The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the distant. Then the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the dot.
They then tried 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, what's up?
Welcome, it's another day stream. I enjoy the day streams because it
turns out the audience is actually pretty active from like two to five. And
I guess that's why jim Bob streams at this time. I hope I'm not
interrupting Jimbob. He seems to have been streaming for a while, so I
figured it would be a little bit before we actually got started. And the
there's always something happened, like every time I'm about to start a stream.
Every day, it's like, oh suddenly there's this faux crisis with whatever is
going on with annoying things like bills and whatnot. I've also added, of
course, the the bitcoin wallets to support. If you want to support,
you can do so via the bitcoin wallet that is in the show description.
I've had various bitcoin links there before, and then I always forget to put
up a new address. So there's that, and I think I will add
the QR for those that don't know. You can also support and send bitcoin
via these convenient QR codes. So if you want to support via BTC,
there's the QR right there, and maybe I should make it sensible by putting
it in the right spot. So today I thought I was in the mood
for open forum, and as you know, the way on BEFOREUM usually works
is that we open it up for anybody who has a disagreement, a challenge,
a topic to debate. You can have the flour. You can speak
for as long as you'd like, within reason. That means that you can't
hog the microphone ramble about nonsense for an hour. It means that you get
the microphone to make arguments. That means that you present some kind of thesis,
some kind of supporting evidence, some kind of logical argument. There's different
types of arguments. Different things are proven in different ways. As We've pointed
out many times, so you're welcome to do that. If you don't do
that, you will not last very long. I will call you out.
I will bring you back to the point. I will not let you continue
to ramble. You're gonna accuse me of being mean, say that I'm interrupting.
I'm gonna be interrupting and calling you back to the point when you're not
making an argument. I'm not interrupting for the sake of interrupting. You have
to make consistent, coherent, logical, cogent arguments. There is elements of
debate which are called rhetoric. There are elements that includes joking around, jabs,
make looking fun at times. That's part of rhetoric. If you can't
handle that, then you're not prepared for actual formal debate. So we're gonna
hold you to the standards of the way classical formal debates usually go. That
does not mean you act soy. It doesn't mean that you act like you're
I don't know what, some sort of disgusting, distasteful, pharisee whatever.
All of that stuff is zero tolerance policy here. We don't negotiate with We
don't negotiate with the fai Shish. We don't negotiate with Faishish with all your
muster gashiesh. So the topics today have nothing to do with the Middle East
and Middle East politics, although there might be elements of evangelical theology, like
refuting dispensationalism or premillennial Zionism. Those things are relevant. But we're not here
to talk about tiny mustache man his followers. We're not here to talk about
geopolitical conspiracies. We're not here to talk about wine mom poetry hour. I
don't need to hear your new rat bars. I don't care about your rat
bars and they're not as good as mine anyway. The topics are the topics
listed, and inevitably there will be people popping in who don't care, don't
pay attention to the topics. They will hop in here and get mad because
they'll say, what is the stream about? What are you even doing?
Even though it's giant bold text listed at the top that it's a debate.
Oh what chige? You debate me? You're mean it says debate at the
top of the thing. That doesn't mean you have to debate. You can
also ask questions. That's perfectly acceptable. So we open it up, and
that means anybody can come on, and I do all the time because I
get dms all the time. People ask me for private tutoring, they ask
me for private messaging. I don't have any time for any of that,
so we get like hundreds of dms and emails. Nowaday, I don't have
time to ferret through all this stuff. I can't reply it all these people,
So you can call in. And I typically sit here for hours doing
this, So there's really no excuses unless you just act like a complete loon
and I block you. There's really no excuse for thinking that you won't interrupt
with nobody. I do this more than anyone else. No one else sits
here for hours opening it up to argue with the audience. Boys and girls,
but that's like girls are like two percent of the audience anymore. So
topics listed today to be specific obviously the generic topics. Are you a Protestant,
You're an evangelical. You want to present your arguments against my position.
You're a Roman Catholic, you want to prove the papacy whatever. You're an
atheist, you want to defend your naturalism, your materialism. You're a Muslim.
You want to defend your position. You think you got it right.
You are some sort of weird anti trinitarian cult Black hubre Rias are like Hebrew
Roots, Unitarian, Jovah's Witness, Mormon, etc. Etc. You're welcome
to request to speak. How does this work? Let's go through the rules
and remind everyone again that when I give you the microphone, it will be
muted. This is how Twitter spaces automatically work. You have to unmute yourself.
Don't make me sit here and say five hundred times you got unmute dude,
even though we all know that I will have to sit here for five
hundred times and say unmute dude. So we can just accept it that that's
the reality and that nobody's going to remember or realize that they have to unmute
themselves. So that's how it works. They should just kind of I mean,
I guess that makes sense why you're automatically when you come on. You
might be I don't know, pooping or doing something weird. I don't poop.
I don't know what you weirdo people do. But I am above all
of that. So you know, if you can't control, if you got
potty problems. Maybe this isn't the debate for you. Maybe you should go
watch those stupid YouTube ads about how to unclog the poop that's been in your
rectum for eight years or whatever they claim. That doesn't think plausible to me.
By the way, it feel like you die if that was the case.
So I feel like I feel like that's not a legitimate product selling point.
I feel like that's false advertising anyway, Like and share, I mean,
are you everybody's just saying in the question marks in the chat you don't
get those as. I get those ads all the time. I don't know
why I'm not searching poop stuff, so I don't know why those ads pop
up on my YouTube. But it's that one dude that like hipster looking dude,
hipster looking gen ximulin they'll do. He's like, do you have like
twelve feet of backed up hoop in your colling? You probably do, so,
like you can't get it out unless you use this product. Anyway,
we're not talking about that today. We're gonna talk about serious stuff to a
degree, because but I'm sure we're gonna get some wow people. It never
fails, well, sometimes it fails because some days it's completely feral people,
feral hill people. Some days it's why Mom's drunk, and then some days
it's just serious questions. Some days it's angry people. Who knows what we're
gonna get. It's always like a Russian Rulette of madness. And that's that's
okay. We can handle that here, So request to speak. You'll be
in the line. I will go to you one by one, and let's
keep it to the topics. I had more specific topics, things like the
Trinity, transcendent are ums, things like logos logi, things like biblical theology,
the Old Testament, it's theology, Kuran, Islam, continuity between Old
Testament and Islam, Evangelical views, modern evangelical churches, tradition, scripture,
solar scripture, scripture, a loan, solo, fide, Luther calvin Calvinism,
Predestinarianism, on on, on on on are all acceptable topics today.
Remember those are the topics and something adjacent to that. So please don't come
on here asking about conspiracies and movies. We're not talking about that today.
And if you talk about conspiracies and movies and asking about that, I'm immediately
going to move on. So don't get mad, get your feelings hurt,
get all but hurt all right. First up is and new ref And by
the way, I've got Isaiah pulled up because I'm reading through Isaiah again.
I sort of go in this circle of constantly reading through Isaiah over and over,
which is great because as you don't if you don't know, Isaiah is
the fifth Gospel. And the more you read Isaiah, the more you realize
why it was called that. Why there's so many Messianic prophecies, so many
prophecies of the Church, which proves the Messianic prophecies, so many prophecies of
well, not necessarily prophecies, but statements of the Trinity. I mean,
the Trinity is all through Isaiah. And so it's becoming more and more I
think of a go to source for me, because you know, Ezekiel has
multiple Trinitarian passages, multiple Deedy of Christ passages. However, Ezekil's a very
mysterious book for I think most people, for everyone, and Isaiah is a
much more forward book. It's a much more straight forward to the point,
you know, mess antic prophecies, relationship of the Messiah to the nations,
and quite a few, actually quite a few statements about Babylon, spiritual Babylon.
You know, if you read the Book of Revelation, you understand how
important that the spiritual Babylon, spiritual whoredom that's discussed of that city, the
spiritual city there. And there's quite a few passages that Saint John in the
Book of Revelation is playing on from the Book of Isaiah especially, I was
just reading after liturgy the other day is Isaiah forty seven, which is almost
perfectly a mirror to Revelation eighteen. So clearly John, as we know,
is pulling from all manner of places in the Old Testament, a lot of
Leviticus that people don't know about. John is pulling from that. In the
Book of Revelation, John is also pulling from Ezekiel and Isaiah. So we
also you can support the show via the stream Labs super chats throughout the show.
This above me is the big Cooin QR code if you want to support
by bitcoin. The wallet address is also on the show description. First off
today is he's looking like a little tight tape bro over here with that smooth,
slick look, looking like he's about to step into the octagon and do
some some ballet dance moves and Arov what's up? And Arrov all right?
Did have we talked before? We have about amount about a month ago.
I have a question specifically about tag again. I really like the argument,
and I just think it's really abstract though so and I am coming from like
a philosophy minor background, and I still find it kind of difficult toime to
sign sometimes, and that's obviously why I come to you. My question is
we talk about time right as universal? I'm confused as to okay, are
we saying that time is not justifiable without God? And if so, how
does time then prove the existence of God? I think I think Kant takes
that from Aristotle's categories in some situation. Let's see, I've got categories here
right in front of me, and uh, let's see what Aristotle list.
Says the categories, because that's where Kant gets categories listed. Aristotle lists forms
of speech, predicating from forms of speech they're either simple or composite. He
lists let's see. Oh here, I'm sorry, excuse me. Here here's
the list of the categories. He says, substance, quantity, quality,
relation, place, time, because position, state, action, affection.
So I think that we could, without getting too wild in our philosophical speculations
and debates, I think we could safely say that it does make sense that
time would be one of the preconditions of knowledge, one of the categories that
would be preconditions. Yes, okay, and then see and then also what
we talked about before and with I just need you to appoint me in the
right direction. You have to answer it, like get crazy now when we
talk about the preconditions for knowledge, for logic, meta logic and how it
proves that itself proves the existence of God. What do you have, like
anything can like can you clarify that right now? Or is there anything you
can point the introrection to to, Like, look, yeah, we've done
multiple streams on this, Like you could look at the top ten objections to
the transient argument stream. Okay, you could look at the stream that I
did critiquing doctor ed Fazer where I talked about universals. But basically, when
you aren't admitting that the categories exist, Okay, So let's go back to
Aristotle's list of these categories, right, substance, quantity, quality, relation,
place, time, position, state, action, affection. If you
think about those categories as examples, they don't operate or exist in isolation,
so they're holistic. They go together. And if they go together, then
what's the grounding for all of those things together? And that's where I make
the argument to the move to ground it is then the Christian metaphysic the universe,
the world created by the trium God. That kind of a world grounds
this list of ten categories, using Aristotle as the example. Yeah, I
mean I made that argument this one before, and then they went into absurdy
and they said, okay, youth, that you can ground it in God,
right, these different things. Why can't I ground it in a turtle,
for example? Because the turtle doesn't do the turtle doesn't do any of
the metaphysical work that the Christian worldview does. So that'd be as stupid as
thinking that the Christian worldview, which is the basic ideas of Christian epistemology,
Christian ethics, Christian metaphysics. The idea is that that that would be the
equivalent to just saying a turtle is completely stupid, right, because it's not
a turtle anymore. If it transcends all of these things, right, your
friend doesn't understand that it's an argument about worldviews to competing world news. It
wasn't It wasn't a friend. It was online. Yeah, but it's a
cringe thing because it walks like a duck, talks like it's a duck.
Great, so then it's not a turtle anymore at that point. But I
see, but obviously you know, oh you mean you mean is he's saying,
what if I said that a turtle is a triune god that has the
ability? Well if they said something like that, like we had a guy,
We had a guy in the in the discord like six years ago,
and he was trying to make a big argument like this where he was like,
oh, what if I take all of your positions and just say that
it's some you know, odin God. It's a triune right right, a
low tan odin deity. But the point is that the argument for our position
also includes history, so it includes it's an entire worldview. It's not an
abstract math problem. It's saying that the entire Christian world view, which includes
the Christian account of history. That means that Jesus stepped into time and space.
That means that the trying God is a revelation from Christ, So it
could not be something copied and pasted by a dude on Reddit, who would
clearly be borrowing from the previous historical Christian tradition. Do you see how it
would just be an obvious fact similar right, Right, It's kind of like
you're borrowing from morality when we say God is unethical, but then in that
you presuppose what ethics is, and that's not possible without God. Yeah,
but I'm just ye, but I'm saying history is also part of the worldview.
We don't have an ahistorical, abstracted notion of what a worldview is.
It's not a math problem. It includes the history of the Church. It
includes what you see right here on the screen in Isaiah. Isaiah is part
of this historical revelation in Isaiah. Here is in this Messianic prophecy, for
example, I am the first, I am the last again hearkening to the
terminology of John in the Book of Revelation, identifying Christ as the Messiah,
Christ as divine, and he says that I laid the foundations of the earth.
So this means Jesus created the earth, because Jesus is the alpha Omega,
according to John, Jesus is the creator. Then it goes down to
say that all the nations assemble against the Lord. Listened to the Lord,
and he says, I've not spoken in secret. I've spoken from the beginning.
I was there, and now Yahweh and his spirit have sent me.
So this is a messianic prophecy, Christ speaking and saying, Yahweh and his
spirit have sent me. That's the Trinity. And he's identified as the Alpha
Omega like four verses earlier. So I know you're not primarily asking about the
Trinity, but I'm saying that if I think about what the quote Christian worldview
is, it includes people like Isaiah. It includes Isaiah's Massianic prophecies and these
statements about who the Messiah is stepping into time and space, the second person,
that godhead in time and space. That is part of the worldview.
So it could not this could not then be equated to a person saying,
oh, well, I have all your metaphysical positions, but it's Odin and
not the Trinity in Jesus right right that that that puts it perfectly. R.
E J. I'll let someone else's mass question, but thank you great
questions. That question comes up quite a bit, so I appreciate it.
I appreciate you re bringing it up. Cult cult savage is next up.
Cult savage sounds like a wow cowboy. Oh oh am, I are you
cult savage? Yes, sir, well on your mind man. Oh So,
first of all, thank you for having me on. I wanted to
ask you a question about the Trinity. So I come from a Protestant background,
so I'm just beginning to learn these things. I'm only twenty three,
so I'm very young in an experience on these topics, like I feel my
first read through on the Bible Orthodox canon by the way, so I've read
like the Three Macabees. So in your discussion with Radem Zumer, something I
noticed that you said to the Phillyuque, if you believe that that opens the
door to Macedonianism. And before I let you respond, I just wanted to
this is something I was just thinking about on this issue because something I noticed
is that, you know, I was watching Orthodox YouTube or on heresies when
Macedonians goes like what, I'm an Heritic of the Holy spirits a person,
not what are you talking about? And I was like, I don't want
to be a herotic, like what are you talking about? And something interesting
I've learned over these years is that I've noticed in Western Christendom the divinity of
the Holy spre It is kind of Seymour's live service in the reality. I
mean, there's so many people that sorry, were you going to say something?
No, I'm disagreeing and saying absolutely, that's an unintended effect. Correct,
Yeah, because I've even heard some people who don't know any better.
They'll say, well, you know, Jesus is the son of the Father,
and then they'll say the Holy Spirit is like the grandson. What do
you what do you mean grandsons don't say that anywhere? Right, Yeah,
exactly, And I'm just again, I'm too inexperienced to say, oh,
well, I think the Philioque is true or not. But the main question
I wanted to get is that is there any way you can get the philioque
without falling into the Macedonian heresy? Anyway that you can get it? What
do you mean? Or is is there any way you can hold to the
philiuquay without really embracing Macedonianism. Well, I think most people who believe that
Philioquey don't intend that so, but I think that the point is rather that
many people could you mute when you're not talking, it's really loud background,
or it's just just when you're not speaking. Yeah. So I think a
lot of people are better than their theology right because their intentions are obviously not
to obviously not to believe in Macedonianism or the diminished onto logical status of the
spirit. I think that they just are kind of working with systems and structures
that they've inherited through whatever they're raised with, be a Protestant or Roman Catholic.
And then as they get deeper and deeper into the issues and they realize
it's a little bit complex, then typically they're kind of trying to make this
thing work, right, like I don't know, like like Matt Damon when
he's you know, the janitor and he walks in and he's trying to make
that big math problem work and goodwill hunting or whatever. So and then they
realize that contrary to the Matt Damon example, it doesn't actually end up working
out. So the basic issues with how we get I mean, it really
vindicates the critique originally from Saint Photius and the mistagogy, which is that if
you have a shared hypostatic property which is supposed to pick out the persons,
if the son shares in that property with the father, then now you really
have a diad because you have this power of this property that two of the
two persons share that the other doesn't. And in Trinitarian theology, according to
Cappadocians, something's either unique to the persons or it's common to all three.
You can't have something that two have and one doesn't. That's pretty much impossible.
And so it leads to a diad where the father and the son are
a coeternal principle together of the production of the spirit. That's the terminology from
Lyons in Florence. Nothing to do with eternal manifestation there, but specifically about
eternal existential procession. And so that's why it leads to a diad. That's
the key issue. And the other thing is that that diad then leads to
an ontological minished status of the Holy Spirit. So that's where the critique,
the Macedonian critique comes in. And every time a Roman Catholar person here's this,
they freak out that the Holy Spirit, Yeah, we know you don't
think that we're saying that the position leads to that if you were consistent.
So really it's just a confusion ultimately of the distinctions between nature, person,
will, and energy. And I would direct everyone too, although it's not
discussing the Phillyoquay, although Saint Gregory Palomus does have a book that is built
on the argmentation of St. Photius and the mystagogy called the Apedictic Treatise on
the Holy Spirit, which is ripping the Phillioquay to shreds. This book,
which is available Gregory Palomas, and the four Palamite Synods are all translated.
All four are translated. I read it on the plane back from hanging out
with Sam Hyde, and uh, you'll notice as you read through the translations
of the Palomite Synods that, oh, they make all the arguments I make.
So one of those key arguments, which is again not directly about the
Philioquay, but indirectly addressing the root confusion, is the confusion of the distinction
between nature, person, will, and energy in PWE. So I have
about ten places where I marked in my notes in PWE where the Palamite Synods
are taking the argumentation from Saint Gregor Palomas that the Latins consistently confuse nature,
person, will, and energy because they're real. They're real, metaphysical in
the sense of actually being in God distinctions, and metaphysical distinction doesn't mean separation
or division. God's not separated because he has distinctions any more than distinguishing the
Father and the Son means that they're separated. So so that's my rundown on
on that. But you could also go read the Sushensky book on the Philioquay
if you want to take it to the next level. All right, one
of your past dreams, you know, you talked about how the second person
Jesus was also the God in the Old Testament. You know, uh yeah,
away, I am he I mean, I've just covered this chapter right
here. Yeah. Well, I just wanted to say, real quick,
I appreciate you talking about this because I've actually been reading through the Old Testament
again and the Old Testament makes a lot more sense with this distinction, because
you know, growing up, I was thinking, why would the Father just
do all this stuff in the Old Testament, Like did you like get tired
take a break and say yo, son, take this over. It makes
a lot more sense when you read the Old Testament with the second with the
second person of the god Head being the God in the Old Testament. And
I was just reading through Isaiah, yeah, yesterday, and now I'm reading
through Jeremiah and one thing and just one more thing. I know a lot
of Calvinists. I'm not a Calvinist, by the way, I don't believe
in that nonsense they talk about how Romans nine is evidence for predestination and the
you know, like Goodtara decided your outcoming. I'm just thinking, well,
that's a load of nonsense because Salvation, Heaven, and hill are not mentioned
in that chapter. And I was just wondering, what is your take on
that? Yeah, So I think if you read the pat can you mute
or go ahead and leave the space just because it's the background noise as well.
Yeah. I think that once you understand that Christology is trinity, and
Christology come first in your order of theology and not the Divine decree, then
a lot of this stuff kind of works itself out because if you look at
Isaiah forty five, which I think Paul is pulling from Isaiah forty five in
part and Isaiah forty five is talking about the collective relationship between Jacob and Esau,
and Paul's whole context for a lot of this is the relationship between you
and gentile. So although I understand that Jacob and Esau were individuals, the
idea that the eternal destiny is what's in view here in terms of individual I
don't think is Paul's primary point. God does for no all events, but
that doesn't mean that God is the direct cause of all events. And this
is an issue that Islam, for example, is very proud of because they
adopted a metaphysic that's called occasionalism, or at least many soon he's maybe not
all of them. I don't think. For example, Jake doesn't believe in
occasionalism, and occasionalism just means, like most Calvinists would say, that God
is the direct cause of every event. In other words, every event is
immediately caused by the divine decree. And so while it seems on the first
surface of it that passages like Romans nine might lend credence to that, if
you rewind and step back from it and think about like Ephesians, for example,
when Paul writes to the church at Ephesus. He's not writing to the
elect. I'm Orthodox, So stop spamming the chat or you're just gonna get
mute. If you stand one more, if you spend one more time,
you're going. So you should be obvious. It should be obvious hot to
figure. All right, you're done. You're going to get rid of this
guy. It's just super annoying. It's constant mental illness anyway. So when
he writes to the church at Emphasis, he's writing to a visible community of
baptized people. He's not writing to the invisibly known only to God elect.
And if you understand that in that vantage point, then hey, wait a
minute. If he's writing to the visible church at Ephesus, then why is
he calling them the predestined? Strictly speaking, the predestined allah Ephesians ie,
they could only be it could only be written to the invisible elect. And
you know, most Calvinists think that ultimately the only people who are reading and
understanding the texts are the invisible elect, the predestined, right, the unconditionally
elect, and so they really are the recipients. But you don't actually see
this in Paul's epistles, right, like he's writing to this church at Ephesus,
the bishop, Bishop Timothy, by the way. And then he's like
wink wink, saying, oh, but by the way, I'm not actually
writing to the church at Ephesus. Wink wink. We all know who I'm
really writing to, right, John Calvin, Right, bro, No,
it's written to the visible church at Ephesus, who are called the predestined the
body of Christ. But you notice that every Calvin assessed to say and wait
a minute, it's not actually written to the visible body of Christ because they're
not a visible body of Christ. The real body of Christ is invisible.
Oh that sounds a lot like a guy named Nostorius, and it's just taking
Astorianism and applying it to ecclesiology, whereas Nestorius is a heterodox Christology applied to
the person of Christ, and that Christ wasn't really embodied in his human nature,
but we rather there was two subjects, a eternal divine logos and this
human person or subject, Jesus of Nazareth. So it's a dual subject Christology,
which was a result of a move very similar to pre ustinarianis. I'm
very similar to Calvinism I'm not saying that the stories was identical to to Calvinism,
but his his views of Christology are actually mirrored by many Calvinists inadvertently.
And if you want a good book on that, just read John mcguckin's book,
Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. So hopefully that kind of
clears things up. It just has to do with resetting your approach to theology.
Rather than starting your order of theology like the like Calvinists do with a
divine decree. Your order of theology begins with Christology or trying to teary theology,
which which leads to Christology. So yeah, I'm sorry. I wasn't
trying to get ready already. You can, you can pop back in,
but I had already hit yeah, go ahead with what's your last point?
I was sorry. I was just gonna say thank you for having me on.
Sure. Yeah, I mean you can go to uh my clips channel,
not my clips, my personal clips channel, not Kyle's clips channel.
You could go to live streams and absurdities. And I have two uh I
have like four hours of lectures going through Calvinism. So Jade, I are
comic Calvinism. I've done the same talk for Sam Sumun Shimmun's channel four or
five hours going critique Calvinism, aboo Mohammed. I wonder what religion we have
here, Calvinism or Islam actually pretty much the same thing. Calvi is Calvi
Islam. Go ahead, that's a joke. Gotta unmute, man, un
mute? Are you there a boom? We really want to hear about how
turning it deep Pegan? All right, well we can't hear you. You're
not You didn't turn your microphone on, so we can't hear you. Man.
Morale La, what's up? Dude? Thank you for those super chats
everybody. You gotta turn your mic on, dude if you want to come
back, I don't care. We got some super chats, super chat,
super freak A. Let's see trying to find the first one King theod and
a Rohan. He's tweeting from from the horse. Lord is tweeting me from
the back of a noble steed. Jay, My boomer tech can't figure out
twater spaces. All you gotta do is go over there and get in the
room. There's literally nothing to it. Please consider me. I would like
to come on and disagree. Bro, I want you to the front of
the line. So King Theod on a row hand, hop down off of
that noble steed and get into Twitter space. Listen, boomer. All it
takes is literally clicking with your thumb into the room. There's nothing required except
for maybe turning on your microphone, which I'm sure is basically a giant engineering
feat if you're a boomer figuring out how to turn on your microphone for the
X app. So it's just a joke. Relax, but yeah, we
want you in here, King Theod and Andrew G two dollars? Are you
training kids on basi preceps so that they can demolish the future slow boy children.
I don't think we're gonna have to worry about future slowboy children getting demolished.
They're gonna demolish themselves. Noah M five dollars. I set my foot
in the door of the Orthodox Church through David Bentley Hart. I'm sorry,
but it's great that you're in the church. I let go of universalism.
There you go. Awesome. This was the hardest intellectual hurdle for me.
Now, look that's pretty much everybody. I mean, maybe for you.
It was that issue. But look, all of us when we convert,
uh go through multiple periods of having a hard time with various issues and giving
them up. It's just part of the process. I mean I had I
don't know what was the last. You're gonna You're just gonna have different theologically
challenging issues, and that's true for everybody. Can we legitimately hope that all
people can be saved? I mean we can, but doesn't mean that they
will. All right, So let's see Mohammed is back. Let's see what
we got. He's a maturidi abu Muhammed. You gott I mute? Man,
you're on, you're up, says you're open speak. I don't know
you're you don't have a mic turned on or something. Man, wait,
there's no sound, so try again. Next up, Uh, it's skender.
Something looks like I d just got out of the shower. Hello,
O, Hi, okay, how's it going. I'm a fellow Orthodox Christian
from Southeastern Europe and I have a very brief question to you. Can you
please remind the audience about the same Gregory Palamas, specifically, his is a
prophetic argument against that by rejecting mysticism that Doctrin will inevitably leap with asm.
In fact, I was kind of surprised to see that argument repeated in two
of them to repeat the argument that it will lead to atheism, because the
main point of this argument is just simply that the reason it will eventually lead
to that is because the conclusions of the both Tomistic and barleam Mite system,
and they have differing views. Barleum was more of an Eastern minded monk,
but he shares a lot of the theological presuppositions of the Tomists, particularly on
the point of whether or not in this life we have a direct perception and
experience of the divine energies or whether we are only experiencing created effects of God.
And that's the key point where the logic the both, sayg. Gregor
Palamus and many of his especially the Dialogue with the Barleymite and in the Palamite
Synods, they repeat the argument that this will eventually, if you're consistent with
that presupposition, leads you to atheism because you're no longer ever experiencing It's not
just the fact that you're not experiencing God directly. If you're only experiencing created
effects, then you don't really know which of the created effects which are right
analogues for the attributes. Okay, so I'm not directly experiencing the uncreated energy
of divine love. I'm supposedly only experiencing a created effect that I'm calling love.
And if all of the created effects in reality are identical amongst themselves and
with the divine essence, which is the Roman Catholic's mystic position, then this
leads to an eventual atheism if you're consistent with it. So this is repeated.
I recall at least twice in the Palamite Synods. And remember, Palomite
Synods, in the Orthor view, would trump even the personal writings of Saint
Gregory Palamas. I'm not suggesting that they're out of accord with one another.
I'm just simply saying that the synods would constitute more authority than any individual.
Yeah, I'm gonna thank you for answering the question. And I mean,
it's crazy how the Customers Church has fallen, you know today. Yeah,
it's I mean, it's literally in that exact position that Saint Gregory Palomas predicted
it would be in, and it's because they chose to be a geopolitical power
and force over maintaining true theological, healing faith, and that's that's been the
criticism for a thousand years. Also, keep in mind that, as I
wrote in my sub stack, the final Tomos of thirteen sixty eight literally condemns
the position of the monk Prokerros, who tried to argue that the Thomas view
and the Palomite view could be reconciled by saying that the distinctions in God are
purely conceptual. And so this means that everybody's trying to say that the Palomite
position is also a purely conceptual distinction is condemned in the Fourth Palamite Synod the
Tomos of thirteen sixty eight, and it goes on, by the way,
to reject a whole host of other Thomistic arguments. And so if you have
the book right here, this is on pages four twenty four and four to
twenty five. So that pretty much puts an end to the lying, deceptive
argument of the Uniates and the Ecumenists and the Thomis that we can reconcile Palamism
and Tomism or Roman Catholic dogma on divine simplicity. These these two groups at
this time are excommunicating and calling each other heretics. So we don't even have
to get into the minutia of the theology and the of what level of scholastic
distinction issition. It doesn't even mare because the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the people
that had the Palamite position via lions in Florence, and now these people are
saints quote unquote in the Roman Catholic Church. But you can be an historian
and be a saint now in the Romancolic Church, as Jimmy Aiken and Trent
Horn say, So, does that not prove that this whole position is based
around papal power and has nothing to do with the actual theology. How could
you be a heerd sate for centuries and then have the whole thing reversed and
now you're a saint. This proves that they're wrong? Yeah, thank you
very much, Dream, thank you very much. Yeah, who do the
prove wrong? Doctrine evolved? Yeah? If doctrine evolved, then history of
alls too, doesn't it? Leonid? What's that? Leonid? Thank you
guys for uh these No, I am my wife and our eighteen months son
brother, myself were being baptized. Hey, hello, Yeah, I have
a like an outcome here to debate. I have like two questions questions.
First of all, you you belong to the Russian looks Church, right?
And like, why are you too specifically like the Russian look Church? Are
you Russian? No? Because that was the best church in the area and
I ended up finding my spiritual father there. So you like part of patriarchy.
Look, well, Rokor is fairly independent, but they're in communion with
Carol Ah. Okay, okay. So to my main question, if,
like the the Before, the before, the Torah, before Mount Sinai,
like Noah and the Enoch, if they are able to be saved without the
law, the Old Testament laws, and without the New Testament Govenant. So
why do we need the old story? Why do we need Well, this
is a right this so this is a hold on. So this is a
fundamental misunderstanding. First of all, no one was saved by Old Testament laws.
You could never be saved by Old Testament laws. It didn't matter whether
pre Sinai or post Sinai laws could never save you. Paul makes this argument
multiple times in Romans. The only way to be saved is through the Messiah.
The Old Testament saints were all saved by Jesus. Literally, Jesus was
the one in the garden of Eden. Jesus was who was walking and talking
to Abraham. Jesus as who met Moses on Mount Sinai, Jesus as who
appeared to Manoah. This is fundamental to orthodo x theology. Yeah. But
like if you read in Genesis five, was taken taken like to Heaven before
Jesus and before they No, he's taken to Paradise. And that's why.
Uh, there's two people Enoch and Elijah who were taken who have not yet
died. So that's why Revelation says it at some point they will die.
Oh so they are they are life. Yeah wow, interesting, Okay,
that's it. Thank you, Yeah, thank you. Good questions. Yeah,
those are you know, questions that come up that are always good to
reaffirm and re answer that. Yeah, we do have we do have the
same salvation. That's why Paul says that, uh, the Old Testament saints
had the Gospel preached to them, the Gospel, and this is the chief
error of the premillennial goobers and the dispensationalists to think that there was some separate
way to be saved. Complete nonsense, Nuwand you gotta amute bro. Oh
yeah, yeah, could you please? Yeah, I'm really good. Could
you please expand on the previous point you made about Elijah and coming back.
Well, I think the Book of Revelation chooses them at some point to be
the martyrs when they preach right, and then they undergo a martyr's death because
they are the two people that haven't yet died. So they were taken to
Paradise, which is not identical to heaven Heaven, and so they will undergo
martyrdom to then be as erected at the last day, so would be Hades
or Shield. No, in fact, when Jesus went to Hades, he
took those souls to Paradise. He took those souls to Heaven or Paradise.
We don't exactly know, Oh, we don't exactly know. I was on
the impression that he took the souls from Hades or Shield to Heaven, right,
and that everybody in Elijah inclusive have moved from hem. I don't well,
I don't think they weren't in Hades. They were, they were said
to be in paradise. So exactly the relationship between paradise and Heaven, I'm
not I'm not sure. It might be dimensions. I don't know. We're
not really told much about that. So there's basically a distinction between paradise and
yeah, because the people who go to heaven have died in ynecologic didn't dodge.
So how all that works, I don't know anyway. Good questions,
Yeah, good questions, Mario. What's up? Mario? Do do do
do do do doo? I'm mute, hija. Can you hear me?
Yes, sir, thank you for having me on. I am actually your
Roman Catholic. But I'm trying to consider Orthodoxy, and the main reason is
not about all the discussions that you're regularly having about for the awkward and the
various theological issues, but measures are more like spiritual So I wanted to ask
you if you think that this could be a ground for conversion, in the
sense that if a person doesn't find any spiritual guide in the Catholic Church right
now, whereas in Orthodoxy feels I don't know, I can find more thriving
parishes and stuff like this. And also if it's if it's your experience in
your Orthodox church when you came from Catholicism. If you two found I don't
know, more guide in a spiritual life or I did, yeah, so
you definitely will find typically more of that type of guidance. I would just
hesitate on thinking that that would be like the one thing that would tell you
whether it's true or false, because at some point we do have to have
an analysis of the two different religious views in terms of their theology and their
positions. So sometimes it's tempting. It may maybe it feels daunted in terms
of the theology. You think, oh, I don't want to get into
all this, don't have time. I'm just going to judge it on the
basis of you know, people choose I think at times bad indicators for which
church they choose. For example, a lot of people chose Roman Catholicis in
the last several years because they thought, oh, this is more politically based
in trad and then they end up five or six years later miserable and angry
and they feel like they made the wrong choice. So you can't make these
decisions on things like I'm not saying that that can't be one element like you
know, if you find a really good spiritual father, that might be one
of the key things that helps you convert. But anytime we pick like one
of these things like that, that can be a little subjective. And I'm
not saying that you're not going to find that. But for example, the
two or three of the people who say we're looking at Orthodoxy in the last
five years that chose Rome, they would say things like what you're saying.
They would say, Oh, I met a tried cat priest who I felt
gave me a better feeling about praying the Rosary, and how I felt when
I prayed the Rosary. I'm not saying, you're saying that I'm choosing As
an example, they would have all of this terminology of how it made them
feel and how the Rosary made them feel. And I'm like, well,
don't you see Mormons say that when you pray the Mormon prayer, you get
the burning in your bosom and you feel good. So it's like, you
can't use that as your final arbiter. I think you can have these indicators
and intuitive sort of nudges, but we have to be very careful because sometimes
those inner feelings and what we think is intuition can also be deceptive. So
at the end of the at the end of the day, it's got to
come down to the positions which one's consistent in, which one contradicts. Otherwise
you're gonna be constantly kind of you know, maybe you after a year of
Orthodoxy and you don't feel like it's working or something, so then you're gonna
be, oh, I'm gonna go to Romatholicism, and then two years in
a round with Alicism, I don't like it works anymore. So you just
can't be based on feelings or things that are more subjective than things that are
more objective. Okay, but what if you put like if a person is
too thick, is what too thick? Like th h I CC like thick.
No, sorry, I'm gonna tell you if a person is too obtused
to like, I don't get I simply can't figure it out. There are
too complex for me, certain topics about theology and stuff like I imagine like
a normal person in a Catholic parish. I mean, you can't look at
like Pacha MoMA and see a problem with that, I know, but a
person can look at I don't know, Lofton or someone else and find arguments
on the other way. No, no, we're not. That's a false
equivalence. Michael Lofton is not the equivalent of the papacy. No, of
course not so no, no, But what I'm saying is that cleric engaging
those kinds of actions without uh, basically committing the sin of apostasy. And
in Roman Catholic canon law, apostasy means you're out of the church. So
like, it's not it's not that difficult. No, But what I'm saying
is there are all the smart dudes that say, that's not apostasy. Okay,
okay, how could let me let let's just put it this way.
How do you call a crusade if you're urban the second and if you're ben
at the sixteenth and Poste Francis you go and pray in the mosque towards Mecca.
How are those two things not contradictions? You can't tell a contradiction.
I don't know. That's the point. So what this points out the point
is that they don't have the worship of God there. How could you worship
in a mosque towards Mecca. I mean, it's it's not even Christianity anymore
if you're doing that some other religion. No, but one could say,
well that's the name. That's not how No, that's not how that system
works. Have you read Vatican one? Yes? Okay? What does it
say? Does it say anything about the does the pet of okay? And
what's the okay? Wait a minute, what's the sin of apostasy? Yeah?
Yeah, no, I guess no you don't. But what is the
sin of apostasy? It's one a person publicly, okay, But but it's
not just like you don't have to verbally say it I publicly right now?
You can also signify that apostasy by your actions, by your by your worship.
You don't think so, yes, I think it does. Okay.
Do you think that Muslims and Christians worship the same God and so therefore it
is okay to worship in a mosque? I don't think it's okay to worship
in a mosque. But I haven't met a served them whether we worshiped the
same god. Okay? Why would the Council of I think v N call
them godless infidels if you worship the same God. I don't know, because
infidels? Okay, we can't worship the same God, and you don't worship
the same God as an infidel by definition, And I'm pretty sure it's the
Council of the End that calls Muslims infidels. Okay, I thought that infidel
is like you have the wrong faith. No, that's a heretic. That's
a heretic, not an infidel. Okay, okay, So do you think
that an anti Trinitarian and a Trinitarian have the same God? Could be?
How could you have this? How could they be the same God? Then?
So, so Arius and Nicea we're worshiping the same God? I suppose
they do. Yeah, okay, so you haven't learned the basics. And
I'm not trying to be mean to you, but your Roman Catholicism has not
even taught you fundamental Christian theology. The Council of Nicia excommunicates areas, they
don't worship the same God. That's crazy. I'm not saying you're crazy.
I'm saying that's that position is crazy. This is like Nicea one o one.
How could Arius and and and the Council of Nicea that excommunicates and worship
the same God. Yeah, that's that's that's my point, I'm saying that,
Okay, so you're not struggling, So you're struggling with Christianity. That's
the point I'm getting at. This is actual Christianity. This is not which
is the true Church. You haven't come to understand that there's no such thing
as everybody worshiping the same generic God. There's only the Trinity. That's the
Gospel. That's what Jesus preaches in the Book of John. So no,
and and the very fact that you think that the same God is being worshiped
by Arius and Athenacius shows that you haven't understood the Gospel yet. Not being
mean, but this is a fact. And this is why anybody with the
discernment that we would have as Christians could look at going in a mosque and
praying towards Mecca and say, this is not Christianity, This is some other
world. This is some other facts, simile, fraudulent religion. I mean,
but that's a big leap from No, it's not if you understand Christianity,
it's not a leap at all. Do you think the Old Testament teaches
a generic God or does it teach the Trinity? The gospell No, No,
the Old Testament of the Gospels, the Old Testament. Sorry, the
Old Testament teaches the Trinity too, So how is that? So? Where
is this? Where is this aryan unitarian God that we all worshiped in Where's
that coming from? It of Area and his followers? Okay, so then
so then you don't believe. Sorry, so then you don't believetat is Vatican
too document that Muslims and Roman Catholics and Jews all worship the same God.
I wouldn't be if I told you that I don't believe in Austria, of
course. So yeah, so so those two things are mutually exclusive. Well
yeah, if you think that the catholic as contradicted itself, if you come
to this conclusion, you can be Catholic. Well, I'm just saying the
very conversation we're having. As you try to express faithfulness to Catholicism and nostro
Tate, you're immediately confronted with the nonsensical position of trying to say that Arius
in the Council of Nicea are worse being the same God. Okay, then
why do we have a Council of Nicia. What's the point of that?
Why excommunicate Uh, you know, me As and Arias, we're all worshiping
the same God. When you talk to have you ever talked to Jehova's Witness?
Yeah? Slightly? Do you do you? Does it? Does it
appear in the midst of those conversations that you guys have the same theology about
God. No, but I think that they actually don't believe in our sing
God. Do you they have the same view as Arias? Okay? Maybe?
Okay? So then so then Areas so Arias and Althoenatians don't worship the
same God. I just thought that Arias fought that Christ came later, but
was still like one with the same God. Jew witnesses different gods. Now
that they both teach that the uh, the Son of God is the first
thing God created, Okay, yeah, that's problematic. I wouldn't say it's
not problematic, it's it's it's a heresy. It's a different religion. Yeah,
of course, of course, sure, Okay, So there's not the
same deity being worshiped between uh, Jehovah's Witness and a person who believes in
the Trinity two different gods. Of course, then is not true? The
is it says that that Unitarians and Trinitarians all worship the same guy. I
witnesses Unitarians. Yes, yes, all right, I'm not trying to be
mean, but you get the point. Good questions, So I'm not I'm
not downplaying your approach to looking for good spiritual guidance. I think that's a
healthy initial approach. But you gotta consider the other doctrinal things that we're talking
about. So again, great questions, not being mean, just pointing out
I think what I think is the key issue here. So and I'm not.
I enjoy chatting with you, Mario, not not being mean to you,
not trying to be rude. Pantheon, what's up? It was actually
a good question. Hello, hey, hi j how are you great?
What's up here? In your just I want to get two questions. One
is the literal understanding of the genesis. You said in one of your streams
have been consuming your content that the fall kicks started the kicks out of entropy,
so death in the universe in general. What I cannot get my mind
around is that without entropy you cannot have time any So entropy is the change
in state of beings, so even the existence of the sun, you know,
that burns helium to create you know, the to create heat. It's
such a natural part of the cosmos that okay, I can address this already.
So what what is being misunderstood here is the mode of nature before the
fall and after the fall. So the assumption is that from your physics sort
of approach here is that the way that nature operates now is essentially the way
that it worked in the Garden of Eden. And if you read Genesis,
Creation, Early Man, or if you read books like First Form Man by
Saint Simmy the New Theologian, you'll realize that the premise or the presupposition of
our view is that no, even the metaphysics of nature was different before the
fall, so there was not entropy. And another reason for that is that
the time as we experience it is also not identical to the Aon. So
there is a timeless eternity called that's created, called the Aon, and that's
the realm in which the angels in habit and so forth. If you read
Loski's Dogmatic Theology, there's a four page section on the Aon. I highly
recommend that it's really good. Stein Eloy also goes into discussing the philosophy of
time in Orthodox Dogmatics, volume one in about sixty pages. So those are
good things to read on the philosophy of time when it comes to the Orthodox
position. I also highly recommend doctor David Bradshaw's paper Time as a Divine Procession.
So, no, we don't have one reductionist idea of time as the
mode of nature post fall. So two different notes of time. Okay,
very well explained. We'll look at that. So I guess then the age
of the Earth that we have in mind, you know, the ten thousand
years that's taken to a different sort of types of time passing before and after
the Fall. I don't think that young Earth creation necessarily relates to this point
of of how time moves. So when when you know, the scientists say,
you know, Earth is two hundred and fifty million years old and then
we say no, what is the basis for us to say no? Well,
that gets into the whole other rabbit hole of like weather, carbon dating
is a legitimate whether radiation, whether light that comes from you know, distant
galaxies took up billion years to get here. I mean, that's a whole
other topic that I mean. I've written a few things criticizing that from a
philosophical perspective. So, I mean it's in other words, if God can
create Adam is a fully grown adult, then he can create a world that
is already fully formed. So there's already a presupposition in this idea that somehow
the light had to travel billions of years to get here, or light years
or whatever to get here. I mean, it's all just based on assumptions
of the long you know, AONs of time theory. But there's nothing about
the raw data that automatically tells you that it took giant AONs of time for
that to be the case. It's a presupposition. So I don't I'm not
a scientist, I'm not an astronomer. I can't tell you all the science
facts. I can give you a philosophical critique of the presuppositions of those positions,
though. Okay, I'm just and can I get one more question,
peature. Okay, I was just thinking that you had said one of your
streams that the soul is created inception or you know, every every soul is
new when it comes to life. Just a thought experiment. If if you're
a parent and you know that is the probability that your child will be internally
domb and go to Hell. Why why why should someone who is Orthodox with
Christian risk and having kids shouldn't. Shouldn't the solution to human problem? You
know, let's let's all go to mont Athos, hit the monasteries, live
an a schaetic life, and you know, call it an end to the
human experiment. I know it's a bit normally weird thought experiment, but I
definitely hear your thoughts from this. No, because to be is better than
to not be. I mean, if it was better to not be,
then God would not have created the world at all. But as Saint Maximums
says, God created out of his own goodness, and so being flows forth,
flows over because God is good and being is good. So it's better
to be than to not be. And it's better to have life and to
potentially go to heaven than to not exist at all. So the dominion mandate
of Genesis one still applies in that we are supposed to be fruitful and multiply.
It's more important to be fruitful and multiply in a spiritual sense. But
the spiritual sense doesn't destroy or get rid of the natural sense. So a
lot of heresies, a lot of gnostic and mystic sort of Zoroastrian or Manichaean
type positions will because in our view we think that the spiritual is more important
than the temporal and the physical. They'll assume then that the temporal and physical
is somehow evil and then we should get rid of it. The same line
of reasoning goes that, oh, well, because spirituality is what matters,
then everything material is suddenly evil. And that's always a temptation, especially for
people who choose asthetic life and monasticism, and that's primarily the typical warning for
monastics and those kinds of people is that they're usually tempted with a form of
pre last or spiritual pride. So God's created a diverse group of humans and
not everybody will have that life. Jesus specifically says that that's a gift for
some people and not for everybody, So it doesn't make the production of children
somehow because it's a lesser A lot of people have this idea that a lesser
good is therefore an evil, and that's actually a neoplatonic presupposition that for example,
Augustine has. Augustine says that if the value of singlehood is better than
marriage, then marriage must contain some kind of necessary evil, and that's a
false dialectical thinking. So so no, not everybody is called to to live
that life and to cease having offspring because God intends to populate, to populate
heaven. I mean, Father Deacon, I don't know if you would speak
to that, because you have more experience as clergy, you know, interacting
with married people, married priests, you know, Orthodox priests are married.
You know, if we had this attitude that this was the ideal, then
we would have like a Roman Catholic you know, stricture on no priests being
married or something like that. Father Deacon, would you want to speak to
that question, like, well, why aren't we all just you know,
spiritual, spiritual people on Athos being cell to it and ceasing to have offspring.
Isn't that truly spiritual? Yeah? I think you nailed it with the
kind of Greek metaphysics that Augustine presupposes and embraces that there's one good, yeah,
and that if you're not, if you're not attempting and contemplating that good
and and praying, then it's an evil and it's not even quite clear in
Orthodox Fathers that the celibate and monastic life is a higher It might be for
certain people in certain situations. But yeah, that's this question came up to
that should I, you know, watch secular movies or listen to secular music
or something like that with this idea of this kind of either or that if
you're not moving up the ladder and doing the highest things, then you're falling
away from God, which is a dialectic. There isn't this in ethics,
it would be called the ontological status of some thing of a moral would be
objective, but the category of absolute is has to do with the category of
stringency. In other words, do morally objective rules apply always everywhere, at
the same degree for all people, And it's clearly not. It's not the
case, And so Orthodoxy has a nuanced depends where you are, who you
are. That's why you talk to your priest. There's no heart and fast
rule, and we're not rule worshipers. Secular music might be bad for one
person. At one level, it's it's good, you know, in so
far as something exists, it's good. So you know, if it's not
soul corrupting or something like that there's nothing wrong and it's a it's a good,
it's an energy of God. Even in the secular world, when a
musician or an artist produces something of beauty without you know, being orthodox or
something like it, Does that make sense? Yeah, that was a great
question, Father Digan. Where do you think this idea? I mean,
it's kind of a gnostic iconoclastic idea that anything that isn't like immediately directly the
quote spiritual or religious is somehow like evil. It's got to be destroyed,
it's got to be I think it's a lot of I mean, I had
this phase when I was a young evangelical where I felt like, oh,
I have a bunch of CDs and VHS movies, and I thought that as
an evangelical when I was like nineteen, that I had to throw it all
away to show God that I was like really devoted and that I don't believe
in anything secular. And but what I realized is that the problem isn't these
externals. The problem was that I had an attachment to a lot of this
goofy stuff that wasn't the thing itself. It was a disordered attachment. That
attachment was in me not in the objects themselves. And yeah, like Father
you can said, I mean some of those movies are probably you know,
of no aesthetic value or whatever, just like degenerate horror movies or something that
I threw away or I had, like a I remember having like an hr
Gieger poster at one point that I thought was really cool. And that's,
you know, explicitly like a demonic thing that I was happy, I think,
to get rid of. But beyond that kind of explicitly demonic stuff,
I mean, the problem isn't the CDEs and the movie per se or the
poster or it's the inner state that you have that you have an attachment to
this, and it could be to anything. I mean, anything can become
one of these idols that were attached to and it doesn't have to be a
physical object. You can be attached to your heterodox idea that you worship.
Somebody like Bryce and Gray who's wedded to this ridiculous Hebrew roots idea and he's
so married to and wedded to this heterodox idea in his head and the pride
that goes into that that that's an idol, more more of an idol than
you know, like perhaps even you know, your CDs or whatever. Well,
I was thinking like philosophy too, Yeah, philosophy is a great example.
Yeah, all these people who I've noticed a trand among people who are
anti presupposition is the anti tag and they they've made an idol of the scholastic
and academic discipline of philosophy. Will just do this and all makes this system.
And I'm starting to notice it's blind people from certain obvious truths that should
be obvious. And I think all I do that, Yeah, exactly,
their distraction from the truth of God. I call it ideolotry, so ideolotry,
but I think to just the kind of falling is the man of wanting
to get caught up in uh, I mean being prone to dialectics. Right,
I have to because I remember this growing up. God good, therefore
world bad. Right, Yeah, I must deny the world and everything in
it. Which is interesting from the evangelical perspective because they say that, you
know, they speak out on one side of their mouths, saying that while
they introduce actually secular culture exactly into the church, their church and music,
and there might be even two has been thinking about the influence of the Puritans.
Yeah, absolutely, I was thinking, because they were very iconic clastic.
Yeah. In fact, when I was at a strict reform Presbyterian church,
we would actually have conversations about whether like fantasy books like Tolkien or C.
S. Lewis were sinful and violations of the law of God. Whether
you could play a video game, was that a violation of the law of
God? And the reasoning was that they're not real And so some of the
Protestants, some of the Puritans, in their theology treatises, would argue that
anything that isn't for example, a real painting, is sin because it's depicting
something that's not real, so it's therefore idolatry. So they got into almost
like like Islamic level iconoclasm with trying to be you know, these weird Puritans.
And the other thing too. That's interesting. My wife and I were
talking about this last night. Do you know all the kind of rigid social
and etiquette rules that the Puritans established? Yeah? Absolutely, I was all
into their theology at one point. I mean, you're talk about like a
sign of the cult, a cult, this kind of rigid forced rule worshiping.
Everything in your life is controlled. You could be called up and excommunicated
or you know, in the Civil Wars with Cromwell and stuff like that.
The sort of things that they were doing because of rule worship. It's quite
fascinating. So I think we're influenced by that, whether we like it or
not. And it's come in certainly in the United States. So yeah,
somebody in the chat is saying, I don't know if to you or to
me, he's saying, didn't the Church fathers tell you to renounce everything?
Didn't the Church fathers tell you to uh do the very thing that you're saying
is isn't sinful? I've never seen it. I did. I love these
general kind of well, I think he's like he's talking about like monastics stuff.
So in other words, well, what would you say to the monastics,
father deacon in because you're saying that that they're denying the world and aren't
they more holy than you? That seems to be the sentiment of the some
of the people in the chat. What would you say to that. It's
a it's a calling. And the thing is there's different levels of it,
so clearly and we can't all become monastics. I mean, there's just no
way functionally that we could do that. So they've denied the world and they're
no longer in the world either. But we're called to be deny the world.
I think is I think this gentleman is getting confused about particulars. It's
a mind isn't it a general mindset that I die to the world. I
no longer think about the things in the world the way the secular mind does.
That, I think is what the fathers and scriptures calling us all to
do, whether we're monastics or not, is it's about prioritization. The way
that I see these various things, I've had a mental needa change of mind,
and the way that I approach these things, that's to put away the
world. That doesn't mean that, oh, I have to become a monk
or something like that. Well. The other thing too, that people misunderstand,
and it's very common, is that they think that to say that I'm
denying the world, they think that it means like physicality and the objects in
the world, like they think that the things themselves are the problem. The
purpose of asceticism is nothing to do with the things in the world as objects.
It's you not being controlled by the objects and your passions is the point.
So when it says that you know, the world is under the power
of Satan, Okay, it's not talking about physical objects. This is typical
Gnostic sort of Protestant misunderstanding. It's talking about the world system that is the
spiritual reality of Satan and his kingdom against God. It is not saying that
working as a judge, or working as a policeman, or working as a
soldier it means that you're evil because you're quote part of the world. This
is all just total Gnostic misunderstanding that is very common to a lot of people
that are new converts to evangelicals to and it's a temptation I think for people
in monastic life too. And I mean to prove that, just read a
lot of the monastic literature that's always warning the monks about the temptations to spiritual
pride. Is that not correct? Yeah? Absolutely? And I like that
you point out the gnostic aspect because if you remember when we were evangelicals,
they would interpret things of the flesh. Yeah, exactly, as the body.
Do you mean, yeah, physical, anything physical, anything material.
When it was talking about the passions, basically the passions and putting things in
the wrong place and making idols and letting, letting lower things rule the higher
things. I mean, that's a good way to put it. Don't let
your lower things your higher things exactly. That's that's the whole point. Yeah,
and uh yeah, letting. Uh. I remember, idolatry is primarily
an issue of the inner man, the heart. It's not primarily an external
thing. So Protestants also always think, for example, that, oh,
when you kiss the icon, that's an action of idolatry. No. No,
idolatry is first and foremost comes out of the heart of man. Is
that This is what Jesus says to the Pharisees. It's not what goes into
the mouth. It's not the externals primarily that defile a man. It's what
comes out of his heart. That's the point here. And for some people
the medicine might be different. Let's say you're let's say you're an eighteen year
old dude and you have been obsessed with I don't know, some sort of
weird music genre, and your whole life is just wrapped up in I don't
know, some kind of weird music that you're all into. Okay, if
that is an idol for you, it might be appropriate for you when you
convert, your spiritual father might say it's time for you to take a break
from this thing which has a huge hole on your life. Maybe it's video
games, right, Maybe video game is a better example. Maybe you spend
eight hours a day playing video games. This is an idol to you.
Your spiritual father is gonna say you need to start tapering off of and detaching
from video games. Your first inclination is going to be to think video games
are of the devil and they're evil. Say you can create the video games,
and I'm gonna go online and I'm gonna tweet out how everybody should never
play video game and if you do, you're violating the fast and you're sending
and I'm more pious than you. So now you're in a worse state.
Literally, you're in a worst state because now you're a pharisee and now your
public performatively portraying your piety to the world, how you're not playing video games
anymore, and the hole you're missing The entire point. The entire point is
that you need healing, and it might be appropriate for you for a time
to fast from video games so that they're no longer having that idolatrous role in
controlling your life and so forth. So that's the point and the point.
The problem isn't in the video games. The problem isn't in all the people
outside of you. This is the Father Turbo quote, which you're multiple people
in the Chat have already pointed this out. When you become Orthodox, Before
the Orthodox, you're ready to solve all the problems of the world out there.
Oh, I need to fix everyone else because everybody else is so bad.
And then when you become Orthodox, you start realizing, oh, wait
a minute, actually the problem is in here. Are there problems out there?
Yeah? But how are you going to solve all the problems out there
before you start here? And start here? This is another thing I want
to rant real quick on a lot of people. I've noticed young guys that
convert and probably diging. I want your opinion on this. I think Father
Moses made this point too. There's a lot of young guys, I think,
and I did this too when I was younger. It's a temptation to
use spirituality and spiritual things as a way to shirk responsibilities. So rather than
thinking about how you're going to start a job or start a business, what
you're going to do in the future, saving money, learning about you know,
basic finance principles, this kind of stuff. Oh, I'm a self
appointed Twitter monk, and I don't have to worry with these worldly things.
Meanwhile, you live at home and you're angry and you're mad, and you
don't have anything going on, and this spirituality is a cloak for lack of
responsibility. Do you think that's a temptation for young guys too, which is
I think a source of a lot of the anger that people are feeling.
Yeah. Absolutely. And notice the other thing too, is that these people
are prescribing their own medicine. Oh interesting, Yeah, it's not coming from
their priest to tell they're prescribing where they need to be at, which is
obviously a trap. And then something came up recently too that somebody had mentioned,
you know, we was going to chat earlier today that somebody said,
Father Daniel or Saint Daniel, Father Daniel, you know, the martyr in
Russia said not to get not to pay attention to conspiracy theories. Well,
it depends on what you mean by conspiracy theories. But it's good to know
geopolitics and what's going on, or there's nothing wrong with being politically involved because
you're not a monk. Those things directly impact your family, your finance says,
your neighbors, your parish, and so I've seen that temptation. Well,
I don't get involved in politics, I don't vote, don't I don't
pay attention to anything. I just read the prayers and stuff like that.
Well, isn't that your point, Jay, that that's a great way to
skirt responsibility. Isn't that nice that you don't do any of that stuff?
Yeah? I think meanwhile, people find that, like you invested in something
you shouldn't have, or something happened and now your family's desolate. Congratulations.
Yeah, I think Father Moses is making that point that, you know,
the temptation is, Oh, I'm gonna you know, master canon law,
I just convert. I'm a catechumen, I'm nineteen, I'm reading the canons.
I'm going to tell the priests and the bishops where they're wrong. I'm
going to do this and that. But you know, this person has no
life experience. It's never done anything, never dealt with like a real trauma
or hardship in their life, never built a business, has no wisdom yet
believes that they're in a position to act in that way. And I think
your point there is that it's a could you just briefly expand on what you
mean by prescribing their own medicine, because we might have a lot of people
that don't know what that means. So prayer, life, reading the Fathers
where you should be spiritually, from an orthodox point of view, that's medicine
because Christ calls us to become more than what we are. I guarantee you
nobody's spiritual father is telling them to go read the rudder. That's right.
And so what they're doing is they're creating in their own mind that, well,
I'm going to achieve these spiritual heights. I'm going to do these prayers,
I'm going to read this, I'm going to negate these things in life.
But they're doing it by themselves. They're not even beyond just like talking
to their priests. They're not even getting general counsel friends or or family members
or people that are wiser. They're just they've decided what's going to be best
for them and they prescribe it. And it's always disastrous, isn't it.
Yeah, I think that a lot of times you weren't in here yet.
But earlier we were talking about the couple people that, for example, we've
known over the last say five or six years who either were Orthodox or came
very close to Orthodoxy and decided, oh, I'm going to go to Rome.
And in both cases I can think of, there was an incident where
one of them said, oh, I prayed in the Rosary and I felt
good. So and when I prayed Orthodoxy, so it didn't make me feel
good. So it's it was just like that, yeah, so and these
are like not the right things to make your decisions based on, is what
I tried to say. The other thing, too, is that we just
finished up virtual ethics in our ethics class, and one thing that I realize
is that people want shortcuts. Yes, they want to get the answer by
looking up in the back of the in a textbook, and so they want
a hard and fast rule on that'll apply and guide them through all the difficulties
in life. And they don't like to answer that you're not going to be
able to achieve that there is nothing in a book that's going to be a
hard and fast rule that you can just read and study. You have to
be guided, you have to work hard with the help of a priest,
and you have to turn to people that have acquired the virtues and wisdom and
are much more spiritually advanced than you to help you. Now, people don't
like that. They want a papal bullet point list. I could just look
in a textbook and it'll just tell me what to do in all these ethical
situations. So I think it's the heart of its both a spiritual laziness and
then also pride. I can do it myself. I don't. I don't
want to have to turn to somebody and and trust my life to a spiritual
father or a priest. I want to be able to argue my way through
and figure this stuff all out on myself, and I want it all formulaic
and hard and fast rules. Then they end up being rule worshipers. Yeah,
that's a great point. And your insights on virtue ethics, by the
way, really good. I've been watching your lectures. I want to remind
everybody heading over to Patristic Faith, which is Father Deacon's channel, and you'll
notice that he has quite a few of his ethics course lectures which are which
are which are great because we we We are basically virtue ethicist. So if
you want to understand, well, what's the orthodox philosophy of ethics? Father
Deacon's course is really good I've done, I think whatever. However, many
have you got two or three up? I think I've watched two of them
at least. How many of you got up? Now? How many of
your courses are up? I think I've watched two. Do you have three
up yet? Yeah? No, I'll put some more up. I haven't
recording stuff. I just I don't always live stream it in that, but
I do have them recording. I can upload various ones. The last,
the last virtue ethics we did I thought was really good. Yeah, I
watched it was really good. Yeah, that's what I was telling people.
The one I haven't put up yet, Like you haven't that's really good?
Should upload that? Yeah, I've been watching them, the really good and
I'm telling everybody in the chat to go watch it. Noah m says for
three dollars that he was baptized brought in the church. With this, what
happens, we all get our paradigms we want. And by the way,
paradigm reorienting process is not going to happen just one time. Now, it
may not happen like at a mega level, like when you you know the
level of converting. But we're all going to have carryovers. We're all gonna
bring our baggage, and we have to remember that it takes a long time
for a lot of that baggage to get washed out. So you know we're
gonna be tempted when we become orthodox. Oh, I need to bring these
evangelical things in Orthodoxy to help orthodox you. Oh, I need to make
Orthodoxy tomistic to save it. And this is a wrong approach. So don't
be weirded out that you're going to continue to have kind of things you're going
to struggle with Big Boss sixteen dollars. You are mean and therefore you're wrong.
You are an accuser exactly. So that's the fallacy ad menum there that
I always engage in. Thank you, Big Boss, Arena twenty five dollars,
God blessed, Thank you so much, Verna. I appreciate that based
pay Piggy ten dollars. Can you do an impression of John Hagy offering up
blood moon pies to I ran for peace? Or tell everybody this is ament
a biblical prophecy. When a Ram attacks, it is of course because of
the thirteen blood moons that have appeared along with the signs of the aliens in
the sky. If we can only offer a fourteen blood moon, pish Israel
to a Ran for peace, we would have the return of Messiah. How's
that store? Ninety six ten dollars, Thank you so much, Store.
I wasn't expecting to do it, John Hagy, So it was a little
rough there. I apologize, Marincus man three dollars. What does it mean
to fill up what is lacking in the suffering of Christ? I think Paul
is saying that just as Christ went through a measure of suffering in his in
his flesh and his body throughout his life, and particularly of course in the
crucifixion, death and to sent into Hades, that we will also as the
body, experience a same measure of suffering. So Paul is basically saying that
God has in his providence for his saint Paul's life and a pointed suffering martyrdom
and then death that he would undergo, and that would quote fill up what
was lacking in the sense of the body of Christ. The people also going
through what Christ went through because we're mystically united to him. It doesn't mean
that Christ's sacrifice itself was lacking. It just means that his body would also
then also would also then in history go through the gates of death with Santathanatia
says that the Cross has turned the gate of death into the gate of life.
Cataclysm five dollars. Calvin was a collector of heresies. I would agree
with that. He accepts the Unomian premise and says that the sun is autotheos.
That is correct. Now, some Calvinists will try to argue that he
qualified this later on. Yeah, whatever, back in my right mind.
Eighty eight five dollars. This is some Orthodox love from an Orthodox grandmother.
Thank you so much. Appreciate that that sweet X five dollars. This is
probably to father Deacon. Tag entails supplemental arguments and it has proposition one as
its conclusion could be made. I don't know what that sentence means. Is
an attempt that begs the question. All other worldviews can account for knowledge,
so the first one is true. Give the non fallacious argument for TAG.
So this is the same thing that J. Mike puts in the Chat every
time. And we just did a stream with Father Deacon about his new paper
that he wrote addressing this very argument. So Father Deacon, would you have
any comments on a kind of the rundown that we just did on the live
stream a few days ago. The objection to tag that it's not logically demonstrating
that all the other world views are false, and it assumes the thing that
it's arguing in its first premise, and that I don't even remember what the
other what was the other things they say, I'll just go through and probably
address. So I think there's a mistake of understanding what generally, in principle
a transcendental deduction is. Yes, and oh that's right, because we were
talking about metal level arguments and what that is. So this gentleman was saying
that it assumes what you want to prove. But if you read the definition
just generally, how can't lays it out It's something that's not the conclusion of
a deduction, but must be assumed in order transcendentally deduced, such that experience
and knowledge and these predicates to be considered true about the world would be possible.
So you can't say that a transcendental argument in general role is question begging.
Now you might say, well, I don't see how orthodoxy, the
god of orthodoxy says that condition, which is a legitimate question, which goes
to again, well, that's why there are supplemental arguments in the sense of
again showing by the impossibility of the contrary that all world views boil into either
relatory theism or autonomous epistemology, and the problems that autonomous epistemology could not have
given account for knowledge or say that knowledge exists. And ultimately this goes back
to the radical disjunctive between there's only two possible positions, either accidentalism or purposeful
intentionalism. That would be a you know, accidentalism would be a defeat for
knowledge. So we can show how orthodoxy is the only thing that actually satisfies,
which is the strongest sort of argument. Yeah, Now a lot of
people are asking where is this paper that we covered in this live stream.
They want to read your paper. Is there a place where it's easily accessible.
I'll put it in the chat. I think almost all my papers academia
acadu, so I'll put that in the chat. Also, I find it
ironic. How can somebody say an argument works or it doesn't work, or
begs the question if they can't actually justify the normativity and legitimacy of principles of
logic exactly the principles and so yeah, we went into that in that live
stream, so I would say watch the livestream. We just did as well
because you made that point multiple times. It was really good. Okay.
Next up is a person who wanted to come into debate earlier, Fad and
a row Hand. So we're going to bring him up next. All right,
what's up? You gotta mute? Hey? Jamie? Yo, Jamie?
Could you make me a double shot? Hello? You are? What's
up? Man? Well? Is my so good? Yeah? Did you
hop off of your noble steed? Sad? Oh, I don't have one,
it's just a larbie. I didn't literally think you were Thad in a
row hand. So okay. So I would like to talk about evolution,
Uh, I would I will talk about it in a philosophical sense. Is
that what you want to get into? Hello? I was actually heading for
the Morti biolog I mean I'm not I'm not trained in that, so I
can't really address it. Okay, And it relates to a lot of other
stuff. If I take too long, we can take a break and maybe
come on later. Because it relates to a lot of stuff about anthropology,
like what is the dividing line between humans and animals? And how to reconcile
evolution with genesis? Do you do you have a philosophy of science perspective?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Oh, so you never heard
of this discipline called philosophy science. I've heard of it. But so I
am. I am a Christian and right winger. So and I've listened to
your past stuff about evolution, and most of the time I noticed that you're
on the on the philosophical name. You conflated with impure empiricism. I can
flate Hold on you think I can? You think I can flate evolution with
empiricis I'm like, I don't know the difference between those two things. No,
no, no, I don't want to be negative about it. I
just noticed that whenever you talked about evolution, Darina evolution in the past,
it was more the argument got distracted about empiricism materialism. I see, right,
well, but most people from that perspective have that presupposition. So you're
correct that there are theistic evolutionists who would not be subject to all those criticisms.
But that video, the old videos addressing Darwinism were mainly directed at atheists,
not theistic evolutionists. So so now when you say you're a theistic Christian
or a Christian evolutionary proponent, can I ask you what theological tradition you mean
you're coming from. I'm kind of wishy, was she slowly complicated at the
moment. I used to be agnostic materialists up until two years ago, and
for the last two years I've been just learning and discerning and still soul and
that as a Catholic. So I'm Timothy Gordon and yourself, Jedaiah am my
two favorites. So I'm very glad and encourage that dialogue. And I happen
to go to an SSPX at the moment. But I'm not. I don't
have my eco attage or a rest body. Yeah, I think, yeah,
that's fair, And I'm not trying to be a douchebec. I don't.
I'm just I typically, I know my wheelhouses, and I'm not studied
in biology. I do believe that there's such a thing as natural selection.
I do believe that we had the ability within us to adapt, which I
think God put there. But I don't think any of that justifies macro transmutation
of species. So, and I've heard a million times what people think is
the argument for if you give it enough time, you know, the minor
adaptations will eventually produce something else. I don't find any of those arguments to
be vincing, So I stick to my wheelhouse, which is philosophy of science.
That's what I studied quite a bit in undergrad So if you want to
address that stuff, I can address it. We get to have that debate.
But when it comes to biology, I'll just concede to you. I
don't I don't know enough about biology. Okay, Yeah, the last like
a couple of weeks ago, another guy called in about evolutionary basically gave him
the same amounts that you had. Well, I mean, what do you
expect of me, Tom? I suppose so am I failing you here because
I don't know a whole discipline? But I mean humans only have enough time.
I mean I try my best to master geopolitical stuff, history, you
know. I mean I can't learn everything. So what what I mean here?
Let me put the argument this way. I mean, do you think
that biology and the science that you do, and I'm not knocking it,
do you think that it relies on any like philosophy of science? Yeah?
Sure, Okay, how do you know that you have the right starting points
for philosophy of science? I mean, maybe you do. I'm not saying
you don't, But how would you know if you do? Well, I
concede to you on philosophical grounds, fair enough, your point is totally cool.
So but on the statements I've heard from you on the biological aspects of
evolution, I could respond to those. And I also I have my half
baked maybe theoretical way of reconciling genesis with evolution, and it relates to let's
just put it. Let's just put it this way though, Like even if
you have a you know, a theory and all that, and I'm not
saying you don't like, I think the main issue will be if you want
a historic version of Christianity, whether Orthodox or Roman Catholic. The Six Ecumenical
Council has a very strict clear statement about their not being death before the fall.
So the challenge I think will be there, uh for your type of
position. Now, I know that Rome Catholicism is much more amenable in terms
of you know, Pious the twelfth and cyclical about theistic evolution. So you
if this is like the lynchpin thing for you, then you might be leaning
towards Rome Catholicism over something like that. I don't think Orthodoxy has explicit statements
like you have to affirm six day creation. It's more so that this is
pretty much the view everywhere. I mean, you really have to look hard
to find even something that's not that like with that with Saint Augustine, but
nobody holds Augustin's view because he believed in instantaneous creation. So Augustine is not
any way a like help for the evolution proponents or the people who don't believe
in six day creation. So I think ultimately just comes down to like our
presubpositions and anyway, so that I think, both historically and philosophically, evolution
since a macro revolution is predicated upon nominalism, and because if you think about
once, you have nominalism, which is a rejection of real essentialism, real
like essences that define what species are. And going back to Aristotle, species,
there's what he calls the fixity a species. Yeah, exactly, so
both historically what happens. And then I think what's necessary philosophically in order to
say species can change into others, evolve into other species, is you have
to blur the distinction. You have to break that kind of and reject the
real centralism so that you can say, blur the distinctions and say, well,
look see here a species could change into another species. All which is
to say, and so only modern biology has embraced phenomenalistic and rejection of teleology
and real essentialism within biology that allows them the kind of philosophical hardware to attempt
to make the case for evolution that species can change into other species. And
I think that's important to identify that presupposition. Anyway, I'm sorry this wasn't
kind of the thing that you wanted data, but we're going to move on
to let's see. Next up is a person who I'm assuming probably wants to
talk about seven day Advento stuff. What's up? You can unmute Chase?
Do you want to mute? Which Chase is Chase? Yes, sir,
I do. It's an honor to talk to you. I really appreciate you,
Jay, Well you don't really, but that's okay, No, I
really do. I respect your diligence and you your work. I respect your
work. I think I just have some questions, like, uh, maybe
two I put a few I've written. I don't know if you've seen any
that I wrote. I saw that you made a lot of videos. I
didn't watch the videos. Oh okay, well that's that's cool. So a
couple of questions would be like I know that you you'll say, like I
think in Thessalonica or I forget where it is, there's iconography in the churches
synagogue. Okay, you're saying the synagogue. I was thinking of some early
churches that you were talking about. But well, there are there are early
churches that have that. But most of the time we make the argument that
you can see early you know, contemporary with Christian synagogues in second third century
that have iconography. All right, So then my point would be, Paul
says, I mean, maybe maybe three points here if and they're they're quick.
So Paul says, the mystery of lawlessness, I mean just translated iniquity
is already at work first century, and so doesn't this prove a trend of
apostasy away from the John and tittleview. Okay, ken, wait, let's
take them one at a time. So my response to that would be,
it doesn't follow from the fact that Paul's saying that that the things that you're
identifying as apostasy, such as imagery, is what Paul's talking about. Well
let's not. Let's not connect that. No, but that doesn't we don't
have to connect those. That's fine, but that doesn't we don't have to
get into that. I'm just just as a general principle, he's saying because
it's translated sometimes as iniquity, but I'm saying it's also translated in some places
as lawlessness. So he's saying, the mystery of iniquity or lawlessness is already
at work. And so if what I would say is it's all the mystery
in some sense is that it's a law. And I maybe try to find
some consensus. Could you agree that there is a law, at least among
Jews that enforced lawlessness? Would you agree to that that there was among the
first century Judaism, there was actually to them, they called it law that
if you obeyed it, that it mandated in certain ways that you would break
God's law? Could we agree on that? Do you mean like a state
law that would break God's law or a divine law? It was Matthew fifteen.
You know this, and I've heard you traditions of the elders oral Torah
and Talmud is when it was written down, it was called Talmud at the
time. It was patristic tradition of century. Judaism was the law. What
I'm saying is a law of lawlessness. It's literally a law that mandates that
men break with the law of God. But could you agree with that?
I mean it was called tradition. Just make the argument that where are you
going with this argument that icons are the mystery lawlessness? The Sunday worship.
The Sunday worship is the breaking of the law that is, mister lawless.
So, first of all, do you think that the temple had icons in
it? I'm not even going there. I'm just trying to find a consensus
of definition of could we agree that there was what the Jews called the whole
like they even to this day, like you could go and see a Jewish
authorities they call it. If you say the whole law of Moses, you're
thinking oh, they're written text, and they say, no, the written
text is subsidiary and secondary and the oral tories. I'm aware of that,
correct, Yes, So they're actually saying, if you were to go to
a lecture, uh, the oral portion, it would be what the talmu
it is, and then the the index cards or notes. If you go
to the lectern the index those little note cards, that's the written text.
So to them, the primacy is on the I understand that. Yes,
okay, So when we get to Docitheus, he ends up saying what I'm
what I'm simply saying is there's an analog that that is troublesome to me,
is that in the Song of Solomon, the rabbis say there's a verse that
says thy tongue is that thy mouth is sweeter than wine, and they say
that this is the the oral Torah from the readings of the rabbis, is
sweeter and more authoritative than the written text. We don't make the argument that
the Song of Solomon is talking about patristic world tradition. So no, no,
no, no, I'm saying I'm saying, I'm trying to find a
consensus. I'm saying that the rabbis in first century Judaism. The battle that
was going I'm trying to establish what was the first century back and the first
century battle was with this law of lawlessness that literally mandated men to break God's
law. But it was tradition, and it was patristic tradition. It was
first century patricitic tradition that was the traditional enemy of the Apostolic faith. No,
I think that makes that makes you illuone. What is what is?
So? Then? What? It's all based on your faulty presupposition as to
what you think the mystery lawlessness is. So your argument is built on something
that it's not, because that's your pre supposition to prove your seven day advantage.
Okay, okay, so don't but okay, don't call it the mystery
of a Where do you get the Where do you get the canonical text that
you're using to attack the church from. I'm not going there. I'm just
trying to find it, but I'm asking you to go there. Well,
First and foremost, I take the view that recognizing and compiling a inspired text
is not proof of interpreting it. And the reason I would say, when
was it recognized and collected Okay, let can can. I know that you're
going to say it wasn't for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years later.
But okay, and you think, okay, you think that it's not that,
So when was it? Where's your proof of that? Well? My
point would be that that this and the sovereign prerogative of God, he in
his own sovereign prerogative didn't upload it all at once and in his sight begging
the question. So there's not an actual historical account of what you're saying.
I don't necessarily believe. I don't believe that that's because like when the New
Testament came out, certain cities were getting revelation before other cities, and everybody
wasn't having it all at once. And what I'm saying is it wasn't God's
will. When Ephesus had a church dispute our correnth, yes, I was
just addressing them the cannon, where's the can? When does it come to
there? Didn't need. What I'm saying is is that that that's not how
it wasn't God's prerogative. I'm not even sure that that's what God was concerned
about having a whole compiled text like, that's subsidiary I'm talking and that's nice.
So would that be because as a seven day avedis you believe in Ellen
White's ongoing charismatic revelation. Is that why I'm not a seventh day I'm not
a seventh Day at venice, I simply believe that there is a based on
based on Paul after the Resurrection Twice Acts, chapter twenty one. In twenty
two, he says, I am a Jew. Jesus says salvation is of
the Jews. John four, twenty two Romans. He's talking about gentiles.
He's saying he is a Jew who is one inwardly a Jew. And then
in that means a Christian. He doesn't say Christian. That's what it means.
The spiritual Israel in Galatians at the end of Galatians is the Church of
Galatia. Okay, So what I would say is before all that in Romans,
sorry, Jeremiah, what is your position? So you're not going to
get the right to sail the stuff and not disclose what your position is.
My position is that is that there is something called whey or nazarene Judaism,
and that what Jesus is battling over in the first century. Is who is
that? Right? You could call it that, But my argument would be
that the word that's a redundancy in the sense that Judaism Why Judah, And
it's because of Micah five two the hoold Bethlehem Efrita out of you will come
forth through me, your ruler over all Israel. Are you anti trinitarian or
not? No, I'm not anti trinitarian. I definitely believe in Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, all the mechanics of it. It's I'm not
gonna I wouldn't get into all that. I would say that, well,
why don't you get into that? What do you mean? Because you don't
If if that was all I know is is God can manifest as a burning
book? Okay, like God? Can you know God can manifest into me
like that? Was? Is Jesus Jesus Jesus the eternal son of God?
Or is he a creature? I'm not arian? There was? I could
there was, He never did not exist, he always did exist. Okay,
you know, I mean, I'm not going to be arian constance.
So so the so the group that put the Bible together was the Apostate,
Mystery Lawlessness people right, I'm not. I'm not. Look all I'm going
to say, is it because I've I've read went through your article too on
church tradition, tradition in church and church history? Is your final authority?
The scriptures? What's your final authority? This? The spirit? What is
that? The Holy Spirit? Without that, there, the scriptures are dead
in ink on paper? How do we How do we adjudicate between a bunch
of different groups claiming to be led by the spirit? All here? Okay?
So so and I get that, but there's some sort of issues that
I would have with it, For instance, the oral Would you agree did
Jesus You're not answering, you're asking a two quote way did Jesus give you
just asked me. I asked you a question, and you asked me a
question that's two quote way. So I'm asking you to clarify where we're going.
Would you agree that? Let me put it this way, did Jesus
leave the church any way? To adjudicate between all the different heretics who claim
to be led by the spirit. I believe it existed in the apostles.
How between you and I, if we both believe that we're led by the
spirit, which is the thing that you appeel to as your final thing.
How do we adjudicate between these two things? Because you said, it's not
the dead letter that's the final It's not the Bible technically, well, technically
the church is, according to First Christian six, supposed to act as a
bate dean, which is a house of judgment. And Paul's standard is so
the standard is what your your sect? That's the standard we go to your
I'm going to I believe in the church, but all I'm all I'm saying,
brother, from like where the collective, the body of believers everywhere where?
Is that? Well? You think we're part of the mystery of lawlessness?
So this is your messianic sect. You, your messy s act is
is led by the spirit. I'm sure right, I know. So where
do we adjudicate? No, I, hey, I bro, I value
you, I appreciate you. I'm I learned from you. I'm not I'm
not sitting here saying I don't care about you. Yeah, that's why you've
got like thirty videos calling me out. That's a bunch of bologney. All
right, this is not going anywhere, So we're going to move on the
architect, what's up? So I'm never going to get an answer as to
what adjudicates between two people claiming to be led by the spirit. My point
then being that Jesus didn't even give to the church a mechanism to judge between
a thousand different loans claiming to be led by the spirit. Did he not
foresee that there would be It seems like he did foresee that there would be
some problems. And it seems like you said that the church would not fail
and that the mystery of lawlessness would not be controlling the church since the first
century. So no, I don't think the mystery of lawlessness is what you
think that it is. Go ahead, architect, Hey, what's up?
How are you doing good? Hey? So I wanted to talk about the
tag and so what I specifically wanted to ask. I know you've touched on
this a little bit earlier, but I wanted you to expound upon it.
But this idea that only the Christian worldview has the necessary conceptual machinery to account
for universals. Right, So it's not just for universals, it's for all
of the transcendental categories, right right. But that's specifically what comes to mind.
But so, yeah, I know you've talked specifically about a divine mind,
right, but that's also compatible, you know with use like neoplatonism.
Well, it's specifically, and that's why we go into just pointing out how
neoplatonism doesn't do that work because of the fundamental problems of neoplatonism, right.
So, but I'm specifically interested in what you mentioned earlier about the Christian view
of history, right, the Christian philosophy of history. So yeah, I'm
just curious for you to expound a little bit upon that and emphasize how specifically
that view of history contributes to the ability of the Christian world view to account.
Well. Earlier, I was addressing the argument that what if somebody said
that I have all of your same metaphysics, but it's like I don't know,
some new made up like Pagan or say a wo Tan trinity. What
if I posited a deity that had all of your same metaphysics, And I
was saying that it wouldn't work because number one, our view is not just
a thing you can sort of make up on the spot. It's intimately tied
to history and the revelation of the Christian message. Through the person of Christ.
And that's unique because you don't get what we have as a historical revelation
in quite a few religions. Some religions are pro history, but many religions
are ahistorical or anti time in space, and so they would actually be,
you know, something like I don't know, Buddhism or something like that,
where you sort of need to transcend this world or this dimension, this reality,
or some form of gnosticism that's anti this world. So what I was
just saying is that number one, the position would be inauthentic because it wouldn't
be giving an account for history to just pose it on the spot a new,
made up sort of deity. And it also wouldn't work because it's obviously
cribbing from an earlier existing Christian position. Right. But regarding history, what
you just said about cribbing from the Christian position, is that not a separate
question, right? So if we're specifically talking about accounting for transcendental categories,
No, if his ultimate principle is something that's obviously just borrowed from our position,
that wouldn't work. Why not because it's obviously borrowed from our position?
I mean, the specific question of asking is why does that make it false?
Right? So, because it's fraudulent, it would be a fac simile
Wait all low or not? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by
that. You don't know what the words fraudulent in fact simile of a previously
existing position would be. I guess I'm just confused as to why specifically this
is relevant. So we're trying to account for this because it's not because the
position has to be not just a metaphysical abstraction. Our position also says that
God steps into time and space. And so if his position is ripping off
our position, because that was the example that the atheist or the person gave,
it would not be our position. Because our position identifies Christ as the
person of history. So how could you identify Christ as a person in history
in a fact simile position that you've made up, it would be It would
not be It would be our position. And furthermore, in our position claims
that it's unique, So that is exclusionary. And so it's self defeating to
say that you could just copy an abstract the theory when part of the theory
is not only that it matches the history, you fits the observation but that
it's exclusive. So this would say it'd have to say it's both exclusive and
not exclusive, because I have the ability to rip off the same theory.
In other words, part of the Orthodox paradigm. It says not be.
In other words, Orthodox theory A says not B. So if you rip
if your B and you rip off Orthodox theory A, you're saying B and
not B, which is a contradiction. It's self defeating. Well, what
I'm specifically asking is if somebody were to adopt specific parts of the Orthodox Christian
machinery, right, Well, the argument, the argument was for the holistic
paradigm, not picking and choosing, not trying to be rid to you.
But I want to get through more people because I'm have to go be on
Patrick Henningson's show here in a moment, in about fifteen minutes, I'll be
on his show over on TNT, and we'll be discussing actually black Hebrew Israelites,
weird cults and how they might be being used by the establishment. So
we'll try to get through these quick between the between something I can't see the
rest of it. Between something what's up, man, I didn't realize it
was four fifty Someone have to go really soon. But go ahead. I'm
you. How's going. I'll try to hurry the best I can. I
thought difficulty funding get satisfactory answer for this. It seems to me that when
Paul sets the qualifications for elders in Titus and in Timothy, that includes a
list of qualifications for elders and for those who oversee the church. That includes
things like the ability to teach, not being prone to anger. Obviously they
can't be greedy so that they'll steal from the church, and so forth.
And among these qualifications is the fact that an elder is supposed to be the
husband of a first or of one wife, and also that he's supposed to
have children, that these children should be on a subjection, and that they
also be our believing children. Now I know that in Eastern Orthodoxy a married
man can become a priest if I understand correctly, but once he has taken
his holy orders, so to speak, he's not permitted to be married.
I also, if that's the case, it also means he cannot be married
and also become a priest or a leader inside the church. This seems a
violation of the scripture, where it's clearly laid out. Not only is he
unmarried, but he also doesn't have children, and also the not believing children.
This is given to us to describe how we're to know whether or not
he's worthy of the position, because we can look at the way that he
runs his family and say to ourselves, yes, he treats his wife a
certain way. Yes, his children are believers, Yes they're in subjection.
Therefore this person can serve the church. I know that Catholic Roman Catholicism,
I'm getting to my question. I know that Roman Catholicism in this case requires
you to be celibate, and that's not the case for Eastern Orthodoxy. But
allowing an Eastern Orthodoxy a priest to be unmarried into the position seems in violation
of the scriptures. What is the as I said, the rationality for being
able to pull this one verse out of its contacts and to ignorge devastating dude,
you got us, father Degan, Would you want to speak to that?
Yeah, So, I think the first mistake is that to read everything
in scripture in the same way. This is kind of the problems that Judaizers
have, that you have to keep the tora that all laws or all prescriptions
are everything recorded, and scripture are always applied everywhere at all times, in
all ways. And obviously we see that certain prescriptions and commands we're given to
God's people for particular reasons at particular times. That doesn't mean that there's this
time of eternal koran and rule in the heavens. Yeah, the Protestant read.
The Protestant reads everything that Paul ever lists as an eternal law, and
that there's no such thing as economia. And Jesus knew that the Church would
encounter different challenges at different times and in different places, So there has to
be some flexibility in practice when it comes to how these things work in history.
And the reason for bishops not having families is because the duties of bishops
in the ancient world got to be so difficult that it was not possible for
them in the ancient world to travel with a family everywhere, and so it
became easier to draw the bishops from the monasteries. So the church faced a
real politic. Because this guy has in his profilogy he deals with real politic.
The Church faces real politic where they had to deal with a historical reality,
and that's what they found to be a better practical scenario. So could
theoreticly a bishop be married. Sure, that's happened. I'm sure in the
history of the Church. There's no ironclad law that that couldn't happen. But
the mistake that he's making is to think that every qualification or everything that's done,
uh in even in the Pauline period isn't necessarily an eternal law. It's
a great point. Further, you can appreciate that I want to Yeah,
this is another example of kind of rule worship that I misunderstanding what the purpose
of law is. This is why in both Roman Catholicism process they don't have
this kind of principle of economyia right, because they're legalistic rule worshippers that the
law has to be absolutely applied everywhere at all times. It's this eternal kind
of platonic, very Muslim kind of understanding absolutely what law is. And but
it's not. The law has a teleological and purpose in which it's applied.
And also I think the mistake too is it sets screw sure over and above
the church rather than in synergy and part of the church is that. Yeah,
Paul says the Yeah, the true. The pillar and ground of truth
is the church, not written texts. The church interprets and applies the written
text. This is why there's such a thing as canon law. Are we
gonna be quick here? Isaac? What's up? Isaac? Got it on
mute? I guess he dropped off, Sapphire, Okay, what I can't
hear you, maw, I'm not Isaac. No, he dropped off,
And then I said, Sapphire, all right, I have a very short
question. Okay, it's not very serious, but aliens are they fake or
are they demons? Or they're fake and gay and they're also demons. So
how's that? Let's see Thomas. What's up? Thomas? Guys, remember
to get tickets to our Vegas event. We'll be live in Vegas with Jamie
Kennedy. It's a six hour event of unashamed infotainment, comedy, conspiracy,
deep geopolitical analysis, esoterica, and stand up all at one event in six
hours June twenty second in Las Vegas. Get your tickets right there. It's
going to be a blast. Also, Isaac Vaishapp will be joining us too,
because he's not too far from that region. So get your tickets right
there. The link is in the show description and the link is in the
chat. What's up, man, Thomas? Are you there, sir?
How are you doing? I'd just like to say thank you Jay for your
apologetics for the Orthodoxy. So I'm an Anglican Orderland currently, but it's very
much looking like I'm going to convert to Orthodoxy and pursue the priesthood the antiochy
and Orthodox Church in the UK. So yeah, you're watching your stuff for
the last few months and it's just really really helped a lot. I don't
know other people in this country who have also been led by your discussions and
your writings and stuff. So yeah, the more streams you could do at
these kinds of times so that people in Europe and the UK and stuff can
get involved, and yeah, just be great. All right, question,
Thank you man, I appreciate it particular. Thank you glad to hear about
heading in that direction. Happy Fortune, what's up? Happy Fortune? You're
right? A happy Watune? Open cookie, Happy fortune cookie? I knew
roll stake ten dollars says the Protestants rud use Orthodox arguments against Roman Catholics.
Why do they do that? If they pick and choose the parts of ecumenical
councils. Well, I imagine that answers your question right there. They're picking
and choosing the parts that might help the Protestant case. They don't have a
notion of Norman authority exactly. And that was kind of the point that I
was getting into with the guy that was messianagudism or whatever. No, I
M five dollars. Do you consider the Poscian Council of A sixty nine and
the Palomite Synods to be quote ecumenical councils. It doesn't matter what you call
them ecumenical councils, they're just authoritative pan Orthodox synods. Some people say that
it doesn't teach any new dogmas. Well, I mean there's no rule that
like a council has to quote teach a quote new dogma. That sounds like
that's like a Roman Catholic argument where they say the Oh, Vatican two doesn't
count because they quote didn't teach new dogmas. Yeah, I mean the Palomite
Synods are accepted in the Orthodox world. They are referred to in the since
that we just had Saint Gregory Palamas Sunday in the Linton cycle a few Sundays
ago. So whether you call them quote acumenical or pan Orthodox synods or just
accepted Orthodox synods, it doesn't matter because there there are teaching. Absolutely,
honeybe one hundred dollars. Well, thank you so much. Appreciate that kind
of winning the super chat race tonight, Maya Max Sherry three dollars. Are
you going to debate cosmic skeptic? If you took him down the load tier
TikTok atheists would crumble in their culture. Yeah. So the thing with that
is that I've reached out multiple times. I've tweeted at him. I don't
know how many times. I think one time I tweeted at him and it
got like Muhammed hi jab it got hundreds of likes and shares. Say,
with Ben Shapiro, I don't think those people have any motivation to want to
interact with me. I mean, they don't stand to gain anything by that
interaction. So I mean, I can keep trying, but I don't think
that's gonna happen anytime soon. L two A five dollars. Have you brushed
up on any Steve quail impressions. I haven't thought about Steve Quillen in a
long time, so so when I did the last Steve Quail impression, we're
going to open up the portals for the Ananaki to come through Vicern. How's
that? That's my good enough, that's mine. I haven't thought about Steve
Quilling so long. But ten dollars from argument. Please, I sent a
question earlier. You didn't answer it. I'm sorry. I did answer it
by handing it over to Father Deacon anaias. What's the argument that concludes point
one of tag? So why would point one conclude when it's point one and
the whole point is that it's a metal level argument. You claim you're using
logic at the metal level. Prove it again. We already have proven that.
Go watch the live stream, go read his paper, aspiring fast boy.
Five dollars you should unblock redeem Zoomer. I'll pass on that. He
says he's reading the Church Fathers and he's ready for a part too. Well,
I didn't say I was ready for a part two, but I guess
it's good that he's reading. Well. Him quote reading the Church Fathers probably
means he's just quote minding them for whatever he thinks looks Protestant, which is
natural. I did the exact same thing. At his age, Noah m.
Five dollars. I dabbled in Romanism before becoming Orthodox. I enjoyed the
Rosary. Can I venerate the Theotokos by the Rosary? I think that the
problem isn't any of the phrases of the Rosary or the theology necessarily the Rosary.
The problem is that the Rosary typically went along with this idea of imaginative
prayer, and imaginative prayer is not part of Orthodoxy. So I would say
that you should ideally speak about that to your spiritual father. But we don't
need these Roman Catholic devotions. We don't need to import them into Orthodoxy because
it sends a message that, oh, well, we're all basically the same,
We're not. Sacred Heart is a violation of the teachings of Ephesus,
So you should not have the Sacred Heart worship in an Orthodox church. It
clearly violates Ephesis, which says that you can't give reverence to parts of Christ.
You have to revere the whole Christ as the whole Christ. So the
motivation of many of the people, not you, Noah, but many of
the people who want to do these things is not always good motivation. Some
people's motivation is a Cumanism. They want to give the impression that if we
and this is actually what Jesuits did. Jesuits, for example, would paint
and have painted Heterodox icons to try to convert Orthodox people to Unionism or Roman
Catholicism. And so it's no different in terms of the motivation of bringing in
all these Western Latin devotions and listen, I was a Roman Catholic. We
don't need that stuff. We don't need sitting there meditating and imagining myself in
the pains of hell like lunatic Alphonsi's Laguori says, we don't want any of
this stuff. We don't do imaginative prayer. So no, that's the reason
why it's not. We don't want you, you know, thinking about the
the tokos or whatever, any last words and up by that be sure in
a subscribe to all of my outlets, head on over to chalk dot com.
He's promo co j fifty to get fifty percent off all those great products
like chalk dot com. And uh, you get fifty percent off things like
the Irish Moss, fifty percent off things like seven Wonders, fifty percent off
the excellent ton Catiale proven to boost test saus room, and we definitely know
these church boys need the boost their test oserone. I'll tell you what otherwise
I will see you guys very soon. Uh get some of that Lore Coffee.
The link is in the show description. Lore Coffee is our fellow Orthodox
Coffee Bros. And you're also supporting uh FDA as well by buying that Lore
Coffee. Subscribe to me on Rockfin and get the books signed