drawn a lot
of criticism for his views of APAC now. So you know, if he's
moving in a positive direction, that's good. But if he's somebody who is
still, you know, wanting to push the sort of skittle stuff under the
banner being a quote conservative. I think somebody had a really good point many
years ago as a podcast, and I cannot recall the guy's name. I
apologize, not trying to be unfair to him. I just don't remember his
name calling something. But he did a podcast critiquing the way that Buckley co
opted paleo conservativism and kind of destroyed it with bringing in libertarianism, and I
thought that was a really good critique of how the actual history of conservativism in
America going from more of a paleo composition to the you know, libertarian position,
mainly via CIA operative William F. Buckley. I mean that tells you
right there, that's the whole story right there. And by the way,
most of those libertarian people in the sixties, seventies, eighties, as it
was sort of gaining popularity, were pretty closely allied with the CIA. In
fact, wasn't it forget that one guy's name, like the libertarian presidential candidate
guy from like ten years ago, was a former CIA operative. Now I'm
not saying that that necessarily Metcalfe. No, he's a guy that Alex Joneses
have on all the time, Bob something. But the point is that not
even that, you know, I mean, you could conceivably have somebody who
worked in intelligence who's a conservative or a good person. But the problem is
that there seems to be this continual footprint of people in the libertarian sphere who
are almost always subservient to these sort of Rockefeller style Republican elites. That's why,
for example, Rockefeller wrote his dissertation initially under von Hayek. And if
you read Road to Serfdom, the appendix of Road to Serfdom is about world
government. So libertarianism is another pathway to world government if you look at the
funding and the control structure. And I'm not saying that means that every individual
libertarian is a bad person or whatever, but this is the problem with libertarianism
is that it doesn't have any fixed principles. Now, if there was intelligence
people who who had solid values and weren't subservient to, you know, the
same oligarchical class, I wouldn't care. But I know the way that they
co opt and subvert these things, and it's always through these sort of you
know, shady operative people who pop up. It's just like that Evan McMullen
guy who was like the Mormon CIA guy who was trying to you know,
never Trumper dude. It's the same type of stuff. So it's not accidental
that the Libertarian Party just elected some like skittles, you know, putting things
in your butt dude. Yeah. And I would also like to add a
especially when libertarians try and mix like the religious beliefs to sort of like compensate
for their lack of lack of being able to give ethical, moral and moral
principles for the world view exactly like Adam Windowcraft, for example, who was
a pretty well I mean, did you hear the debate I did with Yarnbrook?
Uh? I heard some of it, but enough fully and that was
the whole debate. So mh. By the way, can I point out
it's so silly to talk about free market when that's absolutely impossible giving the bank
an elite and like you and the tailtale sign too is that you know,
who's funniness? Who are the people kind of arguing and like you know,
Mesa's institute and stuff. They're all funded by and connected to these bankers,
and there's not gonna be any free market within uh, capitalistic banking, elite
elitism, world bank kind of stuff. So it's just absurd because they present
it. Libertarians present it like, we'll think about it. We're just on
a small scale and we could just have a trade and uh, you know,
you could have your own small business and you wouldn't have to be interfered
with. But they never have you found one libertarian critique of international banking systems,
Ron Paul, I mean, to be fair to some of them,
Yeah, I guess you're right, I mean, but I mean that's not
usually what we get with the Libertarian party. Isn't that you end up getting
these you know, lost Austin Peterson type idiots that why was thinking Yah Rothbard
and different stuff like I've never I just be ignorant, but I've never seen
out of any of them or Hay critiques of international banking systems. I mean
that's well, I mean that that is to be that's actually a pretty fundamental
I mean some of them on Mesa's people do that, like G. R.
Griffin, you know, his whole ethos is that. I mean,
he wasn't a candidate, So I think you'll get these people who are the
thinkers who will write books about that. But then the actual people who step
forward to like you know, be statesmen libertarians, they don't really go with
that. By the way, the guy I was trying to think of as
Bob Barr he was the two thousand and eight Libertarian presidential nominee. I think
he was also other years other than two thousand and eight. Bob Barker,
no bar. One other point I make about libertarianism too, This is important
when we're doing in political philosophy. Was teaching it. I wanted the students
to be able to see the difference about how the ancients and those in antiquity
saw law in the state and have that fundamentally changed after the Enlightenment. So
the man of antiquity saw the state is a natural organism and that law was
there to promote virtue of the citizen. Then you get to the Enlightenment people
like Hobbes, and the state is conceived is kind of a necessary and artificial
it's a necessary evil, and it's an artificial construction. And then everything gets
cashed out, right because you have this kind of idea of the state of
nature. The man's just absolutely free, and so this becomes an like freedom
or what pure license becomes the absolute. So then the law itself has to
then be cashed out in terms of negative rights that it's never talked about this
and conceived in terms of no law should be there to squash vice and promote
virtue. You won't find it anywhere in libertarianism because it's thoroughly Enlightenment Hobbs.
You and we're so kind of blocking in amalgamation of nonsense. Yeah and yeah,
you can't really divorce that again from the history of this movement in America,
when you had again Buckley basically taking over the conservative movement with Basically Buckley
was constantly promoting Ann Rand, so you also can't divorce this from an Ran.
And the idea was that conservatism needs to move away from the traditional paleo
values that it was connected with and it needs to adopt this more you know,
monetary obsessed framework, getting away from any notions of the collective, which
is precisely where we are now and precisely why these libertarians are always contradicting themselves
and can't figure out, can't choose between, you know, somebody who's a
conservative or total degenerate, because it's just a question of who's more or less
consistent. Because if there are no collective identities, as'ron Brooks said in
the debate with me, oh well, then I guess there's not a collective
biological identities or either, is there. Yeah, and the entry really is
exposed that once she debated Dave Smith. Yeah, not too long ago,
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, good questions there. I appreciate that from a
point of view. But you know that a lot of the Libertarians are better
than their system, and I think we can agree to that, you know,
and some of them are really good. Von Mesis books are good you
know, the basics of economics from a lot of those guys is good.
It's just that there's there's shortcomings and sort of like like it can't it can
only go so far right because it doesn't really tell us any of the oughts.
It kind of just lays out the sort of general ideas. And I
agree with the idea that really to make the basics of libertarian doesn't work.
We kind of need Christian presuppositions, and metaphysics is really about the only way
to do it. And I think you could theoretically have some kind of some
kind of a freer market system with some kind of a monarchy. Maybe I
think that makes more sense. Maybe that's something to shoot for, because I
certainly don't want to collectivist, centralized Soviet model. That doesn't seem to work.
So, you know, hammering out the specifics of you know, how
much or how little government that's a I don't have any answers to that.
It's a valid question. There's no easy answers to that either, because we
live in a really complex, you know, integrated globalist world, so I
don't know how we would even make that work. But I guess those are
the basics that we want to shoot for. So we do have overlap with
libertarians. We do have a lot of positive assessments of some of their positions.
But when you get down to the nitty gritty, the very problems that
the Libertarian Party has, for example, and trying to weed out and suss
out these degenerates, they can't do it because the pre subpositions of their whole
worldview doesn't allow for them to impose the who are you as a libertarian to
impose an aunt You're infringing upon my liberty. So we either got to go
this Crollian route or we gotta say, all right, it's time to give
up the Enlightenment ideas and ground this in some kind of a Christian metaphysic space.
Cowboy. So people are saying monarchy never works out. No, it's
actually not true. In fact, the Byzantine Imperium is the longest lasting empire
in the history of the world. So what do you mean monarchies never work
out? I mean it's God himself who said that he would establish a monarchy
with the House of David. So it's actually completely wrong. Nick Disert,
where that guy go? I guess he dropped off and they should read from
aristocracy what the hop haunts? From Hope's article from Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy.
Yeah, and every time we mentioned that somebody's like, who doesn't believe
in monarchy? Yeah, we're not saying that he believes in monarchy. The
point was just that he makes arguments that there was more liberty under some monarchies
than under the present day republican democratic system. Go ahead and it what's something
man? You got? Mute? Dude? Sorry? So I had a
question in regards to your debate with Pinest. So I noticed that one of
your objections was about the epistemological issues with his worldview and the back to foundationalism.
Can you elaborate a bit on that and how we don't really fall into
that same error because I kind of had trouble following after that, right,
because if you notice, we've constantly argued for tag right transaill argument. Yeah,
that's connected to a holistic view of epistemology, which denies that there's anything
that's self evident. And the reason I think that is because anytime you try
to drill down into what you think is self evident or what you think is
axiomatic, it really falls apart very quickly because anything that you pause it,
for example, you're immediately in the dilemma of the criterion problem of Chisholm,
where, on the one hand, if you want to say that you know
something, that requires a criteria of knowledge, but to have a criteria of
knowledge also requires that you know something, so you see, you're caught in
an immediate sort of recursive circle there. It also deals with problems of delineation,
like if I think there are certain things that are self evident and certain
things that aren't, that actually presupposes a more prior category of sussing those two
categories out right, So I'm actually again contradicting myself by saying that, well,
there's all these self evident things, and that relies on my criteria of
self evident and non self evident things. So at every point, any position
that posits something being self evident ends up relying on brute factuality and the assumption
that our beliefs and our knowledge are not theory laden, that they're non theory
laden and therefore self evident brute facts. But the problem is that everything since
the Enlightenment philosophy wise, has really demonstrated over and over and over that there's
not brute facts. There's really no way to assume or accuse me to approve
or demonstrate a brute fact. And every time we ask for the epistemic justification
for brute factuality or self evidence, they immediately collapse and crumble. So when
we have a different position, that's why it's called worldview apologetics, it's holistic.
It's a holistic epistemology that doesn't include any epistemic bootstrapping move that's made.
All of their positions are based on epistemic bootstrapping. That's why even Sam Harris
right says, well, if I could just find one sort of Archimedean point
by which I can sort of leap off, then I can build an entire
system. And that's the same enterprise. Whether you're a Thomas or whether you're
yar On Brook atheist, or whether your stuff on Malnu or whether you're any
of these people. Have you not noticed even the Muslims, even Azra Rashid
right, his whole position, just like Jake the Muslim metaphysician, it all
starts with self evident docsastic basicality of these starting points. And nobody can tell
me why I'm supposed to start there or why those things are the case.
It's just arbitrary. Okay, Uh yeah, I got that. I I
think my main question, and forgive me if I'm being kind of I'm kind
of holding things up, but what do you think would be the papist sort
of starting point for that? Because I've been I've been kind of talking with
a friend who unfortunately went to Romantholicism instead of Orthodoxy, and he kind of
kind of always makes these same arguments, but he's never really we've never really
addressed the epistemological questioning exactly. That's why I'm going to that because just like
I was saying with Tim, like when we were chatting in DMS, He's
like, well, metaphysics doesn't allow you to have the essencenary distinction. I'm
like, well, says who. He's like, well, because that's like
the metaphysics man, that's like what it is. And aquinas in Aristotle and
I'm like, are they God? I'm sorry, Like why am I supposed
to believe that, like their metaphysics is necessarily true? So you're asking a
more fundamental question of like what are the starting points? Well, for example,
the peripatetic axiom is something that Aquinas accepts, and that there's nothing in
the intellect that is not first and sense data. So that's one of those
things. Any of the other basic principles of Aristotilian natural science would be things
that most homists accept. They would just say that, well, how do
we know that first principles are true? Well, you just have to assume
them to do anything, okay, But having to assume them or saying that
I can't see how it's otherwise doesn't actually grant me justification. And there's it's
very easy to demonstrate that that's not enough. Father Deacon has a whole paper
on this. It's really good, just showing out showing that well, the
fact that I can't conceive of it other or otherwise that doesn't actually mean that
it's that case the case in the world. Yeah, well, that would
be like an appeal to ignorance, right, Yeah, you could say that.
Yeah, and that's if you have you read the Manion paper, because
he actually addresses all these these approaches. No, I haven't. But while
I'm att it, is it okay? Father? If you if you link
that paper so that I can read it, the Manion paper or his paper
about justification. Both would actually be it. Uh, yeah, he's here
if you can find it. You're putting the YouTube, Yeah yeah, if
he's on YouTube. The Manu paper is called the Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory
Theism. That's the Manum paper. And he actually addresses this idea of the
tonistic notion of self evidence on the section under the deductive problem, and he
says, well, for example, we might think that the world, the
external world, is coherent and rational and logical and ordered. But how do
we know that that's not just our mental schema that we have in our minds
that we assume maps onto the world. And perhaps we're just schizophrenic or whatever.
Again, like low IQ, people think that I'm saying that we're all
schizophrenic. I'm being a skeptic. These are just arguments that are defeaters for
self evidence. That's all it is. Okay, I'm not actually arguing that
we're schizophrenic and that we don't have a coherent worldview. The point is that
there's no account for these self open it in principles just by saying, well,
they seem to be necessary and I can't conceive of it otherwise. And
so therefore I assume that it maps onto the world. Well, remember in
epistemic self evidence or self or basicality or whatever, we're not supposed to be
assuming things, right, it's the that's the point of philosophy, I remember
you well. But but I mean even in their own view, like even
as a foundationalist, if your self evident maxim assumes other things, then it's
not self evident, right. No, I appreciate those I'm going to go
now, but thank you very much for the answering the questions, and thank
you for the paper during the chat there. Yeah, And the irony is
that anybody who's had like an epistemology class, which is again Thomas basically just
don't I guess like they just sort of default to, oh everything, they
got everything right in the Middle Ages and I don't have to care about anything
or any challenge after the Enlightenment period. Is really just idiotic on their part.
It It just shows that their whole system is based on authority, right,
it's authority worship. Uh well, I don't need to who are you?
Are you better than aristol and aquitas? That's literally what they'll say when
you start drilling into this. So you think you think you're know about an
aquitas. Yeah, actually I do so, not because I'm so smart,
but because there's no one dude that I'm supposed to follow. Orthodoxy is not
based around one dude. It's not surprising that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, because
they're both forms of Protestanism. Yeah, they're always based around one dude.
And that's why that guy that came on the Doug Wilson samp that came on
Andrew stream to try to argue me. Why was he asking me, so
you think any of the fathers could be infallible? I'm like, you just
construct a Kamara in your head. Strong me. I'm like, no,
orthodox believes that, Like, why are you thinking that? Well, it's
because that's the program they're running. One man is. Let's just call it
for what it is. It's one man is. And so they're attacking the
kimara a stromium not right here in stromium that doesn't exist, we don't put
So if the Roman catholic is doing the protests, doing that in their own
way, I think is what you're saying, right, Yeah, I mean
there it's a tendency that I noticed that the attitude is not to think in
terms of the universal mind of the church. For them, the universal might
of the church is the pope. Right. For them, the universal might
of the church is that guy over there, Aquinas. You know what I
mean. It's just ironic because in a system that's supposed to be quote universal,
it's always almost always as cultic as the product stint that follows Martin Driscoll
or John Calvin or Martin Luther. Oh, we follow that dude over there
like he's the final say so. And remember, in the ancient medieval world
they didn't really consider it typically a fallacy to cite authorities, Like citing an
authority was a pretty strong argument. That's why this assume that Theologica is like
constantly just citing authorities. I mean, he does make logical arguments there,
but in the Middle Ages it wasn't usually seen as immediately sort of fallacious to
quote site authorities. But we don't think that way anymore. And this there's
a reason for that, right, We don't automatically just all in the world
assume that Aristotle's metaphysics were one hundred percent correct, so we can just well,
rocks have the essence of going down or whatever, and that's what makes
a rock. It's going it's falling down essence. Okay, we don't think
that way anymore. Now. Whether it's true or not is not the point.
The point is that after the Enlightenment people start to say, well,
wait a minute. This whole system that you have is constructed on the assumption
that you know the metaphysics. But before you can say, you know all
these grand metaphysical principles and truths, which again maybe they're true, how do
you know that. I mean, I need an account of your knowledge before
you. Before you do that, you're putting your You're putting your metaphysical cart
before your epistemic horse. And so the Enlightenment philosophers correctly began to ask questions
about epistemology which never were asked before, or at least never in that type
of a way. Does that make sense what I'm saying? And the typical
sort of tone misresponse is to say something like, well, I just handwave
all those questions. Okay, Well, but the rest of the world doesn't
handwave that. Because the rest of the world is basically atheist and has adopted
this this kind of view can't bring up a logical point when you were talking
about because you get this with Thomas, not just Thomas too, but it
comes out of kind of Cartesian is immediately that well I can't and this kind
of epistemic project of indubitability, Well, I can't doubt these things because self
evident has that kind of builty to day well, as soon as you understand
the words and what they mean, to doubt it would mean that you contradict
yourself. Now, I think it's important to point out, as Russ and
myself have in the paper, all you've done is given me a description and
rights or this will happen, you contradict yourself. But the epistemologies and epistemic
questions always link to the normative question because of justification. And justification is do
I hold this? Ought I to hold this for the right reasons, so
that, as I point out us that doesn't tell me anything that yes,
should I not ought I not to contradict myself. All you've given me is
a description, So you've never even got into the domain of justification. I
think it's really important to point out, and all of the people in natural
theology and those that appeal the self evidence hold that so all you've gotten to
is a descriptive level. You're just describing. Whicheh question itself of, well,
how do you know that you're describing even that? Correct? Yes,
that's exactly what. Well, I have to assume what I want to prove
that I can know before I actually know. Yeah, and that's circular,
and all epistemological self evidence promoters don't believe in circular. Yeah. Yeah,
I mean the section in Manion's paper specifically, it's called the deductive problem,
and in the section under that called logic, because he says, well,
if we were to look at things that we think are self evident, like
say, the law of identity. While it might be true that I assume
the law of identity to reason about anything in the world, my assumption of
that and my necessity of using that to reason doesn't itself make it true.
That's not enough for justification, because how do I know that it actually is
valid? In other words, it actually assumes a bunch of other things too.
For example, he argues, induction presupposes deduction. Deduction presupposes induction.
So if logic is circular, how do we know that it's actually the case
that it works or applies to things in the world in terms of being self
evident. Well, we don't know that other than just simply assuming it.
And then also it's a circular sense. Well, I know because I did
induction. It's worked in the Yeah, exactly, it's another appeal to circularity
exactly. And that's the whole point that Hume make and will not point out.
Human's critique doesn't mean I'm a Humian, just pointing out that now Human
is correct, that your appeal is fallacious on your own grounds. And that's
why this is so devastating, and that's why, really, you know,
to end Tomism, all we really need to do is just point this out
and then go to the Theophanes the three hours worth of the often these in
the Torah. Because that end, I'd like to debate you a bit on
uh Islamic perennialism. If you don't mind Islamic perennialism. Yeah, okay,
well well one, so why Islamic perennialism or not some other form? No,
no, because that's the position in which I'm coming from. I don't
mind. I just want to speak about what I'm certain grounds, you know,
mainly the idea that perennialism necessitates you've expresses a couple of times, I
think universalism and natural theology rather than revelation based metaphysics. I think that's a
completely wrong position. Okay, Well, I mean you might appeal to like
a self evidence notion of revelation or some sort of intuitive thing like maybe you're
influenced by neoplatonism or something like that. Why should I think that Islamic perennialism
is true. The Again, I'm arguing generally for perennialism, not specifically slavi
parianalism. I understand that. Okay, what is general perennialism, Like,
how do I know what that is? Well, it's not. What that
is essentially is the idea that there is cycles of revelation and that God reveals
these revelations to the right people at the right time for the salvation of the
human right and who is God? And how do you know that those revelations
just like which revelations? Because that's going to exclude some others that claim to
be revelation. Right, So what we're talking about in perennialism, I know
what I know. I know I've read enough perennials to know that you believe
that. But I want to know how you know that? Not just what
is the position? Uh, it doesn't in a sort of I'd say economy
of God, in the sense that God preserves these traditions rather than Crolean.
But six, let's say, okay, but wait a minute, why do
you exclude the Kroleian sex element and say no, it's this other stuff on
what what's the epistemic principle for that? Well, the epistemic principle is that
the from the beginning of the cycle of revelation. So let's say, if
we start a cycle of revelation most bareally started at let's say the Hindu cycle,
none of that is ound in it, so and it reverse. So
you that's not You didn't give me an episomic principle. You stated your position
again, How do I know that from the beginning of the cycle of revelation
because there's not this sex element there in the ancient aeons ages ago, that
there is not a new revelation that's part of the perennial tradition. Well,
but a perennial is worth your soul by definition? Does not? Who decides
those definitions? The traditions within themselves, and how do I know that tradition?
That's what I'm asking. So it's a circle here. No, no,
no, the perennialism doesn't refer to a tradition. There's no perennialist religion.
Where we go to perennialism. You just said, there's a preservation of
the tradition, of the traditions, the old traditions Christians. So now all
the traditions, but some of those traditions do include sex in the ancient world.
I would contest that point. So the ancient world never had sex.
I mean, have you read the Old Testament for example, of course,
but I don't think that we would attribute to that to the revelation of God.
Again, that's what that's the point. So it's arbitrary. So you're
saying I cut it off there, even though it's in the ancient text,
I cut that off. It's not arbitrary because it's based on heart based revelation
of God. You're begging the question now because I asked you, how do
I know what it is? And you're just saying that, well, it's
the position that I hold, that's what it is. How do you know
that you have the right delineator between the true and the false tradition? Could
I not turn that question to your specific tradition? Well, you can do
a two quote way. That's a fallacy. I'm happy to address that through
tag, but I'm asking you for your position. No, I don't want
to do that. Of course you don't want to do that. Right up,
other world, Moving on, Maximos, what's up? So we just
lost like three hundred people over that. So, hey, what's up?
Yes, sir question it might be related to the other guy. But so
I run into two pieces and they were proponents of what they call process philoscopy.
And I don't know if you have put any critiques on process philosophy slash
theology. I mean we've had those people call in in twenty eighteen nineteen,
and I mean it's all usually again very low level argumentation. They just say,
well, it's just again, most of these people just assert this stuff.
They never get a justification for why we're supposed to think that it's true.
Right, So, like, what would be like a quick reputation for
this position, Well, why are we supposed to think that God is?
That is God? Why are we supposed to think that's about that's that's an
accurate descripture of description of God. Uh right, right, And if I'm
not mistaken, right, there's like what's the guy Whitehead or something like that,
that he was Alfred North Whitehead? Yah, right exactly. I mean
they're usually just sort of asserting a lot of things out of hegel and this
kind of stuff. So all right, yeah, I just thought, I
don't know, maybe a had some like like an essay or refutation on this
precision, but that's all I just I wanted, Yeah, I mean it
just I'm just gonna immediately go to pre sup. So so I don't know
what people are thinking of that. I mean if the if the stream or
the internet cuts out for a second, doesn't mean the streams ended, nothing
ended. We're still here. So I don't know what you guys are talking
about. I mean my on my end it says excellent connection. So I
don't know. Aracoda five dollars, Jam, I'm not wanting to annoy you.
Did you accidentally block me? Uh No? I saw you just spouting
a bunch of gibberish. So I usually block people that spout at me gibberish
and don't actually make any kind of argument, and they repeatedly spelled gibberish.
Would you unblock me? Perhaps I'll think about it. Glocktavius twenty five dollars
question mark? What is your question mark about? Gloctavius. I don't know
how to answer that, but I appreciate that twenty five dollars very much.
Octario's ten dollars. Have you considered doing in person discussions and debates on college
campuses? I don't know. It would be fun and bring viewers. Yeah,
I guess so, nor ten dollars. Can you respond to the argument
that Muslims make that Jesus didn't know the day or the hour? We've responded
to it probably one hundred times. If you go to the Preacher's Institute article,
there's a great discussion from Saint Basil addressing those passages. It's an Orthodox
website, Preachers Institute. Did Jesus know the day in the hour? Was
Jesus ignorant? Of course it never comes up. It's this website here,
and there was an article just citing Basil, was Jesus anger at the time
of the Second Coming. It's probably the best article on this. It's been
here for how many years? This article was written in twenty eleven. Mark
Carney one dollar. Libertarian economics is based their morality is lacking an Arco christendom.
Yeah, I don't think there's anything about anarchy that's Christian. I mean,
I don't know where people get this. I mean, very clearly,
the Bible teaches monarchy and teaches the institution of the state as a divine entity.
It's not a bottom up human social construct. But pretty much all libertarianism
is based on that assumption. Low pen ten dollars. Just read My Godfather's
Essay by Dean Arnold on Biblical monarchy. Low pen ten dollars, Thank you
so much. J quo three dollars. My friends and I are Roman Catholic
because their girlfriend are Catholic, Well, then your friends are basically cucking to
But JJ, I mean, if they're going to make their religious decisions on
the basis of their girlfriend, then your friends have much bigger problems. Then
you probably think it's awkward whenever we talk about God. They have it all
wrong. Any tips on friends like this, I mean, they're already doomed
from the outset because if they were masculine and doing things properly, they would
have converted their girlfriends to their religion, not the other way around. So
they're gonna have much bigger problems down the road than that, unfortunately. All
right, let's see he's next again. If you guys are just calling in
with Orthodox questions, I appreciate that. But today we're going to people who
disagree atheism. Go ahead, Atheism, go ahead. I like this guy
just named atheism unite to just trade up. Go ahead? Man. What's
up? Well, you don't hear anything? If you want to turn your
mic on space cowboy? What's up? Hey, Jay? Can you hear
me? Okay? First, I want to thank you. You've been a
good influence on my orthodox journey so far. Second, my question is on
narcissism. A good friend of mine we went on a narcissist journey, you
know, for a while, and I deviated, went back to Christianity and
have pursued orthodoxy. My question is simply, what would be your primarily fortitude
against naism? Are you drunk right now? Bro? No? Sorry,
I got a speech compairment, Soka, But yeah, I mean gnosticism first
of all, is relativistic. I mean, it doesn't actually give us any
kind of objective ethic. That's an easy critique to make. And uh,
you know, gnoscissism is also kind of incoherent. There's not one gnosticism.
It's kind of a patch work typically of like a bunch of weird, contradicting
ancient systems. So there's not one gnosticism that you can choose from. There's
all these conflicting you know, gnostic gospels and texts and esoteric you know,
sort of platonic or neo platonic things going on. So it's kind of all
over the place and usually kind of falls over into like far Eastern mysticism of
maya or denying reality or reality is an illusion, this kind of stuff.
I mean, it's it's just kind of it's not a real system. It's
just kind of an arbitrary thing that people say, you have a nasty dude,
And then when you ask what they what they believe and how they know
it's true, they just reassert whatever nonsense they think. So I would start
asking questions like, Okay, well why should I believe narcissism. Why do
you think nacissm is for? How did you come to know this? Right?
Just again, just just pre sell it, bro sir, Yes,
sir, sir, what's up, dude? Yes? Can you hear me?
Yes, ma'am? All right, Yeah, So I love your stuff.
I don't have any debate points personally, but I got some questions on
how to debate Pentecostalism. Right, as you probably know, it's like growing
incredibly in Iran. So my question is like, how do we as Orthodox
Christians debate pentecostal specifically? And I guess, like in my head, the
the first debate point would be, you know, explaining, you know how
Pentecostalism was founded in the nineteen hundreds by this guy named Charles Fox Parham,
right, and this guy was expelled from the Methodist Church. He did in
complete Bible school training. And the thing that no pentecostal knows is the fact
that this guy was caught in a hotel room with a young Jewish boy in
nineteen oh seven. So, like he was literally arrested for sodomy. Yeah,
I'll ease up, bro, we're on YouTube. Oh sorry, right,
I know what you're saying. Yeah, so he was he was a
creeper. He was a creeper. Yeah. So, like I'm trying to
understand how like such a movement is growing, and how we as Orthodox Christians
can debate and disprove this would would be would we essentially try to prove an
orthodox position by explaining orthodoxy? And then also, yeah, so just to
make this right, So to make this really clear, we literally just did
like a three hour live stream rebutting all forms of Pentecostalism and charismaticism a few
days ago. So if you go back to my stream like a week or
two ago, we went into all the texts, all the proofs of the
fact that revelation is not ongoing. It ended with the death of the apostles,
so none of these people will actually are actually prophesying anything. They're diluted
Isaiah twenty eight, the text in Zechariah about the end of prophecy in the
Messianic age. I mean, all of these really contribute to this, as
well as Paul's pointing Galatians one that there are no new revelations. This cuts
off by the way Islam too, so we automatically know. And the stream
that we did was let me find it. So guys, remember, and
I'm not trying to be mean to you guys, but I always get every
time people call in I get these questions. And again I'm not complaining because
I understand people can't follow all these streams. But if you just go and
look at my channel, and if you click on live streams and you click
all of these open debates, I typically retitle them based on who called in
and what the majority of the debates were. So we literally just had a
gigantic charismatic evangelical discussion not too long ago. If I can find it right
here, Protestant and Catholic charismatics open debate right here, four weeks ago,
right here. See this. So remember I usually title the streams based on
the things that we talked about, and when we do these streams, the
reason that they're so long is because we usually address each of these issues with
a lot of sufficient time and attention. So if your questions are these kinds
of like FAQ basic type questions, remember guys, you can always go look
on my channel at these streams where we typically have covered these things. And
it's not just this time. I actually covered charismatic type stuff probably ten times
in the last six years, going back to twenty eighteen, so that just
kind of helps us, you know, keep the topics current Thomas. You
gotta a mute braw got an arm you know. Roh Thomas, you have
to unmute man. Hello, Sorry I didn't then come through. Yeah,
I just had a question in regards to I get those letter. I a
Roman Catholic guy. I keep going on about that, basically saying that it
proves the papacy, you know, supremacy and infallibility because of the way Agatha
use a certain text in scripture. So I'm just curious to your response to
that. Yeah, we've already done, right, We've done multiple Yeah,
I understand. I'm not gonna be rude. So we just covered this not
too long ago. If you go to my clips channel right here, I
did a whole not this one, my clips channel, not not Kyle.
So there's a whole ten minute video, fifteen minute video addressing Agatho's letter right
here. I'll put in the chat for you guys. Let's see, it's
called does the letter of Agatho teach prove the papacy? Right? Eleven minutes
and I go through all the reasons why it's kind of really silly to think
that. Al Right, next up atheism, I'm gonna try again. Hello,
can you show me. Yeah, man, what's up? Does the
work? Now? Yeah? All right? So Jay, I've been on
the show one month ago or something, and I'm an ultimatius. I'm a
Christian orthodox. I was talking with this guy was an acquaintance of mine,
and he's kind of like, how would I classify he? He is agnostic,
right, and he posts some questions that I want to address to you.
So if you're willing to hear him, right, so I mean I'm
not, I'll do it. But like every time I put the topics up,
nobody calls in about the topics. So there's nothing about atheism and tag
today and that's when everybody calls in about atheism atag which is fine, But
I mean I literally put the topics in the show description, so there's no
tag or atheism in there. But go ahead. Yeah, to be honest,
I told him to today that he was a pagan, but unfortunately he
is. Yeah. Well, I mean we just we just dealt with,
for example, the agnostic guy right here, Like this was a whole twenty
six minute funny conversation with an agnostic. But go ahead, what's the question.
So it's a conversation between me and him this guy particular right, and
he says, I don't believe your God is real because the evidence is just
a book full of myths ripped from other existing religions. Chio Shant, who
is from mentioned from the zoro Astrianism. Do you have any I mean,
I have no idea why we would think that. First of all, it's
a fallacy that because something supposedly comes earlier, it's necessarily true. Also,
the people will sort of do this fallacy of similarity equates to ripping off.
But actually the Messianic prophecies are prior to Zoroastrianism, So even secular scholars would
date the Torah prior to Orsism, so there's no reason, you know what
also doesn't fallow from the zoroastrian I've seen this argument before the Babylonian captivity.
They were close to the Zoriaastrians, and therefore they must have been infected by
some of their theology. You have to understand what Zoroastrianism. You can't convert
to Zoroastrianism. To be even a priest and Zoroasteran you have to be and
the priestly lineage, and they're extremely esoteric. In other words, they're not
interested in converting people. They didn't tell anybody about their theology. We didn't
come to find out more about until much later. But there's no way at
that time that they want to say that the Israelites or Christians were influenced by
Zoroastrism. That would be impossible. They would never have talked about their theology.
So it's another just kind of made up ad hoc. We'll see if
I make up this story, how I can find similar Yeah, what's the
actual demonstration, By the way, what's the actual proof that Zoroastrianism that Jews
ripped offs rations? I mean, that's an that's an assertion, But what's
the actual proof of that? So remember your atheist friends and your agnostic friends,
they love these sort of Zeitgeist level arguments of sort of patch work.
Oh well, look at this is similar Like the pope wears a hat and
it looks like the ancient Egyptian pharaoh. Therefore the pope is the ancient Egyptian.
It's just silly, like that's an assertion based on like just the appearance
of similarity. Well that's a fallacy, so, I mean it represents a
mental illness, right, Remember the same sort of kind of like this conspiratorial
thinking. Well, look at this numbers here, and you see if you
turn it this way, then it makes it his sign. Yeah, it's
a lot of non sequitors, the same as the Gomatria weirdos, which is
ironic because the agnostic would want to be a skeptic when it comes to like
the you know, Gamatria quash, and then he's actually using the same type
of filation. This argumentation based on superficial similarity to say that therefore, uh,
you know, Christianity ripped off Zoroastrianism or something like that. But what's
the actual argument for that being the case, rather than just asserting it,
Peter, by the way, or Astrianism is a dualistic religion. Christianity is
not a dualistic religion. Yo. Jay, Hey, how's it going,
man? I really appreciate what you do. Uh. Before I ask my
question, just want to let you know you're always talking about your like sinus
issues and stuff for allergies. One thing that's helped me with similar issues is
mullin. I don't know if you've ever heard of it. M U L
L E I N. It's like a It's like a plant and it always
helps me breathe a little clear, So maybe that might help you. I
just want to appreciate that. What's your what's your question or topic? So
I got really interested in Carl Jung and I've studied some of his stuff,
done research, and I wanted to see what you have to say. I
went back and watched some of your videos and you mentioned that kind of at
the end, is you know his Red Book he kind of comes out with
this gnostic type. Well it's not just the Red Book. He also has
an a thing, a treatise called aon where he says Jesus and Antichrist are
the same. M hm. So could you explain that a little more in
detail for me? I want to understand that, like it's crazy. What
do you mean explain how Like it's total quackery. Why would we think Jesus
an Antichrist or flip sides at the same coin. That's that's Charles Manson level
theology most definitely right. But what about what about some of his other concepts,
like the archetypes or well, I mean that's just stuff that we would
get from Plato. So archetypes and patterns in reality is not new to Carl
Young, and uh, you know, I've read Carl Young books over the
years here and there, and I think he's insightful. He's useful for like
literary analysis. Uh there's a there's a famous literary scholar in the Northrop Fry
and he bases his literary analysis on archetypes. So it's there's nothing inherently wrong
with that because it's just pattern recognition and this kind of stuff. But Carl
Young kind of takes Plato and this kind of stuff and makes it like a
it's almost a kind of a new religion where you know, psychology psychoanalysis is
like another version of gnosticism. And the Red Book makes that very explicitly clear,
where Carl Jung's like thinking that this you know, mystical old man being
is appearing to him and giving him revelations. So he's basically I'm serious,
Yeah, yeah, that is it. Okay, So I wanted to get
to that kind of right like, because there's at he's definitely like some type
of mystical figure. And I really appreciated his his trying to kind of revive
modern mysticism. That's kind of how I saw it, And you know,
it's it was helpful for me, especially once I started looking into Orthodoxy.
Then I started to see that actually, whether like Orthodox priests know it or
not, they're acting in a type of psychological way as they should be,
right, because psychology is the study of the soul. So you know,
a true you know, you know, you might say Christians should be a
true psychologist as well, someone who knows the soul. Because yeah, but
it's not an intellectual endeavor. It's what priests do when they diagnose the virtues
and the biases. And Carl Jung's approach approach to being a you know,
analysis of the soul is a bunch of repackaged gnosticism. That's not what Orthodox
priests do, Father Deacon, could you speak to analysis. Well, first
of all, they ideally have acquired the virtues, the spiritual virtues, to
be able to diagnose how when second they're given a divine charisma from God.
So the city of man versus city a man versus city of God. It's
not the priest and any kind of man made philosophy or medicine that he's creating
to the heals. It's God that heals, and the divine offices and sacraments
of the church, and the more that the priest participates in acquiring the virtues,
the more he participates in the divine energies, and the more he brings
about healing. So a secular philosophy or a secular therapist or they can do
that. They don't. They don't have the divine power. They're apostolos.
Yeah. And also let's keep in mind that I mean the the process of
what is happening to heal you in union psychoanalysis includes things like integrating the demonic
or the shade into your personality. That's the opposite of what we teach.
We teach that you have to purb yourself of the vices, not in to
grate them into your psyche. That's precisely why Carl Jung says that Jesus and
Antichrist or flip sides of the same coin, and that you need to integrate
them both into you. Right. That's that this is totally like totally demonic
satanic philosophy. And I've read aon. I don't know what people in the
chat are saying, Yes I do, I've read aon and it's you that's
in delusion, not you, Peter asking the question the guy in the chat
who's like, you don't understand it. No, you're in delusion and thinking
that you have some sort of like deep super mystical insight, which is uh
like just delusion. Yeah. So look, sometimes the Internet is not the
best. You know, well, I don't know what to tell you.
By the way, it's weird because the notifications aren't telling me that there's anything
going on. So sometimes it just cuts out. I don't know, and
then it comes back just just welcome to welcome to exfinity com whatever. Man,
it doesn't matter how many times I call and have him out here.
Nothing doesn't do anything. All right, who's next? So today is for
people who disagree, and please keep it to the topics. And that guy
was on topic because it does say gnosticism, so I appreciate that. At
ev. What's up, mandaji h? What's a good response to Jesus was
a Muslim? I mean, if you read the Gospel of John, Jesus
was a Trinitarian. He identifies himself in every chapter as the son of God.
Islam is very clear that God Allah has no sons, So literally every
reference to Jesus saying he was the son of God is a refutation of Islam.
Allah does not have a son explicitly in the Koran. So this idea
that Jesus was a Muslim is just like literally the dumbest argument of all time.
Noah Am two dollars. Is there a tryad of body, soul,
spirit that's different from spirit? I don't know what that means. Spirit is
the news, it's the heart, it's not the intellect. So that might
answer your question, Patrick, five dollars. How would you prove orthodoxy to
refute Mormonism if somebody is well learned and entrenched in Mormonism. Well, I
mean Mormonism again falls in many ways, like the idea that the Church died
out and was restored by this quack in the eighteen hundred's the idea. I
mean, that's Matthew against Matthew eighteen. The gates of Hell not prevailing against
the Church. The idea that God is that God, the Father was once
a man with a physical body is a preposterous. God is spirit. Jesus
says very clearly, no one is seeing God at any time. No one
has ever seen the Father. John one, John four, John five.
I mean, how would we can at all come from that to think that
God the Father was a man with a body who became God. It's just
it's idiotic idolatry. So it's anti trinitarian. So I go to all the
theophanies in the Old Testament. That guy that called in the other night actually
might have been a Mormon, not a Joe's Witness, so it could be
either one, but he was probably Mormon. So you could go watch that
interview or that debate with that guy, Addie, what's up, hey,
j how's it going good? What's up hey? So that last chat,
I mean, that's that's kind of the the question that I'm going to be
talking about. So I'm an ex Mormon and I just started looking into the
Eastern Orthodox Church, so I haven't been Mormon in a long time. So
I kind of hope that my argument is good faith. I'm sure I'll get
a lot of flak for it. But okay, so Mormons that so we
they are that the church went into apocessy after the death of Christ and his
apostles. Okay, well, so let's start with Matthew sixteen. Right,
what does it say? Right? Honestly, off the top of my head,
I don't know. I haven't been Mormon or religious and very long.
Do you have any idea what they might say about that passage? What is
it Matthew sixteen? Yeah, the gates of Hell would not prevail against the
church. Like, how are we going to have a blackout theory? If
that's If that's the case, Well, in Mormonism there's a concept of what
is it. It's a modern revelation, right, so it's kind of like
right, papal supremacy, where the prophet can what they say can supersede the
previous one. So when you look into the scripture, it may not actually
like be one for one with how the Mormons really believe. So in other
words, okay, so in other words, the scriptures are actually subservient to
the new revelation. So basically like the way the Talmud trump's the Bible,
or the way that the papacy trump's whatever came before you're saying that, So
you're not going to a lot a whole lot of like a solo script era
from a Mormons. Well it's not does, but it's not sol just like
well, it's not sold scripture to refer to the Bible. Okay, right,
to go ahead, Yeah, sorry, I don't. I don't know
all the terms yet, so that's okay. But yeah, so they would
probably just say, like, oh, well, it's been revealed now by
Joseph Smith or like by a later prophet that the church did with like maybe
the original twelve, well after the twelve, like the seventy. Yeah,
over a period of time, like them being normal men, like maybe they
just kind of like diluted over along. Okay, well let's start with that,
because are you aware of like Deuteronomy thirteen and Deuteronomy eighteen or familiar with
those passages kind of what their point is Deuteronomy was it thirteen, thirteen and
eighteen? Yeah, no, I'm not so, I'll just summarize it really
quick. You can go look it up later. But both of those passages
basically tell us that any future coming revelation has to be consistent with what came
before. So all cults, whether Islam or Mormonism, they reverse that and
they make the new revelation be the standard which judges what came before. But
those passages, being historically prior to any new revelations, require us to judge
everything that comes on the basis of the prior. So this is why it
was so crucial for Jesus and the New Testament authors to make sure that what
they were teaching was constant or consistent and coherent with the Torah and the prophets.
That's why they're always referring to it. So the New has to be
consistent with the Old. Also, we are told, for example, in
Zechariah thirteen, that there are no new revelations or prophets when the Messianic era
comes, and if you look at a lot of exegutes, they will typically
execute Zakariah thirteen as a passage about the time of the Messiah. One of
the key indicators of that time will be that when people begin to say,
oh, I'm a prophet, I have new prophecies, they will say to
him, you are no prophet, you are a farmer. And anyone who
tries to prophesy will be excommunicated or quote put to spiritual death. So we
reject the notion in the Messianic era that there will be the continuation of the
prophetic office like we saw with the time of the Apostles. So when we
come to the New Testament, we see that. In Galatians one, Paul
reaffirms this principle of if anyone comes to you with a new gospel or a
new revelation, and even if it's an angel, does Paul say that one
Trump's No, he says, anyone who comes with that new angelic revelation is
automatically discounted. Whether it's Jibriel speaking to Mohammed or whether it's Moron speaking to
Joseph Smith. It says, as clear as day, no new revelations.
They're accursed from the outset automatically. That's why if you go watch the debate
with Danielay Kikachu, the famous Muslim, he continually messes up by saying that
no, no, the Quran judges everything that came before, even though the
read the Koran to learn that the Koran is true. And then yeah,
and then even though the Quran says to judge the Quran the basis of prior
revelation, when I go to prior revelation, they say no, no,
that's all corrupt, even though Koran doesn't actually say that the prior revelations corrupt.
So a lot of similarities with Muslims and Mormonism, I see with the
debates that you've been in. Yeah, so yeah, that's that's really helpful.
Now. Also, by the way, I mean, let me make
a couple more points and then I'll let you speak. The next point I
would make is if we go to Revelation twenty two. Even though this is
not immediately talking about the canonical scriptures, there is there is an application to
the canonical scriptures because the Final Text, which providentially became the final text in
the Bible canon, it specifically says that you can't add to or take away
from the book. So technically, yes, it is talking about the Book
of Revelation, but since providentially it becomes the final book in our canonical text,
it still applies that the principles there that you can't add new revelations,
right, because Revelation twenty to eighteen makes this point that if you add to
this or you take away from it, you remove yourself from the Holy City
and from the Book of Life. So there is a specific warning here about
being removed by adding to the Divine Revelation. I think that principle applies even
though there's not yet a bound up, fixed canon at the time of John
writing this. So the last final point that would make is that most of
the time when we get heresies like Muhammad and Islam, or Joseph Smith or
Charles Parham, the Pentecostal guy we mentioned a few minutes ago, or when
we get Ellen White right, the founder of Seven day Adventism, like the
commonality between all those groups say is we are a new revelation and everybody before
got it wrong and there was some kind of blackout. Well again just out
of hand. Those are all canceled by the text that we've looked at so
far, and by the fact that as an Orthodox person, the condemnation of
the Montanists in the Early Church also helps me know this, because the Montanists
taught that there was new, ongoing revelation, and they were automatically discounted and
considered heretics. Now, the famous Early Church theologian Tertullian famously became a Montanist
and is considered a heretic and outside of the Church, precisely because he adopted
this heretical position of new ongoing public revelations. In one last caveat, we
do believe in miracles. So this is not to say that there's no you
know, saint or elder who lacks you know, the gift of clairvoyance or
something like that. But a saint or an elder having clairvoyance is not the
equivalent of public divine revelation. Okay, So for example, we're not going
to like adjust the Nicene creed because you know, elder so and so amount
Athos had a vision or something like that. There's nothing wrong with those things,
but they're never equated to or accounted equal to the statement that Jude gives
us. Remember that the very one but Jude says early on, Jude says
the earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
And this is very important for our position because it lets us know that
everything necessary was given to the apostles in the Apostolic deposit. That's why,
for example, Orthodox don't accept the Roman Catholic view that icons evolved. Right
if you read the seventh that Chemical Council, it argues that icons were the
Apostolic practice by tradition. So we are never conceding. And again you're absolutely
right in pursuit, I think to recognize the similarity between the papacy as well
and Joseph Smith or Mohammad. Yeah, and I mean even with like the
first vision, I mean with the Mormons, like Muhammad, I think,
and I don't. I don't really know too much about Islam either, but
from what I understand, like Mohammed's pretty consistent with even like his his encounter
with the Angel. But I know Joseph Smith, he has four different accounts
of it. So, I mean he says that he sees God and Jesus
in a garden or a pillar of fire or a thousand Well, I would
actually argue that when you get into the hot deaths and all that, and
even in the Kurrn itself, Mohammad's account is not consistent. Well there you
go. Well that's because actually Islam is a patchwork of pseudopographical text Talmud,
Bible, Christian traditions, stories, myths. It's like all kind of compacted
into one book. So it's not going to be consistent. Well cool,
I mean that makes a lot of sense. Yeah. The Apostolic what is
it, Apostolic succession? Like that's a really When I learned that there were
like first century saints that we have the writings of, like that just kind
of blew my mind. I never heard of that concept growing up as a
Mormon. So but yeah, so, I mean, that's that's my argument.
We actually even have the Apostolic Canons, which were go back even to
the Apostles. Uh, it's the first collection of church law. Yeah,
weren't actually written down during the first couple of centuries because of the persecutions,
and then we're being to be written down. That gives you a real good
idea of confirming orthodoxy. And I also have made this argument against Mormons too,
because they believe in continuing revelation, that that it's an epistemic defeater.
If that were true, if Jay quoted Jude that if we did not receive
the fullness of the teachings from Christ and didn't allow for new public revelations,
then we'd never actually know what Christ actually taught because you could just constantly appeal
to Yeah, yeah, well that's something. It was a missing tech.
You didn't know it was missing, you see, or God. I mean,
how would you determine, right, Nolan understood the actual original meaning meaning
of Christ's words. It was all everybody interpreting it differently, and then each
subsequent prophet is having the more correct interpretation. Is that kind of what you're
saying well, I'm saying that the reason why we know that certain books and
teachings are not Christian is because we have the whole right and we that it
doesn't match the whole. Now, you can't have your cake and eat too.
You can't say you have a whole theology that nothing's missing and then say,
but we have open public revelation, we have new revelations that come.
How can you have new when it's complete and whole, right, And if
it's not complete and whole, then I have no way of determining whether maybe
that was what Christ is taught. Maybe I don't know, Like how would
you you have to have the whole teaching presented in order to be able to
identify heresy and be like, that's not part of it, because anybody can
just say that it is point And Mormonism you run into like examples of the
contradicting to like the temple, their temple ritual rights, where I think in
the scripture says these are fulfilled, these are whole, they will not leave
or be changed ever again. But I mean every decade or so that the
actual ritual changes. Like they used to motion that to their throat that they
cut up in their throat or something, and they don't do that anymore,
or they would go in in and be naked. But ever since the sixties,
like, there wasn't really good flavor in people's mouth about that. So
the church changed something that previous revelation said was whole or complete or anything.
So yeah, I can see how that now. Real quick, I want
to address because there was another comment from a guy who I think maybe was
a Mormon or former Mormon. Patrick for three dollars says, Mormons will say
that the church was restored, and it's consistent with Matthew sixteen because they'll say
that the gates of Hell didn't quote permanently prevail against the Church, but only
for a time. Well, the problem with this interpretation is that if you
look at Jesus' promises in John fourteen, he says, if you love me
keep my commandments, I will pray to the Father he will give you another
helper that he might abide with you forever. So we're actually promised in what
happens at Pentecost, which, by the way, if people aren't aware,
if you read Acts too, Pentecost is the pouring out of the spirit on
the collective Church at its very foundation. Okay, so it's not an individual
just personal sort of subjective thing. I mean, the Holy Spirit does relate
to the individual. But the essence of Pentecost is the reversal of the Tower
of Babel, of the confusion of the nations, and the Church being united
as a reversal of that. That's in the Orthodox liturgy on the Day of
Pentecost. It all refers back to Babel and how Babbel's reversed and the collective
pouring out of the spirit means that the possession of the Holy Spirit is the
possession of the collective body of the apostles and their successors. That's why Paul
says in Timothy that when you lay hands on people who you choose to be
your successor, Timothy, don't do it hastily, because in the laying on
of hands is the passing on of the gift of the Holy Spirit. So
notice John fourteen says that the gift the Holy Spirit never leaves the church.
If it's passed on by the successors Allah what Paul says to Timothy, then
it abides with the Apostolic succession in history, and thus we can't interpret Matthew
sixteen to be a blackout that is quote restored, So it's just completely missing
the whole point of absolute succession. Uh in in that rereading. Well that's
perfect for me. Yeah. Again, this is all new to me,
so I appreciate all these arguments. Now, those are great points, Father
Diacon. Could you speak a little bit to this. I got to use
the restroom. I gotta go t T Are you there? Yeah? Are
you? Are you able to or do you have any other points? Maybe
because I know you had recently talked to a woman in that in your region
who was Mormon and was sort of trying to argue against you know what,
did you see any other commonalities of like responses to these kinds of Mormon critiques
of orthodoxy? And well, what I did see is that and I talked
to we have a Mormon family at one of our sister parishes up here that
I mean their family that were Mormon and converted. And I wanted to kind
of get the psychology of what's kind of going on with Mormons and you know,
why they're not responding to certain kind of arguments or why do they do
And the person told me, they said, there's no amount of arguments that
you could give one of them that if they're a regular attending Mormon, they're
taught basically never to question this stuff, doesn't matter what kind of evidence,
and so it's really kind of grounded emotionally, and which is often the case
that we see with stuff that And then I myself or somebody else might ronest
the approach me and think that, well, if I just give them this
argument, they're going to have to respond to this, and they'll have to
see it. And why aren't they. Well, the mistake lam Vegas because
that they're actually open that they would consider evidence, or maybe I misinterpreted that
verse, or yeah, maybe it doesn't mean that. And he had said,
there's nothing you can do, he says, the only people that you
could actually reach in the Mormon community somebody who just had a bad experience of
some sort there or is already starting to doubt, he says, But for
like regular pledging attending Mormon, there's literally nothing you can say to them.
They have such a tight control and community that they keep you in that it's
so emotionally and psychologically grounded that like it's a waste of time to actually bring
up So the reason that being said is with this individual and some others,
they'll have this. They train him to do this. Oh I'm interested in
what did the Orthodox believe? Oh that's interesting. We have something similar if
you ever have them come to the door to door, right, I mean
door to door to your door. I was found it interesting in that.
Why are we all focusing on the sam We we have that too, you
see we Why don't we just nail it, nail it down and ask it
out on the differences. Why don't they start with that? And they said
they trained in that way kind of psychologically to get you like, oh,
hey, they're interested, right, So that ultimately what they're trying to do.
They have no interest in the Orthodox Church or anything outside of the faith
if they're a regular attending Mormon or if they're an elder doing missionary or going
door to door. So's it's a ploy to basically gets you to think that
they're interested and they're going to lure you and invite you to some of the
Mormon events. So keep that in mind. Don't throw your pearls before swine.
If like, if it is somebody and he used to just ask what's
your attendance on them. What's your experience in the Mormon faith? Well,
I think too, like you know, and being Mormon, like the missionaries
are a little different because there is a lot of social shaming if you don't
go on a mission or if you don't fulfill a complete one. So you
know, trying to fight with them may not be like the best thing because
they have like familial consequences, even though you know, Jesus said I come
as a sword, you know, between families and stuff, like the right
thing is the right thing. But also you're just kind of some guy in
there in their perspective, you don't have any authority or or or freestood knowledge.
Well, let's let's just be honest too, Like I mean, I'm
playing an image here that somebody had recorded of one of the moremon temple ceremonies
on YouTube. I mean, this is all quite obviously borrowed from freemasonry,
right, I mean, yeah, that's to me, that's just obvious.
Like even you mentioned the spitting a throat, that's a Freemason. Yeah,
and Joseph Smith kind of came up with that stuff when he first got inducted
into freemasonry. And you still have a lot of Mormons that are Freemasons.
But yeah, I mean, one thing though about Mormonism that I find,
like, even when arguing my own family, consequentialism seems to be a pretty
big thing. And I know I'll get a lot of flack about this,
but Mormonisms has something called the Plan of Happiness, that God's ultimate goal for
you is to be happy, and a lot of them will start questioning their
belief when they start feeling like like you were saying, the experience is not
lining up with their happiness. So they'll be like, oh, well,
going to church or being in a family, or not being able to do
hard drugs or whatever, those aren't making me happy. So a lot of
the time when they leave the church, they still are primed for that way
of thinking. So they'll, you know, they'll go off the deep end,
drink as much as they can, you know, engage in risky sexual
behavior and all that. So, I mean, I don't know if there's
like a way to really argue about that. Maybe start looking holes of like,
oh, are you really happy? But I don't even know if that's
like that might just be an effective strategy, but may not be like the
way to get like a right Christian follower, you know what I mean.
Yeah, Well, I think this guy was just saying that whether to know
if it's somebody that that's actually genuinely interested in orthodox here or not, Like,
what's the how would I tell among a Mormon? This is, well,
if it's somebody who's a regular tithing, regular attempt Mormon, like,
you're not gonna get interested. No, No, we have a guy who
wants to come and discuss he might be a Mormon. And I've got up
here on the screen the you'll notice the handshake here from behind the veil.
This is obviously borrowed straight from Freemasonry, with the Masonic handshake between the guy
in front of the veil and the guy behind the veil. Uh. And
this is hidden camera footage of Mormon temple ritual recently. Winner I think it
was going viral everywhere, So got we'll go watch this. You can watch.
It's not that exciting. It's just kind of like a boring Masonic thing.
But the interesting too, is that talking to some Mormons, I knew
that they weren't being truthful about their own Mormonism. Like one thing they were
saying, it's we have no heart hierarchy whatsoever. It's it's all kind of
democratic. Children have just as much authority, and I might I just know
that's false. Be some more changes over the more recent years. I know
that the church has kind of started de emphasizing some of that hierarchical stuff.
They've kind of removed, like we used to have classes for men and women.
Now they've kind of combined that into a single power together. They've kind
of de emphasized some of like the differences between men and women, and like
if you ask, like if you have you're suppose it's supposed to be like
profit president down to like your bishop, to like your your actual dad.
But if you have con in flicks between that, it's the same thing as
like Protestantism. It's like I also get personal revelations. So let's say my
bishop, my dad, and I have personal revelation. That all differs.
There hasn't been a big push by the church leadership to really kind of clarify
who you're supposed to follow, So kind of right now we're seeing Mormonism.
It is kind of like every man for himself. But again, I've been
Mormon for a long time, just observing as an outsider. I appreciate that,
and we're going to go on to the really good questions. For the
people that are saying that they have a hard time searching, Yes, I
understand it's not really feasible to search Google for my videos. The best way
to do it is to go to my channel. And a lot of people
don't know this, but where those tabs are listed, you can actually search
the channel. So a lot of people don't know that that's the best bet.
But even that doesn't typically work that well because the algorithm is just it
is just weird, like it doesn't pull up stuff like you would think the
way it's titled. Also, I don't even remember all the stuff that I
titled the videos, so then I have to try to remember how I titled
it. Wi Is. It's hard. So but it's open for him.
So we're opening it up. Now. This guy, I don't know if
it's the same guy that put the super chat up, Hank says, tell
Jim Bob now, today Jim Bob said that new agers are all syllipsis.
Yeah, I think so, I would say syllipsism is true for the root
of mind only. Well, syllpicism isn't true. So why would you think
syllipsism is true at all? The mind of God? Well, again,
our world is based on divine revelation, so it's not based on any kind
of like sillipsis philosophical speculation. So I don't know where you're where you're getting
that? Uh? Uh? Oh, Adam King wants to debate? Go
ahead, dude, Get I'm mute. Man. Oh hey, I love
to touch here. Jay. Oh, you're not the Adam King. I
thought you were thought to the other guy. Oh, I've not been up
before. Bro. Well there's another dude named Adam King that's always wanted debate.
I thought you were him. Never mind, go ahead. No,
I've not been up before. I've just got I've got quite a few questions,
but I'd love to ask you a few. Do you study Hebrew and
Greek? Uh? No, I'm a philosophy student. I'm not a linguistic
guy. Okay, neither of my I Are you aware that it's spoken in
three languages like the letter the number in the picture? Yes, okay,
do you know why that is done? Well? I know that the ancient
world just typically used the letters for their number system as well. Okay,
And the pictures. Well, some ancient world views, you know, like
ancient Chinese and Japanese, like they had an iconographic connection to their language as
well. Okay, okay, I'm trying to learn Orthodoxy because I've got quite
a few people who follow me or orthodox I've got quite a few new orthodox
mates. How many books in your Bible? Uh? Well, we have
the Duro canon, so whatever that is the sixty six Protestant books plus the
Dudo Canon. I don't know. I forget how many that is off the
top of my head, because a couple of the books aren't actually books.
They are like additional chapters, like chapters to Daniel, So I don't even
know what the actual member of books is. Let's see, it's like it's
between seventy five and seventy nine because of the differing whether the extra chapters are
considered books or not. Thank you. It is that in different for us
Orthodoxy. Well, it's more so different collections of books, not forms of
Orthodoxy. So like the ancient Slavonic books or Bible collected more books than some
of the others did. Okay, someone told me that there's only salvation inside
of the Orthodoxy church. Well, if God has extra normative ways to unite
people to the church. It's still salvation only in Christ and in the Church.
So ultimately that is correct. So what is the church by definition?
By definition, it is the body of Christ. It is the canonical Orthodox
Church spread out throughout the world based on the apostolic succession of the church that
Christ set up in Matthew sixteen eighteen and x two. Okay, you know
when Paul wrote the Seven Letters to the Churches. Yeah, and they all
kind of get different report cards. Are you talking about John writing to the
seven churches in the Asian mina? Right, But usually when this analogy is
used, it's used for the Letters to the Seven Churches, and in Revelation
wanted to but anyway, go ahead, what about it? So he writes
to seven epistles and to the different churches, getting wrong, they say some
good things, to say some bad things, right, And then I think
you can kind of tie this to the seven Spirits of the Church as well.
In Revelation, Well, there's the seventh spirits of God. I don't
know about the seventh spirits of Church. Okay, Okay, that's that's from
Isaiah. So anyway, but yeah, I appreciate that. I'm gonna move
on. I appreciate these questions, but it's not like, uh, we're
not doing ethic ues today, Hank, what's up? Hank wanted to come
discuss, So go ahead, Hank. Are you the guy asking the question
about syllipsism? You get an I'm mute? There you go? Can you
hear me? Excellent? But yeah, you read my question, but I'll
just ask it again for to let snow that I'm here reading it. Yeah,
today, Jimbop said new Atres. And so I always say solism is
true for the root mind only the mind of God, and for ust rest
it's idealism. Am I wrong? What do you mean the root mind of
God? I don't even know what that means. Yes, So the route
it's pretty much like a compure term. The root account is account that controls
everything on the computer and relation to us, God is the root of the
universe. Okay, how do you know this? Sounds like like where are
you getting this from? So if we assume God is omniponed omniscient, it
just it just falls. If you seem God's omniscient omni But how do you
know that's who God is? And how he is. We know that as
Christians because sinivine revelation. But what's your source for this? I am a
universitis, that's a Christians right for religion. So you're not okay, So
so you're not part of our revelation because revelation says that he's triadic and not
just a Unitarian being. Okay, Well, well I can't make sense of
triaticism, so so God has to. So God has to submit to what
you think makes sense or what he doesn't have to. But it doesn't mean
that, you know, I do does the Does the Old Testament teach that
he's a triad No? Okay, So what about all the three hours that
I just did the other night of going through all the texts in the Old
Testament to teacher triad What are all those texts? I had to go back
and watch it for my owners day. It does not pitch a triad,
which is why that Jewish people don't say that that's a fallacy. So what
so the so so the fact that Jews don't accept it means that it's not
true. Our Jews unitary, our Jews dig dig Did you just teach unitarian
universalists syllipsism. Okay, so then so it's so it has nothing to do
so it's a relevant So that's a fallacy, okay, faacious. No,
it just means that your arguments fallacious. Doesn't mean I'm fallacious. No,
they're not. I mean I just appealed to the Old Testament. The often
is what are those I mean it says the glory of God appeared as the
Angel. Yahweh, Who's that is it? Michael? No, you can't
worship Michael. Michael's not uncreated worshiped U created things. So I mean you
don't believe that you can't. I'm sorry, man, this is like this
is it's not even I can't even understand what you're saying. Mark, what's
up? Go watch the theophany is actually that we just did. Unmute Mark,
he's a Unitarian universalist, he's not Jewish. I'm mute, man,
Go ahead, did you turn your mic on? It's like people will never
use the internet suddenly, Like when they come to my chat, nobody knows
what Twitter is. They don't know what a space is, they don't know
how to it's like what's a live stream? Right? Remember boomers were saying
that like last year. What's a live stream? Why do you have music
at the beginning? What is this? You gotta turn your mic on?
Man, pop out, pop back in with your mic permissions on Nick?
What's up? Dude? Hey? Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am?
Well, yes, sir, excuse me my mania. Listen. I
hope my voice is clear. I'm talking from the form I wanted to ask
you about. It's kind of related to the previous guy, but mostly about
Theophanies. And recently I heard you talking about how, you know, Catholics,
I think it's okay to pray in mosques because they think like they're praying
to the same God in a way. So previously you mentioned that effectively like
Old Testament period of believers in some sense believed in Trinity and that in Old
Testament. Yes, we just did a three hour lecture through all the references
in the Torah alone correctly. And I'm just curious, like I fully understand
that you know what you explained about Theophanies, like I get it. I'm
just wondering, are you also saying that they were like fully aware of it
or like, let's say, like some rabbio that period was he actually aware
of the mystery of trinity or was it implicit but they didn't fully understand it.
So if you read John five through nine, Jesus answers this question.
They don't have to know the terms homo usius, hypostasis. Those are all
Greek terms that are much later that described the same reality that the terms Yahweh,
Angel of the Lord, Angel of his Presence, Messenger of the Covenant,
Face of God, Glory of God. All of those are the terms
the Old Testament uses for the Son, and then the Spirit is often identified
just as the Spirit. So all they need to know is that the Shamah,
the Lord, our God, the Lord is one, and that he
has three persons Yahweh, his Angel, son, and his Spirit. And
that's revealed all throughout the Old Testament. So the fact that modern rabbinical Judaism
is unitarian and struggles to explain all these passages has nothing to do with or
bears no relevance to what ancient Hebrew thought was. Okay, yeah, I
give it that. I'm just curious. And by the way, the condemnation
of praying with other religious groups, even really in mortalimanimos, is just talking
about other So called Christian groups like that was as late as nineteen twenty eight
the papacy condemned those actions as apostasy. And so we've gone so far down
the road. And by the way, the Romancats don't even care. They
don't read mortality animals and when they read it, they just handwave it.
I don't care what in cyclicals say. Well, Vatican one doesn't say you
get to handwave in cyclicals, because this clearly shows the contradiction between praying with
Christians as apostasy and indifferentism. And we're so far down the rabbit hole of
this nonsense that now it's praying with other religions, you see. Yeah,
it's like it's a complete relativism, where just the concept of God, I
guess, like the general, the most like general concept of God is enough
or something. Well, but it's not even I mean, the medieval Roman
Catholic councils and popes Callixtus the third and others. They called it the abominable
sect of Mohamet. They called it demonic, they called crusades against them.
It's unthinkable that imagine what they would think about praying together towards Mecca in the
mosque. It's crazy, I assume that. I mean, yeah, a
week ago Francis was chanting with Buddhists praying with him in a Buddhist temple,
that that probably would have caused violence. In medieval if someone so you're doing
that, well, they would have automatically said that's this pope is anti crisis
apostates. Even the popes would have said that. I'm also just curious about
the like one more question about the tranty huh, So would you just explain
is is it makes sense to me, like the general sense of it.
Is there any truth to like the idea that after incarnation the understanding of the
Trinity at least became deeper, or would you say that the Trnity specifically,
like essentially just you know, it was fully understand prior and after incarnation.
Now, if you read the Theophanes, all the Theophanes are triadic, and
so it's implicit in the Old Testament. But Jesus makes it very clear that
Abraham rejoiced to see my day and saw it was lat John five through nine
enrages the Pharisees because Jesus is saying that I'm the one that ate with Moses
on the mountain. I'm the one that ate with Abraham in the meal in
Genesis eighteen. Yeah, yeah, so are we so were or we're gonna
think that they ate with him but they didn't know him. That's retarded,
And that's actually what Trent says, by the way, So this is that's
how stupid this position is. And it's, by the way, not the
argument or the approach of the church fathers. They don't argue Unitarian you know,
well, we all believe in wan God, the Old Testaments of unity.
Now when j Justin Marter argues against Tripho, he goes to that Theophanies
to prove that you were always worshiping the logos. Now, what's the principle
is the same in terms of deeper revelation even in the Old Testament. So
for example, Isaiah, he knew way more than what's revealed in Genesis to
Abraham. But it's still the son that's revealed to Abraham. It's just that
there's more content, more revelation by the time of Isaiah, because Isaiah is
able to basically write the Fifth Gospel. All right, thanks, And that
is, by the way, what the Orthodox church. He just read say
Maximus's quote. This is what it was enraging all the Roman Catholics, and
they're just denying Maximus and saying, well, we don't we don't accept his
view. Yeah, because Maximus says Abraham works with the Trinity. So this
is this is the link that they go to, denying the very thing that
would prove their religion. That's how stupid these people are. They would rather
deny the things that prove their religion to maintain their stupid antichrist papacy position,
to worship this idiot in Rome who runs a giant money luner in operation crime
syndicate, what's up? Sober or silent? Right since or whatever I could
see. Yeah, I'm a little new of this space. I haven't heard
any of your lectures before. I kind of just wanted to bring up Romans
thirteen. I've kind of been struggling with my faith a little bit lately,
and it's kind of just where I keep going back to about authority and can
we apply this to profits and pharisees. And then when we're speaking, obviously
you said you went over the Trinidad. Miss. Are we talking about the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit or are Trinidad. What do
you mean? You said, yeah, yeah, yeah, go ahead,
and you guys were saying some trend work. Yeah, that's called it's called
Trinidad. James, have you heard of that? Gold all over my chain?
Gold all over my watch? Don't believe me? What's just watch?
You never heard of Trinidad? Mm hmmm uh secret dev in the chat?
I want you to hop on and debate since you were talking smack secret.
Oh he's got secret nosis. Okay, so I got Ruins thirteen pulled up.
So this is talking about the authority that the civil state has. What's
the problem. I'm just curious, how you know, I heard you guys
kind of mentioned some some hierarchies and like ropets and then state maybe right,
I'm just curious, you know, what kind of stock, what kind of
faith to put in the state. Obviously, you know ken we have that
God has a pointed these people here, or you know, should we shouldn't
follow Christ? Or maybe walk with Christ and flip tables and and fight the
taxman. So again, like all of this really has nothing to do with
historic Christianity. So it sounds like you have them maybe a Protestant, evangelical
background, which which sort of assumes that like authority is something that is anti
God. I mean no, the Bible is full of monarchy, full of
notions of authority. No what go ahead, No, not prison or evangelical
background. Okay. So Christianity is a historic religion with a historic like ethos
and a body of doctrines that's passed down. So there's no hippie Jesus.
There's no such thing as anarchy Jesus. Jesus is the Jesus who's king of
kings. Okay, yeah, and we've looked at its words, right,
what do you mean we were? We've looked at Jesus's words throughout you know
what Jesus actually spoke, not just what his apostles and whatnot broke. Well,
I don't think there's any discontinuity between those. So the apostles teach the
very thing that he led them to teach via giving the Holy Spirit to them,
So they don't teach anything that I don't think either. So you what
I said, I don't think either. Okay. But my point, I
guess is just that there is no end cap Jesus like that doesn't exist,
that's made up. There's no what cap Jesus? All right, uh look
just uh go check out something like the uh you know, the the Icon
documentary. I would say start there and then come back and we can get
on with some of the issues. Noah, what's up, Secret dev