Up the times spring open, I standing the stand and spelling the I love
love and Sandy. All right, what's up? Welcome, It's that time
again, another night, another fair all bunch of crazy blogny coming in hot,
fresh from the frying pan. We've never tried it on a Friday night,
though. We usually get our own unique blend of fair ale individuals coming
in hot on the weekday. What about on a Friday night? Hopefully we
all got to see you today's installment of Lord Baltimore. We had a lot
of fun over there today. Jamie joined me. I got my cool nineties
guy here falling down in my face. How are you gonna be the guy
in a debate? That's kind of like Jamie said, I could look like
a nineties cool guy boyfriend, and I said, okay, I'll go with
that. Imagine losing a debate to a nineties cool guy, alternative boyfriend.
That's what's gonna happen to you tonight. When you try to you try to
make your dumb arguments. I'm just kidding with you. It's okay, you're
not dumb tonight. We're gonna open it up. Why not. I even
got our buddy, the famous white board. It's a white board summer.
If you haven't heard, I got it ready to go because I know we're
gonna have some some heat, we're gonna have some smoke, so we can
help clear up the confusion via the white board tonight. The topics are as
you probably have surmised. Catholicism, Atheism, Protestantism, Islam, paganism,
neopaganism. That means we can talk about why you believe there is no God,
why you think I'm crazy and wrong. We'll talk about philosophical topics,
logic, transit argumentation, there's a good argument, it's a bad argument,
transforgument for God. That is, we'll talk about recent topics I've covered.
Maybe you're a peterson Ian. You want to talk about my take on Jordan
Peterson. We can talk about that. You want to talk about the Essencenary
section. You want to talk about absolutely divine sublicity. You wants about the
history of the papacy. You want to talk about John Calvin, Calvinism,
James White. You want to talk about Trent Horn, You want to talk
about Taylor Marshall, trad cats, whatever. As long as it's in those
domains, we'll talk about it. So you want to talk about the papacy,
you want to talk about whatever Eastern religions mean, natural theology. It's
open for him. That means you can have the floor. The rules are
you can make arguments as long as you want. You can make whatever presentation
you want within reason. You can't talk for an hour. Don't nobody want
to listen to you doing your slam poetry. We don't care about your latest
rap. We don't care about your the single that you're about to drop.
Ain't nobody over here interested in the Only music every we like over here is
called crunch Score. That's my music, which I'll be doing live in LA.
By the way, if you sign up for the LA event July sixth,
tickets available in the show description in the show ascriptions, you're gonna need
some prescriptions. All you gotta do is request to speak. You call in
via Twitter spaces. It doesn't have to be a debate. You don't after
debate if you don't want to. If you feel like you just want to
ask a question, that's also good. We that's acceptable. However, I'm
not gonna talk about geo politics. I'm not gonna talk about conspiracies. I'm
not gonna talk about how you think I'm a KGB sorcerer. Um, I'm
not gonna talk about how hot you think I am. We all know you
think I'm hot. That's fine. We're not gonna talk about, um,
what else mama jokes? No, mama jokes allowed. We're not gonna talk
about what else? Is there else? Crazy people calling? They want to
talk about crazy stuff. We're not gonna talk about your gnostic vision quest and
how you're the bloodline of the Grail and all this nonsense like that one guy.
No. Sorry, if you make dumb arguments, I'm gonna call him
out. If you get sassy, I'm gonna get sassy right back. It's
well, you're gonna get some sass. If you're cool, you'll get cool.
If for an I round here, it's straight to lex talionis baby.
So the way it works is you request to speak, you call in via
Twitter Spaces. Unfortunately, Twitter Spaces only works on the app, so if
you're on a PC or whatever, it's not gonna work. You gotta be
on your phone to call in via Twitter Spaces. I have put the link
in many times. Can we talk about how you know you're hot again.
We already know that I'm hot, but that would be a meta level question.
Do I know that I know that I'm hot? Yes, so,
but we can't talk about that. I'm a ten on a ten scale,
baby, talk about a weight scale. If you weigh me, my hotness
comes out as a ten. I don't even weigh three fifty pounds. You
probably think you look upon this man, you think that man through waste three
hundred fifty pounds at lease because of all the beefcake that's full of He's full
of beefcake. So you sway three hundred fifty pounds. No, when I
step on the scale, it's a ten. Why because I'm a dime bag.
I'm a dime piece. I'm don bag Darrel. That means that you
they used people think that's a weed reference. No dime back darrel. The
women thought he was a hot piece, dimebag, a ten piece. We
bust in the fourth wall to night. That's right, it's open for him.
That means you can have the floor. You can tell me why I'm
wrong, you can refute me, you can bust my chops, you can
demolish me, annihilate me, do whatever it is you want. To do.
Just keep it to argumentation. That's it. Some dude caught on it.
He said, I'm a I got a forty point IQ above you.
How do you know my IQ? Dude? He's like, I'm at least
forty points Q higher than you, and it's got to be trolling. But
who knows. You never know. Almost it's almost impossible to troll. I
hope he comes in here. I mean, this dude was talking some serious
smack. He's got the highest IQ of anybody in the Twitter space for sure.
Man. He said, he's gonna set me straight. I'm not joking
about this. Dude's like, you're a dick and MYCS will lose forty parts
higher than you. I mean, anybody that's like shouting out their IQ on
Twitter. Come on, dude, you gotta be trolling. You can't be
taking yourself serious. Where's he at? What's his name? T Free?
T Free? Eight one seven? I'll send him with damn space? Where's
you? Where are you at? T Free? Put me in my place?
Come shoot me down. He's like, you're a dick, dude,
Buffalo billions. What's up? Dude? You're on? Put me in my
place? Set me straight? Hey, can you hear me? Yes,
sirry what's going on? Man? Um? So, first of all,
I was just wondering if you have any if you know of any resources,
um, that would be useful in finding a saint for intersensory prayer, you
know, for specific stuff. UM, do you know of any resources like
that? Do you know what I'm talking about? Um? You mean for
like a specific issue like saints related to travel or health issues? Is every
tithing about? Yeah? UM, I'm not sure off top of my head.
I mean, you could probably just go to Rocreps website and there's probably
lists of saints there. Okay, But I mean, yeah, that's a
good question. I don't have like a I think, you know, the
Orthodox Church is basically just you just attend the liturgy and then you'll find them
in the calendar, I guess. But did you have any issues you disagree
with or anything like that? No, I didn't really, Um. I
just saw you put Q and M the titles. I was just worried about
it. But I also wanted to thank you for the youth a couple of
years. And I'm loving the Twitter spaces because it just goes to show that
you're not fearing anyone, and that they're free to come and join. But
no one's no one. Big Is really didn't coming to challenge you, you
know, yeah, of course, I think a lot of those people are
gonna just say, well, it's not a formal debit and he's going to
cheat or whatever. Yeah, but yeah, yeah, I mean, if
they really wanted to come have a conversation, it'd be easy to set up.
I mean, yeah, I've been trying the whole last week to get
some kind of Roman calicy discussion. But I get tired of the same old
papal debates. They always wanted tobate the papacy. I wanted to debate some
other interesting things, like, you know, at least at least Trent was
willing to debate uh, you know, natural theology, which was cool.
So I like to debate I don't know the history of the geopolitical entanglements of
the papacy. Nobody ever wants to debate that. I think that's actually a
much a much more grounded, realistic assessment of what's going on in the twentieth
century papacy. So I've posed the debate something like what's about, Like,
uh, is the paper does the papacy still maintain. How did I word
it? Let me see how word I worded it really well in this uh
tweet here that I sent. Let me see, I sent this to a
couple of people. But nobody will come debate this. They don't want to
debate the is the papacy a captured, captured institution of geopolitical powers or is
it still the infallible, divinely guided chair that Christ established. I'd really like
to debate something like that, but they never want to debate that. Um,
they only want to debate well, of course, of course it's infallible.
Yeah, and you you Orthobro's getting owned because they don't have a central
authority. All right, what's up? Fola Fola aabade sounds like a Muslim?
Hello, what's up, dude? How are you doing? Yeah?
I'm good, I'm good. I'll go two questions, really okay. The
first one will be like, how do we historically like affirm that we have
apostolic succession? How do we know that we have it? Like in the
specific church. I think every church has a record of like who ordained who?
So you know it's it's even it's even posted on websites. You mean,
like, how is it not made Is it made up? Yeah?
How do you affirm that that list? Well, for one, I think
we can have a basic reliable trust, basic reliability when it comes to the
history of the Church, that these churches have existed since the first and second
century, and we have writings going all the way back to those times.
So like, what why would it be questionable that there is a succession?
Are you saying, like from a Protestant perspective, what if a protest and
says you moved it up right? Now? Well, we can actually go
read the church fathers and they consistently talk about apsolete succession. So you can
read book three aaron As talks about it. You can read Cyprian talking about
it. You can read you know, the first, second, third century
church fathers all talk about absolute succession and they listed right like in uh against
Herresey's book three, aaron As says, look to the pre eminent Church of
Rome founded by Peter and Paul, and you can see the succession of the
bishops from the Apostolic period in the Church of Rome. So even Anglicans admit
Apostolic succession. Yeah, but wouldn't it wouldn't it be like alack a nation
because some of them say, like, for example, like was his name
Ignatius or play called? Don't directly you claim to be taught by Peter and
Peter and j and John. So no, actually no, well hold on,
So polycarp does claim to be taught by John. So what do you
mean he said he was the disciple of John. Oh I live in London.
Well, I guess said, I haven't read it appropriately. Yeah,
well, I'm I mean it's like it's if you look at Paul's letters to
Timothy, he says that the body of things that I taught you, that
entire teaching that you heard from me in the presence of many witnesses. If
you look at acts, he says, he taught in ephesis for three years,
day and night. He says, passed on all of that to men.
After you lay on hands, he says, and that is the passing
on it to give to the Holy Spirit. So that body of deposit that
that body of faith, that the doctrines that are deposited by the laying on
of hands to the teaching of the ministry that Paul laid hands on on.
Timothy says, you can lay hands on men, f you, but don't
do it hastily because it passes on the power of the Holy Spirit. So
that's apostolic succession and the letters to Timothy. Okay, thanks, yeah,
and uh, well the second question would be on I've heard on what Gregor
of Nissa, Yeah, Nissa, and I've heard that he ends um am
i in uh classical numerical identity when he's talking about like not free gods and
stuff like that. Uh, he's some other like the Muslim argument from that
Jake makes or something. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think doctor Branson
has dealt with this, like there's no such thing as like a universal numerical
style like how we number how we number things, right, So the fact
that people are using like modern numerical attribution and saying, oh they didn't they
didn't do it the right way back then, Um, he's just he's just
saying that so he can do his LPT argument, which again trades on the
fact that God only picks out one thing, so you can have something being
one and also many, right, and so he's just kind of like assuming
that there's only one way to talk about numbers, or there's only one way
to speak of something being one, uh, depending upon on again, like
what time period we're talking about, And it's just not true. There's no
there's no such thing as a quote classical universal number theory. By the way,
Islam doesn't have that. So I don't know how he thinks that that's
going to help Islam. Yeah. Man, good questions. So tonight we're
taking profitably people who disagree. So if you have an issue, you want
to debate an issue, you want to discuss a topic you disagree with,
you're welcome to Gregorios. Hello, Yeah, what's up? All right?
I am Orthodox, but I mainly had a theological topic and we do disagree.
Um, so I support icons of God the Father. I was wondering
if you would if that was on topic enough. Sure, So the first
question I would have would be what would be the basis for drawing say like
the So we we typically say that the basis for icons is that you know,
Christ became incarnate. Um, my question would be what would be the
basis for things like Theophany is being depicted. H The basis is that the
Theophanes are picking out just like the icons are picking out the hypostasis. So
the theophany is the hypostasis of the sun manifesting in an energetic way. So
what what I So I looked into this and I actually made a video that
got a little bit popular at the time I made it. I looked into
the topicum and I because there are like many miracles that I sort of had
a very difficult time reconciling. So some examples miracles. Yet, well,
on miracles you had a hard time reconciling. What do you mean? There
are a lot of miracles that have are icons that are miraculous, that have
even been like commanded to be made by the Theotokos, that have the icon
of God Father in them. Well, so do you think that the normative
way that we go about doing theology as claims of miracles? No, but
I I've how do I how do I put it? I found it very
difficult to have a consistent view. Why is it difficult to have a consistent
view? I mean, to me, it seems that the logic of the
Seventh Council and the Canons and in the Moscow councils is pretty consistent. So
what's what's inconsistent with it? So your only hangout was that there's claims of
miracles around certain icons. I mean it's an entire like, I mean,
you would have to remove a large portion of the entire Russian tradition. Well,
so let's be clear, because it's not forbidding all depictions of God the
Father, it's certain depictions. And so the Moscow icons sent as recall,
precisely because there was heterodox iconography that was influencing the Russian Church, and so
a lot of the icons were teaching the philioqua, Right, so you're familiar
with that, yes, yes, okay, So but don't you think that
the logic and the theology and argumentation of like John Damascus and the Seventh Council
about not depicting the Father? Is that not no longer it doesn't hold or
what? Well, I don't. I don't think the intention of the icons
is to depict the hypostasis. I think they're depicting an energetic manifestation. I
agree with that. So that so like when I see like the Cursed Root
icon or I see the Port Arthur icon, like, yeah, it's it's
a man in the sky quote unquote, but it's not a depicting person in
the same way that we would depict Christ. Okay, well then I mean
that part is I think probably harmonizable. I wouldn't have a disagree with it,
That's what I was saying, because there's a lot of people who are
very against it. But there are articles in Greek and Russian that you have
to translate that explain it more in depth. And I just wanted to bring
it up because I haven't heard I haven't heard someone publicly defended in this way
before, and I think it's pretty important with our iconographic understanding. Yeah,
as long as we understand that we're not depicting the person of the Father,
Yeah, I think there is room for some flexibility there, and that's why
the Ancient of Day's icon it is a father, but it's a father presented
as Christ in the way he's presented and Eequiel and Apocalypse one, which is,
you know, with white hair and this kind of stuff. Well,
I mean, if you pay attention to the Russian tradiction of depicting God the
Father, I mean, he's like encased in clouds and things, and in
the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit has you know, an energetic manifestation of
clouds like that. That's what kind of Yeah, that's I just wanted to
bolster that and to you know, start a discussion about it, because I
mean, that's genuinely what I think, and I think the miracles are consistent
with that view. Yeah, I would agree with that. Yeah. So
I don't think we're I don't think we disagree there. So, yeah,
I don't think it's it's not a prohibition of all depiction or imagery. It's
specifically ultimately the person of the Father, and the logic and argumentation is the
same for the Holy Spirit. Right, there is no direct image of the
hypo states of the Spirit. We don't know what the hypo states of the
Spirit is, but he's manifested as tongues of fire, cloud and so forth.
Right. Yeah, well that's thank you. Yeah, good questions there.
I'm glad you made that clear. I think that that actually does clear
things up. Let's see who is We've got a bunch of different people here,
Ungar, Nicholas, what's up, dude? Got on mute dog?
Oh that's good? And Jaye there, what's up? Man? I just
want to tell you I'm I am a pretty big fan of yours and I
do like good content. Um in for wars I've been on in for Wars
several times. Okay, um um. I have a substack um at nick
anonymous that substack dot com. And I'm writing an article currently, and I
wanted to bounce some things off you and get your opinion. All right,
So the topics tonight are I'm not being rude to you, but it's atheism,
Catholicism, Islam, paganism. Do you have a theological religious kind of
disagreement or it's a political ism? Okay? What I'm writing an article about
neo Malphusianism, and I'm writing an article about internationalism, and I have I
have a belief that this talk of globalism is actually some kind of a facade.
It's kind of like a I believe it's actually when when somebody like Trump
talks about globalism, he actually is talking about internationalism and he kind of masks
that. Okay, but the topic tonight is theological stuff. So not trying
to be rude to you, but we're going to move on to if you
have a disagreement about theology religion, that's fine. Criminally something I can't see
the rest of your name. So it's open for him to not on conspiracy
and Joe politics, which what I said at the beginning of the show,
So not being rude. Maybe you weren't here for that, so we're not
not here to talk about that. Go ahead, Hello, what's up?
Hey? How are you? I'm great, man, How are you?
I'm pretty good. I just I want to give you some um congratulations.
I think you are a very good um, a proponent of of what you
believe. Okay. I also I also consider like a modern day kind of
Jean Scott. Who's Jean Scott? You do know Jean Scott? If you
if you're familiar with weren't Bernard hart SOG's documentaries He did a documentary on Jean
Scott. Yeah, okay, Who's joy Man of God? I think something.
I think that was the time that oh man, you think I'm like
some kind of crazy Pentecostal preacher. Good grief, dude. Yeah, well,
not in that way I would say you were in. I would try
to do it as more of a compliment. I would say you do it
a good job, but in a kind of way of you're very literate,
and oh is this is he the one that uh would smoking costs? Like
he's got a cigar? Oh? I don't know about the cigar. I'm
not sure. Well he's yeah, I'm looking at him. He's sitting here
with a cigar. So anyway, not sure, he doesn't. Anyway,
where I'm coming from is um. Uh, I guess how do I sum
it up? As someone who was I guess Christian brought up somewhat, grew
up Lutheran, became you know, Presbyterian tried to you know what as a
believer as you could be. Um. But in light of you know,
I mean so much. Okay, well, let me let me put it
this way, um, if you can, if you could summarize religion,
if you could, you know, put it into some you know, it
is a part of what we are as humans, as primates, and what
it's come from. It was our first explanation of the world. It's our
explanation of you know, everything, our first attempt at science. And so
you would have to believe that for hundreds of thousands of years that uh,
you know, the world just exists. And then a few thousand years ago
God comes along in in this place and says, okay, we've got to
do something about this, and and and here we go, here's you know,
we're we're going to get involved and then you know, but I just
I can't reconcile the science, the archeology, the uh, the observations we
have around us, the science we have with oh, would just be like
the same science that says that biology is not determined by chromosomes. That science
what science? Biology is not determined by chromosomes? Yeah? Your gender?
No, not at all? Um So that's not good science? Is that?
Is that? Because that's the science today? Right? I don't think
so. I think there are two sexes as far as I know. Okay,
But what I'm saying is, so, what's the true science here?
Okay? So I would land on the side of observable science. I mean
science that you can be you know, actually you know, tested in reality,
not not social science, not not any any type of um as a
doctor conservative, the doctors count because I mean they're the ones saying that they
do a lot of observable I mean they're the ones that are actually like changing
the ppees. Right well, okay, I mean no, I am against
all that. I mean, let me take it. Okay, let me
ask you this. You know, as as I respect you, as as
a fellow primate, as a fellow human. But you know we come from
other humans. We are Homo sapiens sapiens now, but we have come from
a long line of other You know, what is that? What's hap to
do with anything to do with God's existence? So okay, I can understand
that, But I mean you would have to believe that for three hundred thousand
years there was no Christianity as we were talking about today, there was there
was. Where are you getting the three hundred thousand years? Is that an
observable thing? What did you observe that? Would you give me one hundred
thousand you can make it as many AONs as you want, or any of
those AONs observable? Are those people any less valuable than than the humans that
exist today? I ask you a question? So then you two quote quayed
me. Are any of those humans observed? Is that? Is that observable
at all? The humans in the hun the eight Men, the piltdown man
in the hundred thousand and your time friend you're talking about, have you observed
that? Okay? Well, they would be observable in archaeological evidence, yes,
I mean we have proof that there were like you know, like pilt
down, like like who like pilt down man, Nebraska. Man, are
those good examples there are? Yeah, I mean there would be some there
are. Oh well those are frauds though, well those are frauds. There,
go ahead, those are frauds. Okay, they're famous, their famous
fraud um. But you, I mean you would all the ones that there
is an archaeological evidence that does go back hundreds of thousands of years science.
Well okay, so it's funny. But now wait a minute. You said
it was observable science, So I'm just wondering, like, you didn't observe
it. So but a scientific establishment claims to have observed it, but they
didn't observe it either, Right, Well, yes, I mean we are.
We are assuming that is you know, it is something that is that's
a pretty big it's pretty big as excavated from the ground, has been studied,
has been you know, I mean, it has been built upon for
many years. And it's something that's not you know, it's not a uh
in the sense that scientist. I mean, it's not something that's perfect,
but it is something that does you know, have a usefulness. Is something
that we can measure, right, I mean, we can measure ice cores,
we can measure a tree rate. Okay, we can. How how
are how are their fossils that extend below in between various ice cores that should
not be there in in in what instance? Many of them? There's many
of them, you can there's many of them. You can look them up,
right. What about the fly geyser? The fly geyser is supposedly,
you know, that's something that takes I think about two hundred thousand and eighty
thousand years to form, and it formed in forty years. So how's that
possible? I would I wouldn't doubt there are events and I'm not a scientist
at all. Well wait a minute, so you're not a scientist, so
this is not your observation. No, it's not right. So you've accepted
that a new you've accepted a new authority that's not based on any of your
own For the vast majority of humans, it's never going to be you know
something but that that that that same scientific establishment now says that a man can
be a woman. And you said, no, I don't believe that.
So you don't you see, you don't follow the science. Well I don't
think that the serious scientists, Oh really like the like the Tavistock Institute,
the Tavistock So Tavistock is not a serious science entity. You know. You
don't think the biggest, most powerful clinics in the United States, which are
pushing out Vanderbilt University, is not an authoritative scientific institution. I thought it
was like the pre eminent medical institution. I wouldn't give it that. I
don't I don't know Vanderbilt University. Okay, so Vanderbilt the premier, Yeah,
the premier medical institution of the United States according to you. Now,
isn't that because you haven't given it that title? The United States is two
hundred years old. I mean, these things go back far beyond, you
know, even our own country. I gave you an example of a medical
institution that is esteemed as one of the top medical institutions in the country,
which is a spearhead of the idea that you can become a woman if you're
a man. And you're saying I don't accept that authority. I think that's
twisted by social sciences. So they're not really doing those it's social science,
but they're not really doing it. They're not really changing. I think they're
trying to do things. I think they're trying to change things. I don't
know. So all you've done is adopted. All you've done is adopt a
new authority structure. And when it comes down to it, there's not actually
any real basis for you to believe these things other than that a lot of
people believe it, and a lot of powerful people believe it. But you
yourself have not verified any of these things. But well, yes, I
mean, I mean, there's only so much that one human can do.
I mean, I mean, so it operates kind of like on a faith
based sounds like a faith based thing for you. I see what you're saying
in that sense. But okay, that's true. You're also making a faith
based claim, correct, because I believe everything at rate claims correct. Right?
Yeah? And you know, so who's so whose world view it?
So? Who? Well, whose world view is more consistent because likelihood is
going to depend upon more fundamental presuppositions. So I think I have a consistent
worldview which can give an account for how we know things, how we have
ethics, how we live in the world. But I don't. I don't
believe that the atheist naturalist world view that I hear you present thing can give
an account for any of those things. I don't necessarily think that any of
the scientific world accounts that you're you're you're refuting a lot of a lot of
things that there are probably is probably a lot of evidence for and that it
probably cannot be right. But you don't know that it just probably maybe maybe
probably. Well, let me ask you this way. Can can science provide
us with ethics? No, that's I mean, that's not a shot.
But that's not that's not what it should do. Okay, But it can
provide truth? Well, I think it can provide insight into reality, yes,
I mean into what exists. But it can't do anything with values.
Do you think truth pertains to values? The true and the false don't relate
to values. Should you follow the truth as opposed to the false? Yeah?
I think you should not deceive yourself. Yes, I think you should
not. So it does pretend to values. Well, I don't think that
believing in in fairy tales is Well, you're calling it a fairy tale.
Well, I'm I'm saying on your position, it sounds like all values would
be a fairy tale. But you just told me that you should follow what's
true. Why ought I follow what's true in your world view, follow what's
true? Uh, well, what do we know that's true? How do
we know? Well, you said science can you give us? You said
science gives us an insight into reality. You said that it pertains to what
is true? And I said, does the true relate to value judgments?
Like the true versus the false? I followed, the true versus the false?
But that's value judgments. But you said science doesn't give value judgments.
So trying to figure out why ought I follow what's true in your view?
What's the basis for your ethics? Well, I think ethics are an extension
of what we are as humans over many many years. Okay, but that
was an explanation. That's not an explanation for why I ought to And if
you, I mean, if you look at it evolution, and that's not
an explanation for why I ought to do something. Right, that's a that's
a story about the past, but it gives us an insight into what we
are today. Well, there's no But what why is that telling me what
I ought to do? Aught? Can you get an aught from an is?
I mean you would have to nail that down for you. What do
you exactly mean by that by stating how things are doesn't tell me how they
ought to be. So you can tell me all day along that we're primates
and we're apes and we can for you blah blah blah. Okay, but
how ought we live? What's the basis for the ethics of the value judgments?
There? Because you minute ago you're saying we should follow what's true?
Why should I do anything in your world? What's the basis for the shoulds,
the ought, the value judgments, the ethics? Would it? Would
that not come? I mean, I don't. One thing is I have
to tell I don't discount religion as part of the overall human process of trying
to find the truth of reality. So I mean I would never say that,
you know, we don't need religion historically. I mean, it was
part of what got us to the point where we are now. But going
forward, do we still need to believe in Zeus and thor and? You
know? So none of that was an answer to a very simple question.
I would think that with all of your sophistication, the knowledge of science that
your propelling, that we would have some way to account for what we ought
to do. But I'm not hearing why I ought to follow what you're saying
or any other value judgment. I don't ask you to follow me though.
Wait a minute, you said that I should know. You said I should
follow what's true, namely the science. Why should I follow anything that's an
aught, that's a that's a value judgment ethics, Right, Well, I
would not follow another primate, another human. Okay, then I don't.
Then I shouldn't listen to your claims. So I shouldn't listen to your arguments
beyond what you know would are believable, would are approvable, or even But
I'm asking I'm asking you a question. That's what I'm asking you a question
that's prior to that claim, which is about value judgments themselves. How are
they possible in your worldview? It's a very simple question, how are you
okay? So ethics, value judgments it's a specific domain of philosophy. Right,
When you said that you should follow what's true, namely the science,
that is an ethical value judgment claim. But you're going to have to make
good on that given your naturalistic worldview. In the history of philosophy, this
is called can I get an aught from an is? And the answer,
of course, is that you can't. There's no ought. Science can't give
you value judgments. But you told me I should follow what's true versus what's
false. So that's an inconsistency in your position. And I'm saying that your
position as an atheist naturalist can't even tell me if there aren't value judgments,
it makes them all the time. And yet you're turning around and saying,
why don't you basically come from you know, our experience as humans. That
doesn't tell me what's right or wrong. Their origin doesn't tell me what's right
or wrong. What basis should I follow it? Why not? Because it
could be false? Because it's a fallacy. Do you know what if?
Do you know what fallacies are? It's called the genetic fallacy. So the
origin of something doesn't entail whether it's true or false. That's a genetic fallacy.
If if we can't cooperate with each other, if we don't understand that
for all of the sophisticate, if we don't understand these things, how can
you progress at all? Is a society again value judge? Progressing is a
value judgment, So you can't tell me what it means to progress well,
well, here we are. We've done it all right, good tribe,
but we're gonna have to move on. Um uh, let's see, we're
looking for people who disagree. So I'm not being rude to anybody, but
blocked. What's up? Blocked? So again it's like I'm not being rude,
but no, just no idea what we're talking about. Absolutely doesn't know
what fallacies are, doesn't know why they matter. Just like talking like,
no idea what I'm talking about? What's up? Dude? You got mute
or not? I'm mute or not? Yes, sir? Alright, alright,
and I am starting to wrap my head around, my slow boy head
around how hag is they to kind of refute the um like the philosophical framework
of atheism. But I think you've mentioned in the past that tag leads more
towards trinitarian Christian theology than it would to say, a generic theism. So
yeah, sort of twofold question is is a what exactly is the way that
it suggests Christian theology? Right? Because so it's an argument and then you
go ahead, you had a two part question, go ahead, oh yeah,
and then if um and then if this is the case, how does
it suggest orthodox Christian theology more so than say, Catholical Protestant theology. Right.
So it's an argument for an entire paradigm. That means it's not just
an argument for an abstract God or some sort of speculative thing or some sort
of math problem logic, you know, it's an argument for the entire Christian
paradigm, meaning not just the existence of God, but also the world that
God created, also the entirety of the divine revelation that we have in this
religion, the Christian metaphysic, the Christian all of that goes into it.
So it's all it's like a package deal. So I'm not saying it's true
because I'm making the argument for a package deal. I'm saying that the argument
hinges on it being a package deal. Right. So it's not an argument
that can pick out God apart from the rest of the divine revelation. So
it's an argument before the whole of Christian revelation that includes a specific metaphysic.
And the reason that Protestantism and run Catholicism don't work is because they have fundamental
metaphysical problems due to their erroneous doctrines of God, so they have an insufficient,
incoherent model of the Trinity first and foremost, whereby there's no essencenity distinction.
Literally, the Orthodox Church is the only religion in the world that has
a consistent presentation of the essenceynery distinction. And it's very fun to mental to
how we ground the created order. So if I'm going to ground the created
order in a form of divine conceptualism, it can't be the divine essence,
and so tomaism. Roman Catholicism typically identifies the divine ideas with the divine essence,
and so that would actually undercut the possibility of grounding the particulars in God.
They would be canceled out, they would be or they would be necessary
because the divine essence is necessary. So they have to be energies, they
have to be logi. They can't be the divine essence. And that's so
that's just one thing, but also the problem the one of the many.
My argument is that the Roman Catholic system has a much more tilted over into
modalism. Absolutely divine simplicity, which is dogmatized at the fourth ladder in Council
pretty much makes I think God more or less a monad. It's more of
a modalistic position. So I know they give verbal credence to the trinity,
but really it's slided over into dialectical essentialism or Neoplatonism, so none of those
systems. So I would say that just as much as the Roman Catholic doctrine
falls, it falls as much as Neoplatonism falls, because I see them as
basically the same thing. So the essence inter distinction is utilized by the Cappadocians
against neoplatonic presuppositions from the Eunomius. And you can demonstrate that Eunomius has explicit
neoplatonic presuppositions and argumentation back. He basically just copies from Platonis when he makes
his unitarian argument. So so that's part of it. And I mean Protestantism
is just by default Augustinianism. So the models are going to be determined by
the God that they have as the determining factor for the world, you for
the system. So if I have a polytheistic God, for example, that's
going to give me a chaotic metaphysic overall. If I have a orthodox trinitarian
model where there's equal ultimacy between unity and multiplicity in the triad. That's going
to give me a unique roach to things like the problem of the one of
the many in the history of philosophy. So those are a couple examples of
why the Christian metaphysics. Others could be given as well. A Maximus makes
an interesting argument for on the basis of the incarnation of the Logos and that
human knowledge needs to be ground and not just in the divine in a general
sense, but the divine in a concrete sense, and so he argues that
we actually have the ground and incarnate Logos, which again is against the notion
of the neo platonic theological presuppositions. So those are a bunch of examples that.
Again, most world religions are monistic or dualistic, so Orthodox metaphysics is
premised on not being monistic and not being dualistic. Okay, so I could
call about half of that, but basically, so if I'm at the point
where I can wrap my head around how tag gets you passed past atheism and
the next thing, in order to narrow it down I need to dig into
right well, the essence, thenery distinction is just an outflowing of correct trinitarian
theology, and so Cappadocean trinitarian theology is, you know, we will we
believe in one God because the Father is the one God. So it's not
a It doesn't put essentialism first. It puts the person of the Father first,
and so the personalism and the person of the Father comes first, and
that makes God not part of a category philosophical classification. So God's not defined
or known first and foremost as essence, but as the person of the Father.
That's what the creed says, I believe in one God. The Father
doesn't say I believe in one God. That of mind essence is true that
there is one God, because it's one to bine essence, but that's not
first in our order of theology or the order of theologic. So that's very
important for trinitarian theo oology because that's how we're going to get the soul.
Cause the cappind Oceans and the Council content, they're able to find that the
soul causes the person of the Father fathers not share his causal role with the
Son. There's no secondary causes in the triad. There's only one cause and
that's the person of the Father. All the rest of the theology flows from
that, The essence inter distinction flows from that. So yeah, okay,
I wish I could sit down with you for like five hours. Well,
I've lectured through. That's why there's there's a thousand videos. I've lectured through
the entirety of John Damascus is on the Orthodox faith. So I would say
start with those lectures. Okay, okay, great, thank you? Yeah,
great, questions. Let's see looking for people that disagree. So if
you have questions, that's fine, And I'm looking for people who take issue
with the topics are not conspiracies or geopolitics. Topics are Catholicism, Atheism,
Protestantism, Muslims, pagans uh. And if you want to ask questions about
apologetics, transtant argument, that's all fine too. Tough love. Oh he's
gonna give me some tough love, gonna put me in my place? What's
up? Can hear me? Yes? Sir? Thank ye? How are
you going? I got a potential potential disagreement, But that's a question.
I apologize to addressing such stuff. But um, it's about apicatosis or universe,
about apologeta, stays Okay, sure, Yeah. So I'm a huge
fan of I've been reading his um on the Life and Resurrection. He's pretty
clear in what his position is on the whole thing, and I think it's
theology shows together the view of humanity really well in terms of and he makes
a lot of sense of Paul as well. And I see that thread all
throughout the Patristic Fathers. So I'm kind of wondering why you're why your disagreement
with that doctrine is so strong. Well, because the Church rejects it in
three councils. So it's it's fine to have certain church fathers at certain times
having speculations and theories, right, And we would say the same thing about
Augustine. Augustine has certain speculations and theories about the Trinity that we're not accepted
at constant to nber One. So the doctrine of a pocket of status is
rejected at the fifth, sixth, and seventh councils explicitly. So that's the
first and foremost. At the fifth there was anathemas that were attended to the
council. I'm well aware of all that, and I'm well aware of that,
and I know all these objections, and it doesn't matter because the sixth
and seventh Council affirm explicitly, particularly in the four pages that reject originism,
exactly what is meant by the rejection of a pocket of stasis. So you
can say there's a I mean, I believe in recapitulation, But the fact
that there's recapitulation does not mean that every individual hypostasis is saved or participates in
thiosis. Even Nisus says that it doesn't. Maximus corrects Nisa and says that
the means by which we participate in thiosis are particular to each individual hypostasius recapitulating
the virtues, So it does not. So the restoration of nature does not
necessitate that every individual hypostasis is saved, right, but reconciliation would imply salvation
in the context of scripture if but salvation is not the same thing in every
sense, and so that's why Palamas talks about in different modes. So all
of nature will be restored, and nature is saved. Human nature is saved,
But that doesn't mean the individual hypostasis is saved, because that person can
go against God and then have a negative, bad experience of the escaton because
it's it's all about the mode or the will that their mode of willing,
whether they recapeculate the virtues or not. So they haven't recapitulate the virtues.
Their nature is made ever existing or it has ever being. But it's experience
of God cannot be good because it has rejected God. Right, you experience
the level God like, it's rash if you haven't been ye, silent christis
right life. Yeah, I get that part. It's just it's just like
I come from a Protestant background. I'm trying to figure out if if Father's
like this, like grigordially is a pillar of Orthodoxy or Origin. For example,
Origin is not a pillar of Orthodoxy. He's rejected by the saint either
Optidus of his days. He was rejected in his day by one of the
saints. Origin is a heretic who cut off his balls, which is self
mutilation, and Origin is an aryan. An. Origin teaches, Uh,
do you understand that at the sixth Council there's a four pay each condemnation of
the entire system of Origin. So he's a heretic. But the problem is,
it's it's difficult to even decipher how much of that is even accurate about
him historically, because there's there's all kinds of things that this is your So
okay, So now the academics no better than the church Fathers who condemned them.
So now the council you're not. So you're still a Protestant because the
councils are not authoritative in their exposition. When Saint Sophronius Is four page condemnation
of originism is accepted at the sixth Council, you submit to that. You
don't submit to your intellect reading the Church Fathers on your own and figuring out,
well, I'm going to follow what I think is the true Christianity of
origin and of pocket of stasis. That's heresy, picking and choosing. I
mean, so you don't care what the sixth and seventh Councils say. No,
I do care what they say. I just don't know, like it's
difficult to It's not difficult, it's not. I mean, the condemnations are
explicitly clear, including a pocket discasis. So you just said, well they're
appended. Yeah, but it doesn't matter if the six and seventh Councils reaffirm
the condemnation of originism. I mean, what about originism would we even want
You're saying Maximus had to write two books called the Ambigua dealing with all of
the problems that origin had created. You understand that all the iconoclass were motivated
about originism. He was a massive problem for the church. Neoplatonism is the
greatest plague for the first seven centuries of the church. It's awful. Okay.
I'm not trying to really just go all out in origin I just brought
his name up because I think he was an extent. Have you read have
you read the Ambigua? Have you read the Ambigua? Okay, so maybe
the most famous father of the Sixth Council, Saint Maximus, who wrote two
books correcting mistakes in origin and in gregoriveness. So that might be relevant and
you might want to read that because that's the theology of the Sixth Council of
Saint Maximus, right, got it. I'm not trying to be rude to
you. I'm just saying that originism and a pocket of stasis in this sense
are also tools for people at Fordham, David Bentley, Heart and these people
to push a humanism and David Bentley Heart basically says on his blog, I'm
a perennial list now for all intents and purposes, I can say I'm Orthodox,
but I'm pretty much a perennial list. That's because of the very confusions
that we're talking about. So this this, what this does is it's a
tool. It's not about ideologies. It's a tool to take people into a
humanism. It's a geopolitical tool beyond all this stuff. Yeah, that's an
interesting take. I see how he commented. I use the word he commend,
he commenical. I don't know how um he's used in this context,
but um, does any of that produce fruit? Does any of that produce
fruit? Certainly that's true. Well, I'm saying the neo platonic structure in
Originism is utilized by Acumanists at Saint Vladimir Seminary at Fordham. They're all Acumanists
and they really like origin because he's amenable to that. Right, Yeah,
I'm definitely really do it when the herd one's origin Well, they all do
because it's what originism is. Neoplatonism. Okay, with a veneer of Christianity.
It's like, okay, there's Christianity, but the real Christianity is what
I'm telling you. And if you read the four page condemnation at the sixth
Council, it's called the Confession of Saint Semphronius. There's a four page condemnation
of the Council accepts explaining the entire system of Origin, and it says that
when or for example, it says that when Origin posits that the creation of
Adam and Eve in the garden is really a myth about the platonic fall into
having bodies, they said, that is a ridiculous pagan myth. Okay.
And when we read Origins first principles, right, he's the one that first
defines absolute DeWine simplicity. He uses the Neoplatonic definition of what God's divinity is
in terms of simplicity. And it's repeated by Augustine. So and I'm not
saying that Origin it's because they're getting it from Neoplatonism. It's not. Augustine
wasn't getting it from Origin. But I'm saying that the definition is the same
because they have different and erroneous triadic models. Origins triatic model is based on
Neoplatonism, Okay, yeah, okay, but that's not the Orthodox Church's trinity
model. You understand, that's not what's accepted at Constantinople one. And so
just because there, in other words, we wouldn't accept the speculations of Nissa
anymore than we would accept the speculations of Augustine. When the church later has
a you know, theological counsel what says, no, we can't accept this.
And that's why if you look at the Sunday of Orthodoxy, a lot
of the church doesn't do it, but you have appended to it the U
the uh Sonoticon, and the Sonoticon explicitly rejects origin as well. So Platonism
is rejected, Aristotilianism is ejected, rejected. Originism is explicitly rejected. So
you know, if you want to be an originist or a neo Platonist,
people can go do that in their you know, perennialist circles. It's not
the Orthodox Church though, by the way, Maximus got things wrong too.
Maximus thinks, and I think this Maxim has definitely had some some inclinations toward
that as well, because yeah, exactly, the whole well, hold on,
hold on, let's be clear here. Let's be clear, hear,
because the two the ambiguous two books he wrote mainly going against originism in his
Origins Universalism, but also areas where he takes on difficulties in Nissa and one
of the places where origin also, I mean, excuse me. Where Maximus
I think is still even wrong is that he believes that gender is a result
of the fall, so men and women are a results. I don't think
that's right. I think that that's contrary to what the narrative of Genesis says.
So even Maximus can be wrong about things. So we don't pick and
choose out of the church fathers, right, we have the consensus of the
Church fathers, and then over time we have to submit to the Church.
And so if the church in Council's five, six, and seven, and
then the Sonauticon of the seventh, it's really explicit that we can't be originistic
apocatastasis believers. So forgive me from my ignorance. Sure, but in the
the Orthodox perspective, you can have spiritual fatherhood, you can have spiritual leadership,
but ultimately, if there's an ecumenical council, it's going to take precedent
over absolutely speculation, and I think does that go indefinitely? I mean,
is there a certain point where you're like about that that part of the church
is good, because there's parts of the Orthodox Church that don't. They are
in communion with each other now, and so does the string go all the
way down to today? And I know you'd say it would, But how
do you how do you pick the right string? I guess is what I'm
asking. Well, So the Church in history has had many times when various
patriarchs and bishops were out of communion with others. So that is a canonical
stage in discipline. It doesn't necessarily mean that the theology is different, right,
So that comes at a certain point when there's mutual excommunication and then the
churches don't recognize one another. So just being out of communion with one another
is just a stage of canonical discipline. And sometimes you know, that's reconciled,
like we just had the I think the Macedonian Schism, which lasted for
a good while was just recently reconciled. But other times it's not reconciled,
so and then eventually the church's part ways. So time has a lot to
do with vindicating and making it clear who is right and who is wrong.
So that's one element to this, which is a version of reception And I
don't care whether you Roman Catholic or Orthodox. I mean, everybody's going to
have to have some idea of that receptionism over time. So for the Roman
Catholics, it's right like, well is it this pope or that pope?
Well, time will tell or this council will tell, which is ironic because
right the Council of Constance is determining the right pope when there's rival posts.
But anyway, so hold on. So that that's just one element as to
his in history. How the church recognizes it, But there's no way to
know. I mean, it depends on what kind of a division we're talking
about. We're talking about, like disputes over jurisdictions. That's not the same
thing as disputes over dogment theology. That's a little more serious. Right,
So in the Church is considered an Astorian, right, what's that? So
what is in the Armenian Orthodox Church considered historian? By Moost? No,
they're Monophysite, not an Astorian. It's the opposite. Sorry, what was
that? They are considered Monophysite, not an astorian that's the opposite of Nestorianism.
Something like that is pretty fundamental. And so there's the branches of the
Orthodox Church split off. They're not branches. There's no branches in the Orthodox
Church. Okay, they're different, they're different different areas. The Orthodox Church,
the Orthodox Church is a canonical body of people who have patriarchis that they
submit to autocephalist churches in communion with one another, and their their boundaries are
determined by by canon law and what who who accepts and is in communi with
who. So that's the canonical Orthodox Church. The canonical Orthodox Church is not
what you're calling the Armenians or the Coptics. That's a different group that's not
part of our group. What is your posture towards them that they're they are
in schism, They are not Orthodox churches, correct, gotcha? I mean
they hold to heresies too. But so so, the Orthodox Church is a
singular body. It's a we believe that we are the one true Church.
So that's different from just because the Coptics have the name Orthodox doesn't mean anything,
just like Roman Catholics have the name Catholic. Well, we believe we're
the Orthodox Catholic Church. So right, good questions, though, just stick
stick to it. I would say check out the book The Confession of Saint
Semphronius from the sixth Council and that you can get that on Amazon. I
would also get Maximus's ambiguous because he goes into critique origin and originism. And
really, if you get into the nature person distinction, if we lay out
exactly what the nature person distinction is, really a lot of that stuff with
n uh or David Benley Heart, it all gets kind of cleared up because
confusing nature in person, not just in God, but confusing nature in person
and anthropology is the source of for example, David Bentley Heart's mistake. Militant
Thomas, what's updude? Just hit a mute? Are you there, Militant
Thomas? Are you there? You have the floor? Dog? Where you
at? I want you to speak so but I don't know why I can't
hear you. So maybe try coming out and coming back in see if that
works. You might have to turn. Let's try again here. Try Now,
can you hear me? Yeah? I can kind I can kind of
hear you. Okay, I can hear you. Now, I can hear
I can hear you. Now go ahead? Okay, good well, oh
Jay, you know I can. I can do book you really hard right
now? You know you know how how's that? Oh? It's it's because
you're you're uncharitable in your unnuanced Oh man, can you rash judgments all the
time? Jake? You know? Do I need to engage in public repentance?
Uh? Dude, you need to. You need to go like full
on like medieval potentiaries, flagelent, flagelent on your knees. If I roll
over glass on my knees and I flagelate myself with a cat of nine tails
whip? Is that enough repentance for you, Michael Lofton? Or do I
need more? No? No, you gotta you gotta get some pot mama
too in there? Okay, okay, well patcha mama is basically married because
they're both women, So I guess that's the same thing, right, That's
that's true. That's a good point, Jay. Or when when do you
when are you joining in the church? When I finished the public penance with
the cat of nine tails, so I got to do that first. Then?
Oh, okay, are you there? Hello? You robot it there?
Are you there? Try again if you want to maybe come out and
come back in, because I imagine you have a point you want to make.
You can have the floor, you can make whatever point you want to
make. We allow the opponents to speak around here. We're not afraid of
letting the opponent speak. Are you there? Try coming out and coming back
in again because there's not any sound, and then I'll give you the mic.
Can you hear me? You must be on the road or something.
Just come right back in and I'll give you the mic. Let's see,
let's try one more person while he's doing that loom Villa loom via. Thank
you guys for those super chowts. We'll get to some of those are in
a second loom via what's up? Hey, how's it going, Hey,
what's on your mind? I was actually I was actually a Christian. For
a while, I was Catholic, and then I slowly went into Buddhism.
But then I kind of went to even further, just to seeing like philosophy
in itself, and I realized Christianity to me seems like I guess the word
for the kind of word they used at the time was an allegoresis, where
religious stories whether like whatever religion it is, takes philosophy and kind of um
puts it into like a packet or like a metaphor, or they take philosophy
and kind of condense it into a story, and it kind of I did
a lot of analysis on the New Testament and the Old Testament and how they
were creating a kind of Uh, it's kind of like I could see the
nuggets of wisdom that in there, but I don't actually believe they literally happened,
but they can kind of It's kind of like for most people to under
rather than most people taking whole philosophy courses, the the the stories can help
kind of give them an idea. Ok So they're just like mythical self help
stories or something like that. Yeah, okay, where it's kind of like
and it's kind of like based on Plato's idea of the noble lie where I
actually take a methisis position where I don't think you could ever prove it.
But I think with all the how all the documents developed, like the Gospels,
and how each how they how they're changed and were edited over time,
I think it makes more sense for like the evolution of the ideas that Jesus
and also Buddha were most likely just made up to be like a role model
to kind of the like a character in the story that represents the writer's philosophy
and morality and puts it into practice for the Okay, so they're fables,
I got it. So they're they're fables. Okay, So what is the
real true philosophy or worldview that we should believe? What's what's your view?
What's your world view? So the Bible's not true, so what what should
we believe? It's um it like to actually explain it would be, you
know, it's kind of like, okay, so it's it's too it's too
deep for us. I got it. It's kind of like it's too deep
for us. I know we're low Q. I got it, We're low
Q is too deep. But what I really not really low IQ, but
more like it's kind of like it's kind of like essence and energies where each
it I might butcher the idea, but it's kind of like no one can
know God's essence, right, But that's what each religion is trying to explain.
So each religion trying to they whatever you write down, it's going to
fall short of whatever's like, actually there so so whatever it's written down,
So if I wrote down So, if I wrote down what you just said
the last three sentences, does it it doesn't work anymore? Well, even
what I say, it's like no matter what words you use, I'm like,
even what I'm saying, it's like, how to approach it is through
there's like a method where you learn more. It's kind of like a limit
function and calculus right where it's like you approach a better understanding of it the
more you learn about it. But you the words who used will never accurately
soott yeah, eastern As the limit approach is infinity, you get a better
and better approximation of what I'm talking about. Okay, so it will it
will always The words I'm using will never accurately describe it. But you,
through a method of intellectual exhaustion, you could get closer and closer to getting
a better picture of what it actually is. Okay, So how do how
do we know that we're actually approximating any anything quote closer? Given what you
said about the words not matching up to this infinite thing, how do we
know we're getting closer to anything? Well, through the through a process of
elimination, you could just like show. So it's about like apathetic, like
the via negativ that you're saying, Do we do that with mathematics or something?
What? How do we know that that's telling us about God? And
what? What is there's not a God or what is it just an infinite
thusness? I mean, what are we talking about? Well, they're like,
I'm trying to like condense so much information, so I know, I
gotta but is there an argument? What's the argument for this? There's this
uh concepts both in Greek and uh Dermic thought called the tetralemma, where it's
like God or the One or whatever you want to call it is beyond these
four statements or I'm not sure when to call them, like logical states,
where the four states are God exists, God does not exist. God both
exists and does not exist, and God neither exists nor not exists, and
God is beyond all four of those. Okay, So like um, it's
kind of like better describing how God is both everywhere and nowhere, like he's
outside of existence but all through existence. So in kind of a way,
like the words themselves are kind of pointless right where you could say God is
outside of existence, which is the same thing I thing he doesn't exist,
or God is now everything you're saying, everything you're saying is garbled. You
know you can prove it wrong no matter what if you're not rambling. All
right, So now it's all garbled nonsense. I apologize, but that's not
gonna go anywhere. So yeah, if we can't make positive predicates and everything
is just garbled nonsense and everything cancels out everything, then everything that you were
saying canceled the self out. What's up, militant Thomas? Can you hit
him? Try to talk? Now you're there, I guess you can keep
trying. Well, we'll move on to Jack Victor. What's up Jack?
Hi Jay? What's up? How you doing? Jack? Um? Well,
I'm a last son of Evangelicalism, and once I read pilled On just
the total dishonesty of Protestantism, I wanted them to do with nine of them.
But I'm not so sure that orthodoxy is meaningfully that different. Um,
So here's my question. Um, all these eleven people seem to agree on
one thing. Jesus the Apostle, paul Tertullian Justin Martyr or Moss, Origins,
Climent, Cyprian, Athenagoras, and Theopolis of Antioch. They all agree
that a woman who gets remarried while her husband is alive is comming the adultery.
So help me understand the Orthodox position on how they justify remarrying women whose
husbands are still alive. Okay, Well, first of all, it wouldn't
matter what Pertillion says, because Pertillion ended up a heretic, so I don't
really think he's that relevant. We don't accept all the documents that you listed.
There's a lot of things that some of the apologists in the first and
second century believe that nobody ends up believing. So just because we can kind
of find different views at different times. I mean, for example, some
of those people at that time believe that if you were a traded tour or
if you had surrendered the scriptures under persecution, you could never be saved.
So some of those people thought there were certain sins that you could never repent
if I'm never received forgiveness from now. When it comes to the specific issue
of what's allowable that first of all, the Orthodox Church doesn't promote or allow
quote divorce. It does in certain cases for the issue of fornication, allow
a woman or a man to remarry because of what Christ said in the case
of fornication. And so the canons of Saint Basil, for example, allow
for that, and those were normative in the East for centuries, and so
even the Roman Catholic Church canon of Saint Basil, it would be in the
days of Basil, so that would be in the three hundreds. So another
what I'm getting at is that you can cite individual church fathers, just like
that guy was citing Nissa. But but you would agree it's kind of the
overwhelming number of church fathers. No, it's not. No, it's not
Jesus. Just by the way Jesus says that except for fornication. So the
Orthodox Church interprets that as that importication is also a reason why you can remarry,
and it's but I think I think one thing that you know that when
Jesus makes that exhemption, and I think this is what all of these church
follows would also echo, is that he was only making that. You know,
Jesus is using you know, we have in most of the passages.
There's only one exemption in Matthew nineteen where it says, okay except for um
cornea. But he's specifically addressing men and that in that statement, he's not
ever permitting women to remarry. In the fact, when he makes Jesus four
times in three of our gospels explicitly says a divorced woman who gets remarried commits
adultery. So it seems to me you have to kind of eliminate the gender.
So wait a minute, why why wait, why would he why would
that only be for one of the genders. Well, because we because Jesus,
all the passage in the New Testament that talk about divorce and marriage use
very explicit gendered language to describe what they say. This is the role of
men and this is the role of women. They make that distinction because there
is a hierarchy within the marriage. I think it's a reflection of you know,
when you see in numbers, I believe thirty is thirty where you know,
a woman cannot make a vow, She cannot you know, enter into
a binding agreement unless her father or her husband consents to it. So how
can a woman then, you know, choose to divorce her husband and then
enter into a new arrangement, which she doesn't. She simably doesn't have that
authority to begin with. And I think that even the early fathers also make
that distinction when they are speaking about very often with women who you know that
there is a distinction between the hold on so two things here. So you're
right in principle obviously in the ancient world, in the medieval world too,
the typically a woman wouldn't have the authority to do those things kind of on
our own. But I think that one thing that happens with canon law,
and by the way, can the Orthodox Church is not operating the basis of
like citing this or that church father, And so when you say that the
majority of the church fathers, that's absolutely wrong, because the cannons are what
become normative, not individual church fathers and sort of going through them like a
Protestant sort of quote mining. When the cannons are accepted, the cannons that
are normative trump all of that, because the cannons are accepted at the councils,
you see. So if it's normative for the Brazilian cannons to be accepted,
that's the norm. Not what did Athenagoras? What didation? What adjustin
martyr this or that person say, because again there's other examples where you could
say, well, a lot of and this happened when you had the disputes
with the novationists and the sort of what would become the donatists like they made
the argument that well, earlier church fathers were on our side, that if
you folded under persecution, you can't be saved, and they would cite,
you know, Hebrew six, that you've tasted the heavenly gift, you can't
be saved. So so that that rigorous view, which was actually popular at
certain times in the first and second century, eventually was ruled canonically to be
wrong. So just because something at a certain point in time, even if
it is the majority view. Give another example, the death penalty. There
are some church fathers that do not agree on the death penalty or whether you
could, for example, be a Christian and serve in the military. But
when you go to the Council of Nicea, this question is raised in the
canons, and the Cannons of Nicias say no, actually, you can be
a Christian and be in the military. Despite many first and second and third
century church fathers and writers, Patristic writers opining that it's absolutely impossible to kill
and be a Christian. So you see how it doesn't really work to just
say, well, when you look at just the statements about Jesus and Paul,
you know, Paul says twice a woman is legally bound as long as
her husband is alive. These are very clear statements. And also that we
don't only have any church early church fathers at all who are making statements in
support of women getting remarried while their husbands are alive. It seems to me
it's just a pragmatic institutional decision way down the line. Yeah, and again
I understand that at certain times, like in the ancient world, right,
it wasn't there weren't as many equalitarian notions. I understand that, but not
the Asian law is actually just within the whole Testament law. It was very
okay. But the Church is. So this is a principle of economia which
every council, when you read the councils, they talk about how the law
is to be interpreted. So just like the Jews had rabbinical courts, right,
and the rabbinical courts would make decisions on these kinds of issues, the
Church adopted a very similar model where the Church has synods, and then the
synods basically interpret and enforce the laws and the rules. So it's not just
a matter of I'm going to go back and read what the canon say,
or I'm going to go back and read what the Old Testament, you know,
political law said, and then I'll apply that based on like my modern
Protestant presupositions, the Church always had the authority at the local level to interpret
and enforce the canons. Now that doesn't mean they always did it faithfully.
Sometimes they messed up. Sometimes the Church made error, and in certain regions
certain places were wrong. But what I'm getting at is that it's not a
matter of you deciding that, well, Paul says this, and so I'm
going to interpret it that way. The Church interprets the canons and applies them
as the Church sees fit to those situations. And that's why Jesus set up
in a body that has authority. That's what the Apostolic deposit has as the
absolute succession, right. It is like, it's not just Protestant like abstract
doctrines. It's a body of people like the rabbinical sages who would interpret and
enforce the law. The church has that same model of interpreting and enforcing the
law. Yeah, we have the institutional authorities. So what we say our
canons, you know, we get together. No, it's not so.
Yeah, so you're just back to more Protestants, the Protestants to get together
with the Westminster Confession. We have a cabal of politicians and religious leaders.
Yeah, it's not a cabal. So did Jesus say that he would lay
down a body, that he would establish a body of people or not.
He says that he that hears you, here's me. So there's a normative
authority. So you're just likning the Orthodox Church to any other church and saying,
well, you're just a cabal. Well, Jesus said that the Holy
Spirit would guide and lead the church into all truth. So when did the
church in your in your view, when did the Holy Spirit leave the church?
I don't believe that the church has represented in any particular human institution.
Okay, well, the church is not a human institution. It's a thanthropic
institution. I think that the church is a collection of individuals who are regenerate
and you know, you know, have the Holy Spirit. So and who
is that who who is that? Is that the same church that put the
Bible together? Um? The men who had the Holy Spirit? How well,
how do you know who has the Holy Spirit? Um? There's no
public ultimately say okay, so, but there's no public way to adjudicate between
rival holy spirit claims. I think that individual men who are who have faith
in Jesus Christ can make assessments about Okay, so a Mormon says that.
A Mormon says, I'm an individual has faith in Jesus Christ. Does he
participate in your true church? Uh? I don't know to participate? He
can, he can, he can go wherever the if he has the Holy
Spirit. Okay, So now I can be an anti trinitari. I could
be a Mormon, an anti Trinitarian, and I have the Holy Spirit.
So you are hung up on this weird thing to do with like divorce.
But in your view, Mormons are acceptable, so the Trinity doesn't even matter
that at all. You did say that, you said that he can go
where the Holy Spirit leads. So I'm a Mormon. I know, I
caveat it with to say if if he does have the Holy Spirit, how
could a Mormon have the Holy Spirit when a Mormon is an anti Trinitarian.
Yeah, I don't. Well, I so you right now, I'm kind
of looking more towards um anti Baptism, and I think okay, so so
yeah, then that would make sense with your heresy because you said that the
you basically would require the church blacking out. So the Antbaptist, the Anabaptist
theology believes that the church blacked out. Okay, where was it? Okay?
Where was it in the fourth century? Um in individuals? Who are
and where are it? So you're just, yeah, you don't have any
examples of people who believe that. So it's just theoretic when Jesus entered the
world. I'm not asking about what you think the Gospel says. I want
to know about the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh century. Where were
your true Christians there? Give me an example of one? What group?
Anybody where? Why does it have to be an institutional group because Jesus said
that there's one that Paul says, there's one Lord, one faith, one
body. The church is his body? Is Jesus body invisible? Did he
have a did he have a visible body or an invisible body? It's an
institution. It is an institution. It's a human institution that you can it's
it's a divine human institution. It's a divine human institution. It's the very
institution that the Apostle said up Paul said he laid hands on Timothy and that
Timothy would pass the Holy Spirit. You're not You're not if you're not going
to listen, if you're gonna keep interrupting. Didn't Paul say that he would
lay hands on Timothy and he told Timothy to lay hands on people after him
in a pass on the gift of the Holy Spirit? Is that not a
historical visible institution the church at Ephesus where Timothy was a bishop. I think
my understanding of that early church, what does that passage mean? I specifically
gave you a passage there wasn't. My understanding is that there wasn't. Necessarily
it was more of a brotherhood with the Apostle. So you're not going to
answer the specific passages exactly. All right, goodbye, go ahead, militant
Thomas. Okay it finally, yeah, I can hear you. Go ahead,
Okay, good good. So I was originally going to ask something about
Damascenes dialectica, but I actually thought it something more interesting to ask you,
because I've been wondering this myself. So how does the issue of the canon
of Scripture work within Orthodoxy? I mean there's there's obviously some claims to get
from Catholics that Orthodox are deebooked because you know, uh, we we had
the super based Council of Trent, which was able to define our cannon for
us. And you know that the cringe Orthobros they have, they have no
ability to make a cannon or anything and crying go to Rome and so on.
So when it comes to the canon of Scripture within Orthodoxy, like,
how do you how do you view that? Because it's from my understanding,
Um, there there's some Orthodox thinkers who restrict the cannon, so why have
like a tiered sort of system, and then some that basically have an almost
identical cannon as we do. Yeah. So the Orthodox canon, I would
say, is confirmed in the ecumenical councils that for example Trullo, even though
it's not technically ecumenical council, it was received in its canons at the sixth
and seventh Council. So when Nicia too, you know, when it confirms
the canons of Carthage through So Trollo says, we accept these specific not every
Carthage canon, but it's the same canon as the Catholic Church for the most
part. Now there's some churches who have historically translated and included, like Third
Esdras and the Slavic can or something like that. But to us, it's
not that big of a deal, Like it's not like we can't have an
extra book here or there, because the canon for us is there's flexibility in
that because it's it's it's a liturgical document and the history of the Church is
always kind of flex flexible on those kinds of things. So the highest council,
the highest authority for us is the council. So when the Seventh Council
affirms Trolo, that would include the douter canonical text. But there is a
there is a hierarchy within liturgy itself. I mean, Paul's epistles are read
and then they're not given the honor in the liturgy that the Gospels are given.
So the Gospels are given a higher authority, even authority of honor.
Right, I'm not saying that that means that the rest of the texts are
not inspired or whatever, because I mean, the dude, econical texts are
are part of the cannon. Yeah, yeah, how would I would just
fit in with um the Apocalypse of Saint John, because from my understanding,
that was a little bit uh shakier in the East there for a while due
to the fact that it wasn't read as much in the liturgy. Yeah,
it's it's cited in one of the one of the daily readings. But I
don't think there's any reason why we wouldn't include it in the cannons. At
Saint Athanasius is who convinced Rome to include it in the cannon. You can,
I also ask about the that's whatever you want, Yeah, whatever you
want. Yeah. So with the with the Dialectica of Saint John da Messes,
I've been I've actually been reading through Shan John A Damascus as works.
I want to read through Maximus after that. I've only read limited readings from
Maximus. But with Damacy in the Dialectica, he's obviously like presenting some sort
of like beginning instruction in philosophy as it's necessary for theology, and he does
a lot of interesting quoting from the peripatetic commentators. Yes, or like Ammonius
doing that when when it comes to like what he's teaching in philosophy, how
does how does that kind of fit in with sort of your vision of how
philosophy has been received in the Orthodox Church and is it would it be appropriate
for orthodox to read some of those peripatetic commentators to get an idea of philosophy.
Yeah. I think if you look at zach Huber's recent book, like
he talks a lot about by the time of Maxim, but she mean by
the time of Maximus and John Damascus, Aristotle was a lot more available,
and so Aristotilianism became a lot more natural. And I think you could argue
that Damascene is a lot more Aristotilian than he is Neo Platonic Habadocians have more
influence from Neo Platonic and Platonic philosophy than Aristotle. Obviously Damascene has more Aristotilian
influence, and so I would say that, Yeah. In fact, I
did a lecture through the fount of Knowledge, I think six years ago,
because I think Orthodoxy should be familiar with those topics. Absolutely. Okay,
Okay, thank you, that's all I had. Yeah, good questions.
Thank you for that. Let's see Hine, Augustine, what's up, dude.
Welcome everybody, if you would hit like and share, we are opening
it up to questions, answers, disputes, aments. You can raise your
questions, and you can use your super chats. Right there, do your
super chests. Did you want to I'm mute, Heine, Augustine, you
got the mic dog on mute? Okay, If you're not gonna mute,
then we'll move on knee. Well, then everybody's just dropping off as soon
as I'm about to go to him. Zen, did you want to speak?
You've been waiting a while. Zen. Hello, Jay, Yes,
sir, I got a question about natural theology. Sorry fans in the background,
It can't turn them off. Um. So, I was wondering if
we can argue whether God exists and if it's the Orthodox Christian God, specifically
by arguing for the existence of certain universal truths such as laws of logic,
free will, morals, or truth itself. Would that be natural theology or
something like along the lines of transcendent no right. So natural theology is defined
specifically as arguing for God's existence without divine revelation. So I would just simply
say that No, the categories that we're talking about here are like truth itself
or logic or universals. Although they themselves are not necessarily divine revelation, they're
grounded in divine revelation by the LOGI. So doing argumentation and logic is not
natural philosophy or natural theology. And that's something that like Trent didn't understand.
I see, all right, Well, thanks to your question, just I
came to orthodoxy. Thanks for you, so I want to say that right,
thank you very much, have a great day. Thank you. Glad
to hear that. Man, um Hin and Augustin, did you want to
try again? You got a hit on? Mute dog? I mean,
God is the trinity, so how are we gonna argue for God's existence?
That's not the trinity? I mean, this doesn't Are you there? Man?
What's up? Hey? Jake? Can you hear me? How what's
up? Man? Oh? No? Great? Sorry? Um yeah,
I'm still good at the time. I first want to read up a bit
so I can give you a run for your money. Um okay, I'm
working on a documentary on the workman friends, and I see you guys are
traced it back to to the Gnostics. Wait, what hold on, hold
down? Most of whatever read do si Illenistic world. I don't know what
you're saying. I was wondering, guys, you came across anything earlier,
like I don't know what you're talking about, Egyptian, bro slow down?
Is there is there a delay? I don't know what you're saying. You're
working on a documentary on gnostics. Yes, okay, I heard that part.
Then what slow down a little bit? Okay, go ahead, okay,
so yeah, so so and the most most sources trace it back to
the Ellenistic world. Um yeah, okay, yeah, So I was just
wondering because they say they are earlier influences like Egyptian, Persian and these guys.
I was just one problem if you, James Lindsay, any of you
guys came across anything that that that goes back further because I'm trying to get
trace it back to it to its ultimate source, which which might be the
Garden of Eden. But you know who knows? Um, yeah, I
don't know. I mean that's really I guess that would get really speculative,
and I'm not you know, I'm not a historian of religion. Are not
trained in comparative religion per se. So I mean I could just say,
look, you know, Plato talks about the mysteries of Platonism go back to
Egypt. That's his claim in the tomaos Um. I think in one of
the other dialogues it actually says that the mysteries of Platonism are the mysteries of
though. So. Uh, but whether that's true or not, I don't
know. And I understand there's a difference between gnosticism and Platonism, but they
clearly have some kind of you know, common roots. So I would guess
that Platonism probably has some root in Egypt, as does anosticism. So but
but as to what's older than that, I don't know. Okay, they
like the same different streams of the same river, I mean, their mysticism,
gnosticism. There's a lot of similarities between them, so I think there's
there's something something similar to them. But yeah, those are great questions.
Yeah, um, yeah, I think a lot of stuff in like the
you know, the ancient ancient world. You know, Lat's law of speculations,
So it's a lot of stuff we don't know. Um, we've got
a lot of people here lined up. I recognize some of these names,
and I'm a little I'm like, I don't know, it's just one of
our I feel like I've heard this name before. Order of things. Didn't
we talk? Yeah, we've talked him of what would you are? Get?
Remember? Go ahead? Are you there? All right? Nico?
What's up? Nico? You go house? What's up? I'm you a
dude? Who? Yeah? What's up? Man? Gee? No way?
So a big fan. Um. So, I'm gonna challenge you on
that you are a pagan? Okay? Sure? So I looked up the
etymology of the word and it says a person of non Christian or non Jewish
faith, and in Latin it's a villager citizen, non combatant, so of
the country or of the village. So I would ask you, are you
an American citizen? Yeah, so you are of a country? Sure,
so you are a pagan. It sounds like a fallacy. So it's just
the origin of the work. All right, Good job dude. Wait,
you weighed that long? You weighed that long to say something that done?
Good job, doc? And what's up dude? Hey jay? Um?
Yes, sir, So I actually want to push back on something that I
do. I know you're a young Earth Chreasianist, and this is going to
be kind of my argument against you, Okay, Um, so I'm an
oldest Christianist, um, and I would like to know what you think of
the idea of the Earth being old on the basis of um the speed of
light basically because I heard that argument that the Earth is essentially like four point
five billion years old, and they calculated on the basis of essentially the speed
of light, like how far light travels to a certain to a certain distance.
So yeah, but that's just a that's just a that's just a saeming.
It could be like six thousand years old based on that. Yeah,
yeah, I just don't. I think that's a highly speculative um basis for
an argument. So it's the assumption is that, oh, you know,
it took the light you know, how are many million years to get here.
So therefore from the Big bang, right, like everything expanding out,
it would have taken I mean, God could place the you know, stellar
luminaries there and the light already be here, right. And furthermore, I
mean we don't actually know that they're the other planets and galaxies are you know,
zillions of light years away. That's all just assumed. There's not any
real way to prove. But women, we do actually know this um because
it's actually been scientifically observed. Um that it's actually it's actually been scientifically observed
that light does travel. It's only but that's based on period to actually get
to from one point to the other. But that's based on the assumption that
the measurements are that everything operated in the same way that it always has.
Right, So, like the uniformity of nature has to be assumed such that
the light always traveled at that same speed or that and none of that's provable,
right, So it's it's based on assumptions that are not actually demonstrable.
How do you prove that it always operated that way? How do you how
do you know that's not accurate? Because I can do there's actual Man,
there's actually scientific measurement instead of improven that yes, light travels. No,
No, that's not what I say. That's not what I say. Like,
that's not what I say. That's not what I said. I said,
how do you know that it operated in a uniform Even if that is
the case, how do you know that it operated in a uniform way all
the way back into the AONs of the Big Bang or whatever, because I
mean, the Big Bang has been scientifically proven, like based on cosmics,
bammariation waves so like, um, so like for me, someone, who
did you not hear what I just asked you? You didn't hear what?
You didn't hear what I just asked you? I said, how do you
know? And the uniformity of nature that it was? It was uniform billions
of years ago. Um, what do you mean how do I know?
Based aim of nature? I mean it's a mathematic equation. Yeah, So
again, not going to answer the question. It's a very specific question about
the principle of uniformity, that nature operated in a uniform way all the way
back into aon's past. So if you're not going to answer that question,
and you're just going to keep blowing past it, you just keep saying,
no, it's scientifically proven, it's scientifically I asked a specific question about the
principle of uniformity operating in the distant past. How do you know that?
Maybe it's true? But what you replied with does not answer the question that
I asked you. X muslims um hike, thanks for letting me speak.
Um. Although I'm an atheist. I do agree with Jay on this on
what on that science assumes uniformitarianism. Okay, so how do we prove that?
I think, like, from a philosophical point of view, simplicity is
always better, and that doesn't that's doesn't prove anything. That's not a proof.
That's a principle that may or may not be useful to what we're talking
about. Doesn't prove anything. Um, it depends on what you mean by
proof. Yeah, anything can be demonstrated, but it's rational in the sense
that it's probable. And none of these answers are at all getting at the
question that I asked. So we have t free the guy who said that
he's got a much HIGERARQ than me. What's up, dude? Put me
in my place. I'm mute, I'm mute. You got up? You
got a two hundred IQ. You're not. I'm mute, right, Bro?
You said that you were forty points higher than me an IQ, and
you can't un mute. I sent you the link. Dude. What's up?
Hello? Can you hear me? JA? Yeah, you gotta forty
points higher IQ. Go ahead, JA, don't don't repeat my name.
Don't do this disrespectful. I'm kind of retarded, dude. Don't don't lie
to me. You told me, you said I'm a dick, And then
you're like, well, no, troll to be ghost respectful? How am
I dead? You're you're trying to stole my hair, by the way too,
How am I dick? What do you mean? Wha I mean?
To be honest, you, there's the last few men that you've been speaking
with their kindt you know, so you have to dumb it down a little
bit, and your intelligence is hard to intercept for the lower of the you
know, the prime. Look, well you're a mensa man. Yeah,
you're a mensa man, so you can intel, you can enlighten us.
So go ahead, and yeah, sir, I'm just saying that the things
that you say sometimes are really mean to not only yourself but others around you.
You really mean, are very smart, and you do the same thing
that I do, sir, And what's up? My problem is is that
I hate on people constantly for not being able to keep up. If you
would like to pause and put a pin on that subject of me thinking you're
I'm not hating on people, So I don't know what you dumb up.
No, you do. You constantly hit on people that are stupid, and
how am I hating people? I don't know what you're talking at all.
Yeah, no, you're a little bit mean to the crazy leftists, which
they need to be saved by Jesus. Okay, you know, yes,
yes, sir, I'm not trying to like hate on you at all by
any means. I'm just trying to do as our father wishes us to do.
And I'm saying that's really pious. Okay, So where do you disagree?
What argument would you like to present a new new new knew. That's
what I would like you to present to me. I don't, like I
said, and all of my chats as I don't find many things will dig
upon um. But I would love to debate you on any topic from Jesus,
God, Aliens, anything, whatever you want. And it's more,
well, I don't engage, hold on, so hold on, So I
don't. I don't engage in debates just to debate. So I only debate
the positions that I actually hold. So I want to know like a lot
of holds of these positions. Okay, I got it. Jesus, Aliens,
God, you could start on aliens. Okay, so you're really smart,
So tell me where you think I'm wrong. Oh no, that's first
and foremost. If you look back to the message, I said that there's
a lot of things that I don't think disagree upon. I just think you're
okay, So tell me where you do disagree. Yes, sir, I'm
sorry you cut out, So tell me where you do disagree. The only
times you're you're mean to stupid people. I think that Jesus said. No.
No, literally, bro, You're on point with ninety nine point nine
percent of everything that God and the Orthodox shirts wants from us, except that
the love and kindness it just seeps from me. So how is it loving
and how is it loving kindness? To tell me that I'm a dick and
you're so much smarter than me. That sounds like you're just trolling. So
this is not a serious person. I mean, I I don't care about
your mensa car, dude, good grief, man, unbelievable, what dude?
Go ahead, docing, go ahead? Yeah, what about it?
Oh um? Okay, So I feel like you kind of brush my argument
off when it came to the age of the area. I asked you a
specific question about what the argument presupposed, and you blew past it, wouldn't
answer it. That's why I booted you. Well, can I can I
speak and presents an argument? Every Hold on a second, hey Jay,
I apologize for and can you guy actually just on his buddy. I actually
just wanted to say, I really do it and now your work and that
kind and I will love your debatement big fans. Sorry, I gotta be
a little biased, but um, you know, keep killing it. And
by the way, I'm getting into your introductions on Genesis soon. So once
I uh, once I finished that in Exodus, I'm gonna start watching say
your videos explaining it. Yes, it's awesome. Okay. Um, So
I asked you about the principle of uniformity uniformitarianism, that that underlies your argument,
and it doesn't matter which one you pick, the light argument, the
radioactive decay argument. That's another argument I was gonna bring up, was the
radioactive to k argument. Yeah, So for that to work, because for
that too, what listen, dude, for that to work, you're gonna
have to demonstrate the principle of uniformitarianism. So just how about it. Go
for it? Okay, I mean, okay, so the scientific formula is
that the decay You're not gonna So again, you're not gonna address the question
I asked you. I am I'm trying. No, you're not. You
even understand the question? Good god, Bro, don't you don't just listen?
Man, don't follow and like your claims that the earth is six thousand
years old on the basis of this, are you how many bears? Diould
you have? Dude? Are you? Can you not listen to what I'm
asking you? That your argument presupposed uniformitarianism, So it's not gonna work until
you address that. So just telling me the argument is not addressing the question.
Can you can you? Can you prove that? Did you not hear
what I asked you? That's a two quote quay? What's a two quote
quay? What's a two quot quay? Two quo qu quick fallacy? That's
a fallacy of every statement of it. No, it's not it's against it's
a what about? Is um? It's what about you not answering this question?
So you're I'm sorry, Yeah, you know what, Bro, that's
fine. We're done. You don't and don't you can unfollow me. It's
fine, go on, move on, Jim. Whatever. So I put
up with this idiocy from people, right and then oh, you mean dude,
And I'm a fortyr IQ points above you mensa guy? Do you mean
bro? I mean, dude? Is everybody just drunk on Friday night?
Is that what it is? What's up, Jim? You know of a
interesting side point to the conversation be the population of the human race. By
all scientific measures, only two percent of the population human population existed before the
advent of Christ's pres effection and resurrection. Why do you think that plays into
this kind of you know, even if the you know it's trying to speaking
about the age of the earth. I hear you guys going on about this
like you, I don't understand the question was so perspective on that, you
know, by all you know scientific I'm sorry to get Look, I'm not
trying to be rude to you. I'm not, but I don't understand the
point of that question. And I'm just I'm just gonna have to Like,
I'm starting to get annoyed. People are starting to get on my nerves,
and when it gets on my nerves, I'll start to get sassy. You
see, and then that's when people say, oh he's me, we got
him, exposes me. I don't want to hear your dumb arguments. If
you got a good argument, and dude, get out of here all you
like weirdos with your IQ bullshit order of things. I guess now we know
to get like the really ridiculous stuff we do it on Friday night. Yes,
sir, um, I want to say, what, um, the
elytics and in practice, what really happens is that the parties are you drunk?
Is everyone drunk to night? No? Okay, go ahead. The
party has become radicalized in their positions. What is this? This is not
We're not about politics, bro, it's theology debate, right, this is
this is regarding the ealytics and how they work in practice, Okay, And
what happens is the party has become radicalized and the progress and so the common
assumption is that it's it's a it's a way to find common ground, but
actually what happens is that it's the ideas to become outside the margin, the
redicalized idea become How does this relate to atheism? Also, um, it's
not politics and debates. People redicalize, They put their positions and they are
sometimes outside yeah, okay, sometimes yeah. So the Gospel in your hand
or evangelian Is has a different posture. It's it's it's a declarative it's um
has a declarative posture, not political posture. Jesus engages in polemics. So
not true, not right. I mean I'm not let'stical here, but in
primary I would say it would be it would have it's a posture, would
be would declarative. Then the posture of the Gospels is in the context of
liturgy. Well, the evangelian is proclamation right, the crisis king Okay,
sorry, not relevant to what we're talking about, but thank you, um
Aga square, I'm you, hey, j how's he going? What's up
man? How are you doing? Wealth? And well yeah, just quick
questions. So just want to get your maybe your opinion or maybe the general
uh consensus or well opinion of the Eastern Orthodox Church, because I've heard some
different things about this topic. So how do you guys feel and maybe given
your your perspective and I've, like I said, I've heard some different you
know, perspectives that you think within the Eastern Orthodox of UM like non Eastern
Orthodox apparitions. So, um, like ore, you know the Coptic apparition
of our lady as itumb like the sixties. Um, obviously you know the
big Catholic ones, our Lady of Guadalupe, our Lady of Fatima. I've
heard a lot of Eastern Orthodox specifically being a little sympathetic toward like the Coptic
apparitions, which I find kind of strange and confusing. Um. But um,
yeah, I would love to mabeate your positions. Yeah, I think
that it's very simple. The Pauline structure is that we don't go by the
apparitions. We go by what is divine revelation, and paul is just restating
what's in Deuteronomy thirteen, in Deuteronomy eighteen. So, um, could Mary
appear to whoever? Sure, But that has nothing to do with what we're
going to do for our practice and our what we do in terms of normativity,
right, So it has nothing to do with what we do. If
you want the specifics, I've done multiple live streams getting into the Cold War
structure and situation of a lot of those Marian apparitions and how that's used in
the Cold War for psychological operations on record so that's part of this um.
But yeah, I've I've done really long live streams on that. No,
I don't accept fatima or magic gooray or any of that stuff. And I
would not accept. And again, it doesn't matter if Mary appeared here or
there, whatever, It has nothing to do with again, the previous revelation.
I don't think I must Hello, yeah, hell yeah, Hello,
Matt. It's about to get's getting vised to you up in here. What's
up, Matt? Hey? How you doing? Man? I'm biting my
lip. I'm gonna try to be nice. I'm gonna try. I'm gonna
try. I'm here on what you're going through. And uh, and I
appreciate it. Man, thanks for let me speak. Go ahead, I
have a question about so do photorology. Okay, as far as the Orthodoxy
paper is concerned. In you, I'm curious about your position. It was
funny I was invited onto this the faces by some Orthodox people. I'm not
orthodoxed myself. And one of the big second points I have is where grace
is actually extended to people. I believe. I actually I hadn't known you,
aheadn't followed you before this. I think I saw a video of you
talking about grace extended potentially past the Orthodox Ecclesiastic and I just wanted to know
your position on it. The Orthodox Ecclesiastic. Okay, yeah, so the
Orthodox the Orthodox Church. Yeah, so there's grace outside the church, but
that doesn't mean that there's salvation outside the church. So you have to be
united to the Church in some way to be saved. And if God does
that in his own way, that's certainly possible. We see that with the
thief on the cross. But the normative means by which a person has saved
as the Orthodox Church. Right, So I guess I guess my question is
worth the wine. Well, I mean we're not told that, So I
mean, how could I say? What do you mean? Where's the line?
Like? Well, I mean, I guess what I mean is this
is that, like, the grace of God is something that we can't obviously
fully comprehend it on this side of eternity. Right, And so with us
like a murdering China who's never had the grace of the Orthodox Church to be
able to be PSI upon them and take sacraments of any kind, they could
have authentic salvation. Correct. Well, again, that's what I just said
that it's possible for God to unite somebody to the mystical body in his own
way, and that's why the church does have We consider you know, baptism
of blood, baptism desire, those people are considered members of the church.
But when it comes to people that are in those other countries that we don't
have, I mean, we don't know that, right. So we know
God is a just judge and he's fair, and we leave that up to
him. So all we know is what we're told to do, which is
it's our job to tell people to become orthods. Okay, so forgive me
because you're you're It's funny when when you have have somebody jump on a speaker,
it's funny you start to break up on grand It's it's kind of a
weird thing. So I think I heard what you were saying. And if
I can clarify, just a clarifying question. So why, like like cross
the nonominational, are there a remnant within cross the nomination, I don't know
what that means. A remnant within cross and within crossing? Is vation?
Within the policism? Is there a process? Is there? No? Because
there's one true church and it's the orbit our church. Right, So how
does that account for the people that have never had the grace of the church.
What I said that the God is able through through his power to unite
people to the mystical body in his own way, right, So it's not
a matter of spatial location. It's a matter of whether or not the grace
of God unites you to the mystical body. The mystical body is the Orthodox
Church. So is he is your stance that salvation through to become through the
Orthodox So correct? Yes, I guess I'm trying to understand. Yes,
I said, yes, how you can, like I guess, overlay that
with what like the mystery of God's rist So I don't think that the mystery
of God's grace contradicts what he has revealed. So He's revealed that there's one
true church, and that's the church that put the scriptures together for example.
Okay, and again clarifying questions more so than anything else, I'm I'm confused
about that aspect of things. Well, let's make this simple. Let me
let me clarify it for you. Let me clarify it for you. So
in the sixth seventh eighth century, the Orthodox Church put the Bible together,
and it's the Bible that you have, So why aren't you in the Orthodox
Church if you're using its Bible. Well, I don't understand why that would
necessarily matter, because if you're going or unissions and giving the Bible whatever,
the Bible is um with you, because it's assuming that there's so much background
noise, I can't Hey, can you call sorry? Can you call in?
When there's not so much background noise, it's really hard to hear you.
I'm sorry, Sorry, I'll move out. Let's try. Let's try
try coming back or something. It's like, I can't get through all this
background noise. Dude, I don't want to. I don't want to talk
to you. Get out of here, Like, why would you think I
want to interact with you? People acting ridiculous? Artie Lucas, Oh hi
Jay, do you hear me? Oh yeah? Can you hear I can
hear you? Can you hear me? Okay? Sorry? Just yes.
So basically, I'm Presbyterian, I'm twenty two years old, and I was
getting into ORTHODOXI lately, and I'm curious on the point of iconography. Okay,
what's the point of iconography? And this does this ghost against a god
Jesus saying that did not create an image of me. It's worship. Okay,
Jesus, When did Jesus say, don't create an image of me?
First of all, Jesus is the icon of the Father, according to Paul
in his epistles, and so iconography is based in and rooted in human nature
itself. Right, We're told in the Garden of Eden that man was made
in the icon the image of God. So iconography is really fundamental to how
God communicates and reveals himself to the created order, all divine revelation. And
if you think about words and the scriptures their iconographic right, they're images.
And so if there's something fundamentally problematic with images themselves, then the temple would
not be full of images. The arc would not have seraphim on it,
there would not be angels in the temple everywhere. So no, God is
not anti image. In fact, he's very iconographic. And so the earliest
days of the church's worship include all these principles of created things as mediums of
grace, and so iconographic worship and iconographic symbology and reality is fundamental to how
God relates to the world. And so the icons, for example, are
mediums of grace via the divine energies. So they're windows to heaven, we
say. And so the Bible being full of imagery, the Bible being full
of John seeing into heaven, seeing a vision, the form of God appearing
to Isaiah, the form of God, the voice of God speaking to Elijah,
and Elship. Right, there's a theophanic manifestation. Right, there's a
form in that form. And the Old Testament is Jesus is the logos.
And then Jesus takes on a human nature. So he takes on created things,
creation and deifies it by doing so. And so when we go to
the earliest church fathers, they talk about the Eucharist as the real presence of
Christ because his uncreated divine energy is present there, the medicine of immortality.
Saint Cyril Alexander calls it the uncreated energies that deify the flesh, to make
it the deified flesh. So everything about the worship of the Church is iconographic
to its all the way down to like everything in the created order being a
manifestation of the Logos. So Maximus says that Christ wears all of the created
order like a vestiment. I guess he dropped off. So I don't know
people coming back that we didn't have a good exchange. So I don't know
why you keep coming back in here with these bad exchanges, mister Anderson.
Mister Anderson, mister Anderson, mister what's up? Uh? Not much.
I had a couple of questions, that's okay, um, okay, Yeah,
so some things I've been thinking about. Yeah, I've been listening in
to your past few streams, and um, the topic about ye in the
Catholic system of them having unity and clarity, um, and uh, but
really, when it comes down to it, uh, it's not much different
than the Protestant system when it comes to basically personal interpretation of documents. And
I was just wanting to get sort of like your statement and perspective on how
that contrasts to the Eastern Orthodox system and how that's different, you know,
and how we know what the true doctrines are and whatnot. And then I
also have a couple of other questions too. Yeah. So you know,
I mean, I've answered that. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm
just I've answered that many many times in many many podcasts So there's two different
questions there. One is about individual certitude and assurance, and there's another question
of normative authority. So if it's a question of public authority, we would
disagree with the Protestants and agree with the Roman cality. There is a public
authority that exists that men have from Christ right. But when it comes to
what that authority is, we believe that authority is what we see in the
first thousand years of the Church, which is snodal, collegial church government.
It's not a monarchical system of everybody just asked Sking the Bishop of Rome what
the answer is. So, but that's different from the question of well,
how does an individual have certitude? Because every individual person, whether you're a
Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, is in the same boat. And there's
no way to answer that question other than to say that in the final analysis,
it's the Holy Spirit that gives a certitude. But again where we disagree
is the means that the Holy Spirit uses. So the means the Holy Spirit
uses in the Roman Catholic system is you and the papal documents. The means
the Holy Spirit used the Orthodox view is you and the entire life of the
Church, the liturgy, the lives of the saints, the church fathers,
the cheminical counsels, the Bible, all of that is a holistic thing,
right, So obviously the Orthodox u is the holistic view of the individual's experience
within the entire life of the Church, including all of those elements that you
can't you can't like like a science experiment like pick out like one thing that
gives you certitude, because those are all created things that are part of the
life of the Church, and they're all endued with grace, they're all indued
with the divine energies, and so they're all experiences of God. There's no
super experience of God that the Roman bishop has to the exclusion of any other
bishop. That's why the earliest church fathers say that the fullness of Catholicity exists
in the local bishop. So there's no super bishop in Rome that has super
Catholicism. You see, the fullness of the Church, the fullness of the
life of the Holy Spirit, is in the local church with the local bishop.
That's the Orthodox view, and so the Protestant view is, well,
good luck with you and the Holy Spirit in your Bible, and view is
good luck with you reading to the papal documents. We're doing people who have
not called in and who disagree tonight. So Daniel Griffin looks like he's been
waiting a while. Are you there? Daniel? All right? Daniel's not
there? Daniel? Are you there? Christian preacher and husband preacher? Daniel?
Are you there? Where are you at? You've been waiting for all
this time? You don't want to speak? Look a meanis you zue me?
Colonel Donnelly, Colonel Donnelly? Are you a real colonel? Colonel Sanders?
What's up? Yeah? What's up? Stuff? Um? One question?
Um? What does the does the mystical or mystical experienced planning part in
the Orthodox Church? With qualifications and caveats? I mean like, we wouldn't
say that the kind of mystical experiences that Eastern religions promote or that Charismatics have
is equivalent to or good for us. No, So I mean yeah,
I mean we would say that the Saints have a mystical union for sure,
but it's always it's always within the context of the church and the sacraments and
a spiritual Father. It's never like this thing of you going out there and
doing a ayahuasca vision quest or something like that. Oh yeah, I got
your h Is there any like description, hey, Jamie, that experience or
those experiences? H yeah, you could read about the Hess Cass and Saint
Gregor Palamos. Jamie, can you turn the air on? It's really hot
there. Do you know how they describe it? Is it? Like?
Yes, it's the vision of God's It's described as seeing God and it surpasses
all conceptual understanding. Okay, that's what Paul talks about when he talks about
being caught up into the third heavens. That's that's the same for us.
That's the same thing. Um, Matt, did you want to say something
now that you're back? Hey? Hey, you got sorry about the back
right, know it before? Bro, It's still there, but go ahead,
uh man An, let me get off the bee your phone, Daniel,
I'll put it real quick second. I mean, it's gonna this is
gonna go bad, so you don't even have to. I can already tell
this is it's gonna go back, right, Bro, It's it's even worse
good. Agree, I can already I can already tell it's gonna go bad
anyway. But maybe if I'm maybe another time if I'm in a better mood.
But Daniel Griffin's back. What's a pastor, Daniel. He's gonna put
us, put us straight, pretty the word of God to us. He's
going to set up straight. Hey, j can you hear me? Yes,
sir? Oh right on? Uh yeah, No, I'm not gonna
do any creation right now. I'm actually I'm a former Reformed Presbyterian. I'm
an Orthodox inquired oh um. Largely your videos really helped me a lot with
that. I just had a had a kind of I just thought of this
the other day with it because a lot of my family is still Presbyterian and
they look at you know, praying to saints is idolatry and icons idolatry and
all that. Um. I'm thinking though, uh, you know, they
also refer to the Bible as the Word of God, and upon you know,
inquiring into Orthodoxy, I'm I'm realizing, like, no, it's not.
Actually the Word of God is always Christ, It's always Jesus. Um.
So wouldn't calling the Bible the Word of God? Calling something God when
it's not God, wouldn't that be idolatry? No? I think that's fine
too. There is a sense in which we can call the scripture is the
word of God. There's something wrong with that. It's just that it's,
uh, you know, it's not mutually exclusive, or it's not the only
sense, right. I mean, Jesus says in John five, you know
you search the scriptures because you think that is in them that you have eternal
life, when it was they that testify of me. So the scriptures are
the word of God in the same way that the natural world is the word
of God. Right. So, Maximist says that there's one of the reasons
that if you read stunt Eloy's volume one of Orthodox Dogmatics, he says that
one of the reasons that there's no natural theology and the Orthodox tradition is because
there's no fundamental difference between the content and the revelation and nature and the content
and the revelation and scripture. The content of both is the same, which
is the logos, and the only difference is the medium. Right, sticks
and trees are not identical to the book, but what the sticks and the
trees point too is the same thing that the book points to. So so
everything is a theophanic manifestation of the logos, including the Bible and including sticks
and trees. Okay, so it's cool, it's still call it the word.
Yeah, so a word of God unlimited sense, right, but not
in the ultimate sense like the person itself Jesus is the literal living word of
God, a divine person. Right. So again, John five thirty nine.
Okay, cool man, Yeah, good questions. Thanks for your videos
and everything you do. Man, Thank you. It's joy to listen to
appreciate that. Yeah, God bless you. Man, appreciate that. I
thought that was going to get hot and heated. Caboose lube, oh,
butt lube. I guess this is gonna definitely be high quality. Are you
there, but lube? Are you there? I'm mute, all right,
so we know what we get on a Friday night. We get butt lube
calling in Okay, sure, m Kite and Jacob I'm mute. I'm mute.
You've been waiting all this time. I don't people wait for like an
hour and then they don't. I'm mute. Okay, Well we'll just move
on. Your majesty. Uh, we got the king. The king is
in the house. What's up, your majesty? What's so Jake? Yes,
sir, Yeah, So I wanted to ask you some questions, not
necessarily like just debate, just ask you questions, Um, what do you
think about Molanism from an Orthodox point of views that accepted in Orthodox Church or
what I mean? It's still couched in Protestant dialectics. So I would hesitate
from saying that the Orthodox Church is quote Molinists. So what would be like
the disagreements. Let's say, uh, it's it's sateriology is what solves our
you know, Crystal assuming Cristology is what solves our steriological issues. So it's
not a question of, um, you know, the relationship of Grace to
the individual. It's just a question of the relationship between Grace and the human
nature in the two natures of Christ. Right, So when the divine person
Logos deifies as human nature, that becomes the model for how humans synergize through
their natural energy to cooperate with Grace. So in a limited sense of like
cooperation, I guess you could say Molinism is part of that. And and
I would say that in the specifics of predestination, we don't really get into
like individual predestination per se, because in Paul's epistles. For example, predestination
is like it's collective and it's in the context of Christology. So Paul's writing
a letter to a visible church in Ephicis and he's saying you are the predestined.
It's not writing a letter to the invisible elect So again, Molinism is
still couched within Reformation dialectics and it's just not really addressing the main shift because
there's a different order of theology amongst Protestants as pros Orthodox got it, got
it? So, um, I had another question when it comes to like
orthodoxistemology, what what is the Orthodox to you want it? Is it Amollininism
or prem Illinism or what. I don't think there's one set. I mean
obviously you can't be premill I mean that's rejected at in the early Councils.
So you can't be premillennial. But that's why the Creed says, you know
who's kingdoms shall have no end. That was intended to exclude all forms of
millennialism. So he would say either either amel postmill could be acceptable in Orthodox
You okay, what about like Jesus and John sakes? He says that,
Um, what he talks about like you know, the Father. He says
that all that he has given we shall lose none of it, and they
raised them up to the last day. Doesn't that prove the Calvinistic doctrine?
Uh No, because all men are raised, right, So in this context
of recapitulation, Christ does raise all men at the last day. Nobody's lost.
All human nature has resurrected, right, So Jeffrey Dahmer gets resurrected for
on the same basis. Right. So when Jesus says that all that He's
given me, he's referring to like pretty much all of mankind, not like
the elect Well, it's all of the above, it's both and it's not
either one. Right, So all human nature is given to Christ because he
assumed universal human nature and there is there is a fixed number of the elect
but we don't know who that is, Okay, And what about like a
chrystologist, So like, how can um, how can you have something like
divine nature and then you know human nature who existing when they're like really the
opposite and they're not opposites, right, So they're not opposites, right,
that's dialectical thinking. God made man in his image, not as a dialectical
opposite. So they were all they were all, they were always meant to
go together. The incarnation is not an after thought. M damassing something I
can't read your full name. Probably gonna have to Uh, if we keep
going, I'm probably gonna get a little too sassy, so I might I
might have to just stop tonight. But what's up, damassing? There's going
man um. I had a Protestant friend rich out to me, and he
was asking me the difference between the Lutheran concept of baptismal generation and the Orthodox
concept. I don't know anything about the Lutheran concept. I'm wondering if you
could like summarize that real quick. Well. I don't think there's a big
difference just in baptismal regeneration itself from the Orthodox and the Lutheran view in terms
of like doing it for an infant or doing it for an adult. But
I don't know that. I don't know that Lutheranism has any specific idea of
uncreated grace. You know, there might be Lutheran theologians who have the opinion
that they believe in uncreated grace, but I mean, for us, it's
always couched within the holistic context. Of Christology. So weather baptism regenerates,
weather water baptism regenerates is not a point of difference between an Orthodox and a
Lutheran. The basis for justification is and what that grace is differs. Probably,
Okay, do you think that whatever Luther might have said about regenerating,
he probably got from Orthodoxy originally, whether he knew it or not. I
mean, Luther's just coming from an Augustinian tradition, and so you know,
the Latin Roman Catholic Augustinian Church professors baptismal regenerate. So okay, all right,
maybe my friend's question was a little maybe he didn't really know what he
was getting it. But I don't think Luther's concerned with what the quote Orthodox
Church teaches. I think Luther's just kind of defaulting to the Augustinian ethos.
Shady, what's up? I'm mute, Hey, Jay, I'm here to
get a little combative. If that's all right, Well might as well?
All right? Uh so I've heard you say that um, Christianity is not
a religion that's proven by miracles or miraculous works. Is that an accurate description
of your position? Yeah? I think miracles can attest to it, but
they can't be a strict proof because you know, I mean, every group,
every sect will claim miracles, right, so miracles themselves can't be quote
proof, but they can be evidences or they can attest to the religion being
true. Sure, Okay, do you think that was always the case?
Or is this in like you know, a postum maybe like you know,
in the Church era this is the case or would you say this has always
kind of been a case for God's people to not you know, prove the
trueness of their religion through miracles. Well because of the fact that at any
point anybody could claim a miracle. Yes, I would say that that's always
true, that the definitive proof is not going to be a miracle, but
would have to be some other kind of argumentation, like a worldview or you
know, something else beyond just a miracle. Okay, let me let me
can I let me give an example that like let we say, well,
let's say that we let's say for the sake of argument, that somebody put
together a really solid scientific paper somehow that maybe proved the shroud of Turan or
they proved that the you know, tomb in Jerusalem had to be the tomb
where Jesus was and it's empty. Okay, So let's say there was like
some really solid proof of the resurrection or you know, the tomb being empty
or the shroud or something like that. Right, like that itself, how
would that prove the totem? It wouldn't prove the Christian religion because the resurrection
of Jesus only makes sense with the rest of the theology, right because somebody
could say, Okay, well maybe he just you know, maybe maybe crazy
stuff happens, maybe he passed out, Maybe there's a lot of other things
that could be brought in. So one miracle like that doesn't necessarily mean the
rest of the religion is true, right, I mean a Muslim might say,
okay, well if that was the case, you know you have other
holy Men who were resurrected. Okay, so what so you know the Bible
talks about the bones of Elifsha bringing somebody back from the dead, right.
Um. I guess the reason I'm asking this question is like we see in
Matthew eleven, when you know, John the Baptist sends his disciples to Jesus
and they're asking, you know, basically for proof that he is who he
says he is, like all of everything Jesus tells them is is. You
know. Look, tell him what you've seen. The work is on the
list of his miracles. Yeah, the works. But you notice that Jesus
also says that a wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign
will be given to it but that of Jonah. And he says that if
you know, remember the story of the guy who died. If you remember
the story of the guy who dies. Uh, he says, hey,
you know, he's in neighbor, he's in torments. And he says,
uh, let me go back and warm my brothers. If one rises from
the dead, they will believe. And Jesus doesn't say, yes, if
they just saw a miracle of a resurrection and coming back from the dead,
they would believe. No, Jesus says, they have Abraham and the prophets,
and if they don't listen to Abraham the prophets, they will not believe
though one rise from the dead. So no, I don't think Jesus is
actually teaching that any kind of miracle will somehow prove the faith. The miracles
attest to it. That's why he says that if you don't, if you
believe that, He actually gives two options. He says, believe what I
taught and you can see the scriptures, and otherwise believe on the case on
the basis of the miracles. So it's fine to believe on the basis of
the miracles, but they don't prove it. Okay. Yeah, I was
just looking at you know, let me tells, go back and report to
John what you hear and see. And I was also just thinking, you
know, back for Moses, for example, he used miracles to prove that
he, you know, was legit, whereas the magicians, to your point,
could do some with miracles, but they kind of were proven to be
lesser than what Moses did. Yeah. Again, I think that in certain
cases, You're right, you could have situations where God demonstrates his power being
above those of the challenge him. But what I'm saying is, how do
I know, as an individual who isn't there for any of this stuff.
I just hear this stuff like I can't confirm it. And you know,
I've got I've got a book over on my Muslim shelf of all these stories
of Islamic miracles, and you see that's supposed to vindicate improve Islam for me.
Right, So you see what I'm saying is like, if I'm not
physically present for these events, then how are these events going to be the
final arbiter or a proof? Right? So sometimes too, you could have
people talking about evidences can be called proofs in a limited sense and not in
like a strictly philosophical sense. Right. So miracles, I think can attest
to the faith, they can be evidences for it, but they're not proofs
in a strict philosophical sense of proof. Okay, because you gotta have some
way. You gotta have some way to judge between every different religious group claiming
miracles, right, And I guess these were miracles that the person, the
people in these different passages we're seeing exactly exactly. And also remember Deuteronomy thirteen
and Deronomi eighteen explicitly say that you have a duty not just to believe the
signs and the wonders, but to test the theology. So the primary way
by which we judge it is on the basis of the divine revelation that comes
before. Because don Aronmi thirteen and Deteronomy eighteen say that when you see a
prophet or a person claiming to be a prophet and their miracles, their signs
and wonders come true. Don't believe it if they tell you to do some
other kind of religious practice or theology. You see, So the divine revelation
is the primary judge, not the other way around. Okay, Um,
I had a second. I guess it's somewhat related. Point. You'll read
in different uh, you know, church fathers in different places to not trust
dreams, not to believe dreams, pre less in these type of things.
But then there's also a lot of stories just through church history, I mean,
like Saint Nicholas for example, where really important, powerful events are communicated
through dreams, you know, even like with you know, Saint John Chrysossom
and I think Saint Cyril, you know. Like so it seems like there's
some writings where it says don't trust dreams at all, and then there's other
places where, um, you know, right after a guy punches someone in
the face through a dream that told it, that's you know, okay,
and I get I know that maybe that's like the level of the holiness of
the person receiving a dream or something like that, But is there any Yeah,
this is the role of a strip, This is the role of a
spiritual father. So the role of the spiritual father is precisely to help through
these kinds of experiences so that we don't fall into prelust. Absolutely, Okay,
so I guess, like you know, in other words, if I
thought I was having h I'm not. I'm not saying this because I don't
think I have any prophetic powers or dreams. But let's say that I did
have a dream that I thought was prophetic or I thought God was speaking to
me, right, like what I would the proper process would be I would
talk to my spiritual father about it and get his wisdom and insight, and
there would be probably kind of tests, and you know, people would bounce
it off of other people. It wouldn't be this thing where it's like,
you know, you just run with it. There would be cautious processes and
steps by which we would want to make sure that it's not some kind of
delusion, right, and so, well, did it does the if it's
a you know, I saw a dream that where something's going to happen,
and well did it come to pass? Okay? Yes, then okay,
maybe it was and then we would still you know, it would be under
the guidance of a spiritual father. Right. So, um, that's the
process that we have and that's why it's it's that's to guard against the kind
of stuff that we see in the Roman Catholic Church, like in the you
know, with these crazy women saints that are you know, talking to flying
hosts and flying around the room and carving things in their chest. Right,
that's that's not what we do, right, we would say that's all prelist.
So but it doesn't mean that there's not miracles, clairvoyance and spiritual gifts
and all that. But that's done in the context of guidance, Okay,
because yeah, that makes sense. And I'm thinking about a lot of profits
from the Old Testament who obviously were in the minority and maybe the you know,
the people who would maybe in the whole coming to be looked at as
spiritual elders or guides were typically the people that were you know, maybe compromise
or whatever that we're tending to prophesy like things that people wanted to hear.
So you know, in a case like Amos or some of these other guys,
they might not have been able to uh, you know, he didn't
have really any credentials to begin with. And um, you know, well
it's not a matter of credentials. It's a matter of being in the presence
of holy men and elders and saints, right, So it's not about academics
per se. Uh. And that's why I think we would say that,
you know, the role of the elder is kind of like the role of
Elijah and the schools of the prophets. So Orthodoxy still has even that that
um office beyond just okay, yeah, there's the hierarchy of the priests and
the bishop, but a lot of times the you know, secular we could
say clergy have been compromised. And so that's that's that role of the sage
the elder that calls you know, people back to repentance even even perhaps um
the clergy, right, um, and an elder can function in that kind
of alges style of role. Yeah, That's kind of what I was imagining
is if you had, you know, just an Amos type of figure,
just some random shepherd or you know, just some simple person who was told
something and he goes to his Well, we don't know that Amos who didn't
have yeah, we don't. We don't know that Amos didn't have any other
holy men, right, I mean maybe there were, like you said,
compromised uh you know, Levites and whatnot, but he could have still had
other you know, holy men that he interacted with a lot of the minor
prophets. You know, we only have a little a little bit of what
they said, and you know, we don't really know much about their life.
Okay, Yeah, that I guess. It's just what I'm trying to
understand, maybe the balance between like these obvious periods where you have you know,
even today, like large portions of the Church that are you know,
water down or liberal or eyes or you know, whatever it is. And
it's not a new problem like you see it through the Old and Testament all
through the ages and sort of throwing the balance between you know, just letting
a bunch of soft liberal you know priests tamped down people who are you know,
they'll put whatever label on him versus um you know that actually being in
the case, I guess, yeah, I would agree with you. Good
points. I thought you're gonna be combative. You had great points. Uh
why sorry, I already already removed you there, Um, We'll get Matt
one last chance to see if his phone's good. But I'm kind of tired,
so I don't know if I can, I don't know. I think
go much longer. Oh, sir, Yes, sir. He just wanting
to circle back on ceology sateriology. Sorry, I am bad at pronunciations,
so tiology excuse me? Fine, yes, sir, yeah, no,
I just wanted to talk about grace and in relation to that, as well
as what the Orthodox perspective is. Yeah. So, I mean, obviously
the difference though, is that we have two different presuppositions about what grace is.
Right. So for most Protestants, grace is conceived of as a dispositional
change and how God views them. I'm not saying that they don't believe there's
some dwelling of the Holy Spirit. And understand, the most Protestant thing to
the Holy Spirit dwells you and then now that the Holy spirits there, it's
because you are justified by faith, and you know, God has now changed
from the disposition of wrath too. He likes you, know so. But
we have a different notion. I mean, some of that is in our
theology, but we believe grace is an uncreated energy of God. So you
know, very different ideas that work here. So when we say grace and
what the Orthodox Church has in its sacraments, that's what we're talking about,
the uncreated grace of God. So very different from what you you typically would
be thinking of, Right, I guess could you could you elaborate on it?
I mean, like I that's a new concept to me. Right,
So Jesus says, Jesus says in John seventeen that he came to give us
the glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world.
So to partake of the vine glory is not a creature, so that glory
isn't something created, It's an uncreated reality which makes us immortal. So for
us, grace is the gift of the Holy Spirit, namely the divine energy
of immortality, life, uncreated life and immortality. Right, Okay, So
then as far as salvation is concerned, like that is salvation. It is
being resurrected after the image of the resurrected Christ. So Christ's body is made
in that way when he's resurrected, right, So he's resurrected, his flesh
is deified, it's not bound by the limitations of time space, he walks
through walls, he disappears, etcetera. That's the deified flesh that we believe
we're eating in the Eucharist. So the Eucharist is the summation of all of
those Old Testament ceremonies and rituals, litbitical rights. It is the passover of
the Christian and the summation of all the Jewish feasts. What Paul calls in
Hebrews thirteen the altar that we eat from. That's not the altar that the
people at the temple eat at. Okay, So could you could you tell
me like where from an Orthodox perspective, like where does salvation occur for an
individual? Salvation begins with baptism, It's a process of living, and it
ends in final salvation in the resurrection. Okay. So in that case,
is like if somebody's baptized as an Orthodox and they go through all the stuff
that they need to do that um, but they don't of a Orthodox life.
Are they saved or not? No? No, okay, So they
still have that that consecration, sanctification aspect of the lifestyle. Right, Well,
they're part of the church, but they are eventually at whatever point,
whether they in this life or in the next, are cut out of the
Covenant. So they're no longer in the Covenant because they didn't live according to
the stricters of the Covenant. Got it? So could you could you tell
me the Orthodox perspective on the thief on the cross? Yeah, I used
him as an earlier example of somebody who was joined to the mystical body outside
of the normative means of baptism in the Eucharist. This is also before the
institution of baptism, by the way, right, So the when I guess
the institution of baptism would have happened in Matthew twenty eight, I imagine baptized
them in the name of the Father Son of Holy Spirit. So sure,
so, are there's still aspects now? Are still people now that have that
sort of like I don't know? So I already answered that. I already
answered that question when you when you called him before. Maybe you couldn't hear
me, but yes, I answered in the affirmative that there may be people
who are like the Catechumans that are murdered in the early Church, who are
still considered part of the church um and they're baptized by desire, baptized by
blood, or baptized by fire. Those are different baptisms that the early church
fathers talk about. So I guess that's certainly possible. With like when do
you when can you tell if somebody's like salvations? We're not told that,
and so we go by is the public confession of the church. As I
said, how do I know any I don't know. I can't judge into
I can't, okay, so fault, that's okay. I can't judge anybody's
individual cases. I don't I don't know their hearts. It's not my job
to do that, right, Paul says, what do we have to do
with judging those who are without? We judge those that are within. So
God will judge those that are without um, you know, in his way.
But it's our duty to you know, what is it? What does
it say in the Old Testament? Right? The things that are the secret
things belong to the Lord. But the things that are revealed belong to us
in our children, right, And so what's revealed to us while we tell
people to join the Orthodox Church, that's what's revealed to it. I don't
know the secret decree of God and in what ways he can join people to
the mystical body Orthodox Church. Right. So I and I think that I
watched a video of you where it was a tertiary topic where you were talking
about how the disciples came to Jesus and they said, hey, these people
are doing things in your name, and he said, hey, if they're
not against us, there for us. Well, he also says they will
not they will not always be against us, right, And so there's nobody
who can do a miracle in my name who will always be against us.
And if you look in the Book of Acts, it's I think chapters eight
nine and then eighteen and nineteen, you'll find in two cases where the apostles
find disciples of John and disciples of the Lord who were not fully instructed.
And so what they do is bring them under the episcope. They appoint bishops
in those places. So the fact that there are people at that time period
in redemptive history before the establishment of the Church at Pentecost, that's not a
proof of a humanism or the idea that there is no visible church structure,
because Pentecost is still yet to happen. And that's a really important event in
redemptive history. So Pentecost is the real birth of the church, right,
and that's where the church is empowered to go forth. And if you learn
the New Testament, it's very clear that the church is setting up a successive
visible structure which can with authority judge the church. Okay, So in I
think it's Acts nine. If Philip goes and it's the story of the magician
that had some conversion ish Poulis or like he's someone happened with him and he
was actually baptized, then Peter showed up on the scene with that you talk
about Simon, Yeah, yeah, what about it? I I'm just curious
about that because that's so Philip was baptizing people and was talking the Gospel to
them, but then Peter showed up on the scene giving Holy Spirit. So
what I Yeah, that's called Chris Mason. That's Chris that well Chris Mason,
and anointing on the Holy Spirit occurs throughout the book of Acts, right,
But what was Philip not doing that Peter was doing? Well, doesn't
Peter? Isn't there a Chris Mason that occurs? Is that what he lays
hands on it? But like was p Was Philip not like allowed to do
was he not able to do that? Um? Well, what was Philip
a deacon? I'm trying to remember, but he was one of the twelve
if I'm not mistaken. Well, it could be that he wasn't there,
He wasn't endued with or didn't know about, like the full initiation into the
Christian mysteries like Chris Mason. So it's certainly possible he didn't know about Christmason.
Sure, it's not like everybody in the Book of Acts knows the fullness
of what all is coming. Right. For example, Peter has to learn
about the dietary laws, right because in chapter ten, Peter still thinks that
we're supposed to keep the Jewish dietary laws, and God has to give him
the vision of the sheet to convince him. So even Peter doesn't fully know
what's going on. But we do see the principle of the laying on of
hands to receive the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts, and which is
not just ordination, it's also Chris Mason, which is the Orthodox sacrament.
Yeah, I guess I'm not familiar with Chris Nation as the sacrament. Can
you tell me what that is real quick ages, so I know. Yeah,
so this is the anointing that James talks about, anointing with oil,
and it's what we do to I mean, if if an infant is baptized,
has also Christ made it, but it signifies the individual's personal pentecost.
So it's a ritual with holy oil of anointing. That's what we see in
the Book of Acts, right right, right, So okay, so yeah,
I understand that. Um, I guess my question would be like,
because I guess it's circling back into this idea of grace, which you say,
we have differing definitions on them. That's all right, we like so
you have you like, how do you evangelize like into countries that are like
basically all they have, Like when you give them the Gospel, that's literally
all they have. You don't have an orthodox preach priest there to be able
to like give them chrismation. You don't have an orthodox priest there. Okay,
well, I mean people, Okay, so people do the best that
they can. But if you if you know the history of the Church,
it is the church actually setting up churches and ordaining people and doing the liturgy.
So that's the only historical church there is is that this so is prosonism
going out and spreading the gospel. That's not the gospel or not, it's
not the gospel. The gospel is what the totality of the theology Orthodox Church
is the gospel. There's no scale down Romans road. That is the gospel.
Okay, So I see what you're saying. So as far as somebody
if you're if you only have the scriptures, that just say, the canon
the canonical scriptures, So why would we make the exemptions to the rule?
The rule? Here? What I detect here is just this idea that well,
it's lowest common denominator and because somebody like this, so the thief on
the cross, uh, you know, is is saved in a you know,
uh, out of the ordinary way. So that the ordinary now is
the normative way. And it's just that's it's it's reverse, you got it
backwards, like the normative way is not that the normative way is that there's
a historic church that exists from the time of the Apostles that put the Bible
together other and has this ritual that they do called the liturgy, and they
have this introductory right called baptism, and they have chrismation, and they have
all these things that you find the Orthodox Church. So the normative way of
poor like modern ish cultures, right, Like there's a lot of cultures out
there that like going on missions that they don't have those cultures, Am I
correct? Or they don't have that ability like so if like, for instance,
okay, but I mean in the book in the Book of Acts,
in the Book of Acts in the Bibles, and they talk about Christ and
talk about Hey, that's okay, that's good, but none of that's the
gospel, right And even in the Book of Acts they're even told at one
point not to go into Asia minor, the Holy Spirit tells them not to
go into Asia. Mind, I don't know why, but so, um,
you know, the why God's Providence doesn't yet have the Orthodox Church in
certain areas, I don't know. But none of what you're saying really has
anything to do with whether there is a visible public church in history or not.
I'm not trying to be rude to you. I'm just saying, like
the that a Protestant can send a Bible to China, Like, what does
that have to do with whether or not there's a historic visible church or not.
Well, I guess, like I mean, the churches in the first
century started off as like quote unquote house churches. Yeah, but that's yeah.
But when you look into actual liturgical church historians explaining the house churches,
it's not what you think it is. They have altars, right, they
have liturgical baptismal funts, their convert their houses that are like basilicas converted into
churches. So it's not what Protestants think of like this low church thing.
In fact, liturgy is celebrated in those houses. And even Protestants like where
did that precedent start though, because like if you're coming off of the upper
room, you just had everything like land on you, holy spirits on you,
all the type of stuff. They didn't sit there and like right out
like yes they did, Yes they did. The apostles went and they set
up liturgical worship in churches that are like synagogues and temples, so they actual
history of the church is a combination of temple worship and synagogue worship in liturgical
fashion, and the apostles directly borrowed that from the synagogue and the temple liturgies,
and that's unanimous amongst even Protestant history historians of liturgy. So in your
perspective, what is the most effective form of like evangelizing nations or people's the
way the Church did it for the way the Church did it for the first
thousand years and still does it, and it's not the Protestant way. Yeah,
and so we have different ideas of what Christianity is. We have different
ideas. We have different ideas of what Christianity is right for us. It's
not getting them a Bible and getting them into doing their private devotions. It's
living the liturgical rhythm in life of the church to a chief diosis so that
they have a good resurrection. Right, two totally different ideas. Anyway,
I'm not I'm sorry. I just can't keep going. And you're gonna ask
constantly ask questions. I gotta go. I'm super tired. Anyway. All
right, thank you guys. Let's do the super chats. We got quite
a few here, and I'll never get through these if we don't go ahead
and do it. TJ. One Dollar, please do more music and comedy.
I love the cringe court. I'm sure that as the inspiration comes,
there will always be an infinite well of crnch Court, DC wood Working three
dollars, no question, I'm joined the streams, God blessed. Thank you
so much, DC Woodworking, Daniel Brent ten dollars. I enjoy your content.
My family and I, after research in prayer, started attending a local
Antiochian Orthodox church. We enjoyed the service and it was unapologetic and strong.
Do you have any advice for somebody converting? Just keep at it, get
an Orthodox study Bible. A big fan of the Orthodox Study Bible, and
you know, just keep going to church. Daniel Brent five dollars. Follow
up on the request for advice. Are there big controversies I should be aware
of in Eastern Orthodoxy? I would just stay away from the liberal minded clergy
pushing obvious liberal things. So you do that, you'll be good. Majorian
twenty dollars. Do evolutionary atheists have a real argument against social Darwinism or eugenics?
I would say no, I never hear a good one. Maybe there
is some evolutionary proponent who could go in that direction, but you'll notice that
that's all bound up with the history of their thesis. All of them across
the board would decry that. Nowadays at least most of them, not all
of them, but of them would. And you're saying, is it an
arbitrary cope? Absolutely itchy cornhole. Ten dollars. Keep up the good work
of your content. Thank you, Gary twenty five dollars. Related to Jesus
as the logost is it correct to say that logic and mathematics are part of
God's uncreated energies? No, so, logic and mathematics are features of the
created order. They're logical structures that are also created applicable to the created order.
However, they do have their log which they're based on in the Divine
mind, which our logi, which our energies. So the answer is kind
of both. But the number seven is created, but it has a a
grounding in the divine mind, which is the Divine mind, right, little
logi of the number seven? Random user name one, two, three,
four, seven, one five dollars. Can you touch on why polygamy was
outlawed and why because it wasn't the original intention in the garden of Eden?
And I think that Christ is returning us back to what was intended for a
man in the garden. Jay Zuna ten dollars, do you have thoughts on
churches taking government money to feed and place migrants. Yeah, that's a control
mechanism for social engineering and for buying off and politically steering control in the churches.
Is it wrong? Absolutely? P Divine fifty dollars. I love your
stuff. Thank you for the Q and a thank you so much, Pete
Divine. He wins the super chat weapon tonight, ward and right, Terry
seventy seventy five dollars. There's a new papal document affirming the Alexandria document.
Oh good, yeah, we gotta look at that. Um, I'll have
to go into I can't pull up links from stream labs obs, so let
me go over to stream labs and find the original link. Good grief.
It's hot man, I'm sweating in here. People get me all riled up.
Where's the super chests, all the super chets. Let's see here?
Comments creator man, I'll never find this. I want to pull that up
because that's Jamie. Could you turn the air on? It's super hot in
here. Oh dripping dude, Jamie, she's in the bed. Oh as
you can't hear me? Tip history Here we go, Here we go,
press Vatican publication. Yeah, I mean I think Francis already approved of both
the Key eighty document and Alexandrew document. Right. Oh man, it's putting
the whole freaking I don't want all that. I just want that. There
we go. Let's see what this says. Audience with members of delegation from
the Ecumenical Patriarchy, piece of Peter and Paula Pope's address. So here's Francis.
Is it mentioned the Alexandria Document. I wish the good outcome of the
plinary session of the dialogue at the Alexandria Yeah, okay, so there you
go. So Francis is, does Francis call out all the admissions and the
Alexandria document, the basically admitting ninety percent of what Orthodox apologists have been arguing
for the lass thousand years. No, Francis says he's happy with it.
Roman Catholics, were you at? Francis affirms the Alexandria Document, which goes
even further than the Kyaty document. So, Roman Catholics, I don't want
to hear this nonsense that it's not infallible. It doesn't matter because if it's
admitting the heresies of the Orthodox schism Church, then Francis is a heretic.
It's very simple. Doesn't matter what authority Francis puts behind the document. If
the document is teaching heresy, that would mean that Francis is a faughter of
heresy, a supporter of heresy. Thank you for that, Terry Chronicle,
five dollars for your information. The Matt guy makes blasphemous comments about the theat
Tokos. Uh, let's see if we can pull that up. The Matt
guy. I guess that's the Protestant guy that we were just talking to.
Let's see what he says. Man, come on, oh, so on
here the Matt guy. Let's see what the Matt guy says. Oh so
he's mad about icons? Do you lick the image? So? Oh yeah?
Gross? Yeah? So yeah, Well, I mean that's standard Protestant
fair show gun ten dollars. What's your best argument against Orientals? Go watch
David's videos and the interviews that we've done. David and I have done many
interviews on this. They say that the distinctions are caught up anoia. I
know, yeah, we've covered that. Terry seventy seven, five dollars.
Where do you think of John Frame? I don't, I don't really,
I'm not a huge fan of John Frame. I mean, I think that
Apologizes to the Glory of God has has a couple of interesting chapters that were
insightful, But I mean, I just don't think that Calvinists can really do
anything with metaphysics. Right, So you're saying that John Frame can almost seems
orthodox in some ways because the dedication to ban Till and yeah, I mean
again there are overlaps there, but there's just severe deficiencies because they just don't
really get orthodox Trinitarian theology, which would which would really give them a better
metaphysic Mister Anderson, five dollars would you say that Roman Catholic arguing that Moses,
what would you say to Roman Caloicy argue that Moses the type of the
pope? Yeah, I mean this is just a fanciful ice a Jesus,
because I mean, you could make a connection between Moses and the bishopric.
But I mean the New Testament, and you know, the majority of the
apologetics of the Early Church is concerned with Moses the type of Christ. And
really that obsession with finding types of the papacy is a very late development.
It doesn't happen until the controversies over the papacy, particularly if you look at
the history of the after the two rival Eighth councils. So I just read
this really good article on the from Ortho Christian doctor Ford. Let me give
you this. This is a really good article. Here. Let me pull
that up. Yeah, here it is. And the reason I'm bringing this
up is because this article cites a lot of the sources you've seen me side
over the years, the Dragas article, and he goes into he goes into
the relationship of these kinds of disputes after Rome's acceptance of the Phocean Council.
So for two hundred years Rome accepted the Phocian Council, the Eighth Council,
and then later on after the Gregorian reforms. Key element there, key period.
Oh, now we're going to go back and say we accept the Ignation
Council, right, because that has the so called papal claims. And I
wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't connected with that period of the forger. So
there's that article by doctor Ford that I recommend on that. So, in
other words, after this period of the Rome reversing its stance on the Eighth
Council and accepting the ignation eighth Council instead of the Eighth Council. Then they
started to say and need more and more vindications for the new role of the
Bishop of Rome. So oh well, then he's got to be the new
Moses, right, And how can we fish through the scriptures to find Moses
is a type of the pope? Do we find that in the Patristic era?
Not really no, I mean maybe, as Cyprian says, you could
find these Old Testament figures as archetypes of all of the bishops, right Peter,
as the every bishop is Peter, is what Cyprian and many church fathers
say. Augustine says that, right, Terry seventies axcum Golden Arm seventy five
dollars. Well, thank you so much. Are you still working on a
book on Catholicism? Well sort of. I mean all of the essays that
I did got put into the Red Book. So if you want the version
of that, the immediate version of that, this is six hundred pages,
six hundred sixty pages and has about two or three hundred pages dealing with Roman
Catholicism. So you could get the Red Book. But the Red Book was
not made by me. It was all my essays that's funny put together.
So it's not technically my book, even though it is my book, but
it's it's not ideal. It's just kind of slammed together a bunch of essays.
So it really needs to be redone and put into a better format.
And you know, I've learned a lot since I wrote a lot of those
essays. I think most of the essays hold up, but you know,
I've gotten a lot deeper into the energy stuff and you know later synods,
the Palm White synods and so forth. So I've learned a lot since a
lot of those essays, So they would have to be severely updated. But
maybe one day, Terry seventy seven one dollars, I bought Ultimate Proof of
God and Experience of God, Volume one of Stunnylois. Thank you for the
subgestion suggestions. I was a presubsisition reformed person, had the Orthodoxy. Thank
every work. Yeah, absolutely, yeah. You will definitely enjoy Stunnyloy's Orthodox
dogmatics um. And you will notice areas where Dan til overlap of Orthodox the
ann You'll notice the deficiencies in the blind spots where you know, Ventel wasn't
able to get get there. All right, thank you guys so much.
And tomorrow is gonna be fun because we will be uh doing all of Indiana
Jones, not just the new one. We're gonna do them all. So
we had a lot of fun watching all the na Jones and we will have
a good podcast. It'll be fun on that after we go see the new
one. Also, remember head over to chalk dot com choq dot com use
the promo cup j fifty to fifty percent off toncat Alle boosting tessastone, And
as Rachel pointed out, women also can take the toncat Alle. I was
under the impression maybe they shouldn't know. Actually turns out women can take Chalk
dot com if you want to boost those energy levels. It's not actually disadvantageous
to the ladies. So I got showned up by Rachel. There seven wonders
great for mineral deficiency, she lagit, great for mental focusing clarity. Jamie
takes she legit quite often. There's also Action two point zero and all kinds
of other adapted gens over there at chalk dot com that will improve your diet.
They're not magic pills. You have to also have good diet, getting
some good exercise and all that, but it will help you out in terms
of mineral deficiency. So use a Promaco Jay five zero to get fifty percent
off. And Chalk is an excellent red pill based company and they've been our
supporter, our sponsor for two years now. So I don't know where to