Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, okay, but not Aboriginal. So what what's what's
the what's the way to determine who is and isn't one?
Speaker 2: Well, that's what I'm asking because like, well.
Speaker 1: You just said an infant is one, So I mean,
I'm asking what your criteria is.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess, I guess maybe I misspoke. I guess
I don't know, like a human being. I guess, like
it is a baby, Aboriginal, Australian, a human being. I
don't know.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to.
Speaker 1: Well, what I'm asking is if it's an i Q question,
then the baby doesn't make the cut. So a baby's
not there yet, right, maybe even a two year old too, right, Yeah, And.
Speaker 2: That's that was what I said, because I don't take
the IQ thing like the IQ thing, because that's what
my friend said. I'm just like, well that doesn't really
make sense because like what if someone would down center
you know what I mean, Like, what is what?
Speaker 1: What does why does a universal classification of a group
of people necessitate that they're all going to have the
same characteristics or manif stations.
Speaker 2: Well, we're using people again, like these words that I
personally reject, like people.
Speaker 1: On what basis though, Okay, so there's no classes of
things at all.
Speaker 2: Well, there are, but like, what's the justification for throwing say,
I don't know you in the same category as a
fifty eight i Q aboriginal and and the IQ thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, IQ didn't matter? Now it does? Or what?
Speaker 2: No, it doesn't. You're right, I'll take that out. But
then but you agree with me. There are categorizations and
classifications based on biology, like say, like I already said,
like a cat.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're just assuming a reductionist approach. So why
is that the only way to group or class things.
Speaker 2: Uh? Yeah, Like that's a fair point, I guess, But there.
Speaker 1: Is a Let's take a family. A family is a
grouping of people. I believe a family has a real
metaphysical connection between the members. Does it follow from the
fact that they're all grouped in one class of being
in this family, that they're all going to have the
same i Q, the same characteristics, the same traits, the
same gifts.
Speaker 2: No, and I guess.
Speaker 1: So then why in the broader sense of human species
would we expect that it would be that way?
Speaker 2: Because you're used that I don't like the human species.
What does that mean? Because like, even Homo sapiens not
a very it's not a scientific, scientifically robust categorization.
Speaker 1: It's not is family a robust scientific classification?
Speaker 2: I guess not.
Speaker 1: Okay, so there's no universals.
Speaker 2: No, there's universals. But okay, well, so then why don't we?
Speaker 1: And then was the scientific justification for universals?
Speaker 4: My question is I.
Speaker 2: Don't know how to answer that. You got me on
that one. My question is why don't we? Why? Why
isn't extended? And maybe it's a stupid question, but I
just on a gut level, there has to be something
like that.
Speaker 4: There's there's line, I.
Speaker 1: Mean a gut level like that's arbitrary. What I don't
even know what that means? What you think is a
gut level doesn't so what is it? So again, what's
the argument?
Speaker 2: Okay, so there's there's classifications based on biology. A cat
can't go to heaven for lack of a better example.
Speaker 1: Yeah, cat is not a human person.
Speaker 2: Okay, but a human person? What is a human person?
Speaker 1: It's defined theologically and metaphysically based on the Christian worldview.
Speaker 2: Okay, so can you give me that definition?
Speaker 1: H Yeah, it's a being made in the image of
God with a rational soul and a body, and a
and a heart, a noose.
Speaker 2: Okay, so somebody says, I don't believe subsequent Africans fit
that definition. They can't be a Christian, correct.
Speaker 1: H Yeah, you can't say that any human being lacks
the qualities that make that nature what it is. So
basically what you're saying is there are no such things
as Nature's I'm going to is a scientific, biological reductionist category.
But as we've seen in this discussion, you don't actually
apply that consistently. It's just arbitrary.
Speaker 2: What why don't I apply that?
Speaker 1: Because of the arguments that I just made within the
last five minutes about families as groupings.
Speaker 2: Fair play, I still don't. I guess I'd have to
go think about it some more.
Speaker 1: I mean, you understand when you adopt a position, there's implications.
So maybe you haven't thought about the implications. I'm not
being rude to you, I'm just asking, like, so there
aren't there's no such thing as universal human nature. There's
no univer there's no category of collectives at all, or
some of them.
Speaker 2: I just the term human, I think, and maybe I've.
Speaker 1: Been like, so do you follow through with that in
other categories or is it just the word human? And
why is it just the word human? I mean, why
would we not extend this to all classifications?
Speaker 2: Well, I think that the categorization of human is used
in a very different way than any other classification, even
within the Christian framework. Like if you're saying only humans
have souls and can go to heaven, that's like, that's
that sets it apart from any other categorization. Is that
is that incorrect?
Speaker 1: Well, it's unique in that regard, but in other regards
it's similar to classifications because it's a collective grouping. It's
a species. But so are there species or no species?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Definitely, I guess maybe I presented it wrong. Maybe don't
throw out the categorization of human. Just why are some
of these other groups which some people would say, once again,
I don't want to be inflamma.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, amongst dogs, don't you get a variation
of breeds?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 1: So why would so from that, would we throw out
the word dog as a classification because there's variations of
dog breeds?
Speaker 2: No? But okay, so then use the term homo sapien.
Speaker 4: The thing is is.
Speaker 1: Human every you're like you contradict yourself every sentence. So
I'm not understanding, Like, what help me understand what you're
not getting? Because your argument is based on there not
being a classification of human because of the variations amongst
the species. The same argument applied to dogs. You say, no,
don't throw it out. So how is make sense of this?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, like what I just said, human is I
would I would put it apart. Then dog. The categorization
of dog hasn't been politicized or even like religiousized.
Speaker 1: But you're you're now you're look that that's not the
argument that you made as to why it doesn't work.
You said it doesn't work because there's there's traits and
characteristics that aborigines lack, and so yes you did. You
said you mentioned IQ and then you backtracked. So I said, my.
Speaker 2: Friend said that and I rejected it. I asked him.
Speaker 1: So you then again said IQ and then backtracked it
after that.
Speaker 2: Well, if I threw it in, I misspoke. That's not
my contention. My contention is what's the justification for putting aber.
I don't want to pick on Australian that region. It's
just a layer case.
Speaker 1: So again, do you let me just state it for
the fourth time. How is it different from dog breeds?
Speaker 2: It's totally different. I already said, like, dogs don't go
to heaven, so that's why it's different.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, dude, I'm sorry. Like this is a
challenge here because you're having a hard time understanding very basic,
distinct philosophy. The arguments premises are the same in application
between dog breeds in human variation. Of course, it's different
in the sense that a dog doesn't have a soul,
But that's a category era. It's the argument itself, the principles.
You're arguing that because there's differences amongst the variations within
that group, that we have to throw out the grouping.
And so I'm saying, if you apply that same argument
that principle, right, you don't know the difference between the
principle of an argument and the content of the argument.
The content is not relevant here. It's the principle of
that argument applied to a different category. That's why it
illustrates that it doesn't work. It's an inconsistent, arbitrary usage
of this. You don't understand that.
Speaker 2: No, I understand it yet. So are you saying, like
the early Church fathers. What were their writings on this?
They believed like a Subseharan was the same as like, say.
Speaker 1: I don't know, did I say that the same? Are you?
Are you a stupid person? Did you not hear what
I just said for the last five fucking minutes?
Speaker 3: Dude, dude, relax?
Speaker 1: I mean you literally just threw out everything I explained
to you within the last ten seconds. Like, what's the
disconnect here? I just literally told you, like five times
in a row, that it's like dog breeds, that there's
variations amongst the species. And then you just said, did
they say that they're all the same? Do you understand
that something can be the same or united in one
respect and different in another respect? Again, does every member
of a family have the same i Q, the same gifts,
the same characteristics.
Speaker 2: No, but they'd be in the same league for lack.
Speaker 1: Of a better je What do you mean by league? So,
in other words, you can classify things in one sense,
but they can also have differentiation in another way. It's
a both and not an either. You're setting up an
either or m You don't understand this. This is like
a foreign philosophical.
Speaker 2: Concept more well read than me.
Speaker 1: It's not a question. It's it's a it's a ability
to make distinct distinctions. Dude, what do you mean? It's
not a question of being well read.
Speaker 2: I didn't study philosophy. Obviously, I need to pick up
on my foundational whatever. I don't even know the term
for it.
Speaker 1: Of course, do you understand that comparison to a family?
Speaker 2: I do.
Speaker 6: I do.
Speaker 2: It's just it's I guess I'm trying to accept Christianity.
And you can call me any name you want, but
I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not having to call you names. Like
I'm laying out very basic ideas and there's a disconnect
and I'm not understand. It's frustrating because I'm not understanding
where the disconnect is, Like, what is the what is
the disconnect? When I give you the analogy of a father,
a mother, a baby, a grandmother. Let's say the family
has a retarded child. Is that child not a member
of the family because he's retarded?
Speaker 2: No, of course, And this is my this is my question.
But when I guess, I'd say, I look at it
us once again, don't want to go on. I look
at a subseharin. I'm like, that's not part of my family.
Like what because they walk on two feet and they
have like they can.
Speaker 1: Talk, so like the classifications in Christian theology come out
of a metaphysical principle that is not reducible to biology.
Biology is why are you interrupting me?
Speaker 7: Man?
Speaker 1: Biology is just one component of a person. It's not
the only characteristic and component. So you're reducing things to
biological components. But you can't even tell me what the
biological component is because it's not IQ. So then what
is it?
Speaker 2: I don't know. That's why signed on and asked even
but but that's but that's not even true. And correct
me if I'm wrong there is distinctions based on biology.
Speaker 1: Because did I say that there's not just that? What
the dude? I mean? I'm I didn't say there's not
distinctions based on biology. I said that you can't have
a reductionist cat. This is I can't even this is
just too stupid, man, I can't do it. Okay, awesome, Brantley,
what's up? I mean, if you can't make basic philosophical distinctions,
it's not gonna work. I just I don't understand if
you make four or five different analogies and the person
is just too stupid to get it. I don't know
what to say. What's up?
Speaker 8: Man?
Speaker 1: The assumption seems to be that you can only classify
things one way, and if there's differences amongst those classes,
then there's no class, which is just like it's too
stupid to even. It's too stupid to even. I mean,
there's there's differences between males and female. Right, Let's have
a high IQ white woman and a high IQ white dude. Well,
they have pretty significant differences. One has a penis, one
has a vagina, and totally different inner pipe workings. Oh well,
I guess that there's no such thing as male and
female now because you can't. You can't classify male and
female as together part of the human species. It's just
Luco me and Doras, Me and Doras. When you explain
something like five times with five different analogies, what's up?
What's funny is that like that guy thinks he's superior
when he literally has the IQ maybe a little bit
above the sub Saharan African. What's up?
Speaker 4: Hello? Ye all right, is there a specific thing you
wanted to debate since you asked me to?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, the other one talking a bunch of shit,
So why don't you make good on your claims?
Speaker 9: Oh?
Speaker 3: Which claim?
Speaker 4: Because I was supposed to just make fun of him.
I wasn't like making a theological argument, So.
Speaker 1: You don't actually have an argument against any of my positions.
Speaker 10: You just have jokes I wasn't making I was just
making fun of fun of him for converting about over instance.
Speaker 4: And then he said, asked.
Speaker 10: Me to debate you, Suah, I do have the the
theological disagreements with you.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to there's something you want to talk
about because I have a couple questions for you.
Speaker 10: All right, So why why did the Orthodox reject PSA
penis substitutionary toment and original sin?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: PSA is anti trinitarian?
Speaker 4: First of all, all right, could you explain that?
Speaker 1: Sure? Do you believe that Jesus was damned on the
cross like most of the classical reformers.
Speaker 4: Damned on the cross to to pay the debt?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: He paid the debt?
Speaker 1: Okay? Was the debt damn nation?
Speaker 4: Dam nation to hell?
Speaker 1: Mm hmm yeah, okay. So Jesus is a divine person
and the Father damned him? Yeah, okay, So how does
does that split the trinity?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Okay, So Jesus is damned by the father, but it
doesn't split the trinity. Yes, how does that work? Did
the father cease to endwell the son?
Speaker 4: The father cease to dwell the son?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Oh, so the father went to hell too, No.
Speaker 4: Because only the person of Jesus went to hell.
Speaker 1: But the father dwells the person of Jesus.
Speaker 4: The Orthodox don't think Jesus.
Speaker 1: You're not going to answer it. Don't change the question.
Explain to me what you what you mean by TSA.
Why are you changing the subject.
Speaker 4: I'm not trying to change the subject.
Speaker 1: You are. I'm explaining to you why it's an anti trinitarian,
blasphemous doctrine. So you just told me Jesus was damned.
The father still in dwells the son. But the father's
not damned. Yes, the father is not damned, okay, but
he dwells the son, does he? You know what the
doctrine of Paracorisa says? Okay, So you don't know basic
Christian theology, but you're here to tell me what's right
and what's wrong. So how does the father cease to
dwell the son if he's not going to be in
hell with the son?
Speaker 4: He doesn't cease to the son, I.
Speaker 1: Said, okay, So then he goes to hell with the son.
Speaker 10: And I guess his being his being?
Speaker 1: So who's damning who?
Speaker 4: The father damns the son to hell?
Speaker 1: Okay? Is the Holy Spirit damned too?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Okay, so hot? But I thought the trinity do the
does the do the persons in dwell one another?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: Okay? So when the Holy Spirit and the Father are
in dwelling the son, are they in dwelling him in hell?
Speaker 7: Well?
Speaker 10: Not everything that happens to the son happens to the father.
In some sense, it does, but you can't, but you
wouldn't say that.
Speaker 1: Did the father turn his will against the son?
Speaker 4: The father turns will against the son?
Speaker 1: Yes? Okay? So how many wills are there in the trinity?
Speaker 4: Now, I'd say one?
Speaker 1: But uh, oh, wait a minute, how does their one will?
When the father the father turns his will against the son, and.
Speaker 10: The father turns his will against the son to send
the son to hell? Will the son is submitting to go.
Speaker 4: To hell with him?
Speaker 1: So how many wills do?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 1: You just said he turned his will against the son.
So is there too will.
Speaker 2: Turn the son?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 4: Because the son's will Is.
Speaker 1: So you're insane. So you've blasphemed. You've blasphemed God right
now by saying that Jesus is damned to hell, which
nobody taught until your heretic Martin Luther taught it. And
that's to rescue this ridiculous idea that the payment is
paid by the person paying off another person. So you
think that the father is paid off by damning the son.
Speaker 10: But the father is paid off. I don't know if
I would paid off, but like Satis.
Speaker 1: So you don't believe in penal substitutionary talement and the
paying of the infinite debt.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, okay, find yes, I would saying that he did.
Speaker 5: Pay them off.
Speaker 1: Okay, so there's payment between the father and the son,
and this is still trinitarian. Who pays the spirit?
Speaker 4: Who pays the spirit?
Speaker 3: What do you mean?
Speaker 1: This is there there are things that happen in the
trinity that is between two persons and not between three.
Speaker 4: No, I guess not.
Speaker 1: Okay, So who paid the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 4: Who paid the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 9: Well?
Speaker 1: I guess this is why p s A is blasphemous
and insane.
Speaker 10: So you want to move on put in the payment
be between all of them, because they're all slighted.
Speaker 1: All they're all paying. That makes a lot more sense.
Speaker 10: The son pays the debt to the being of God,
to the Father, the Father in like a direction sense,
but the whole being of God slighted.
Speaker 1: So there's a debt to the being of God. Jesus
pays the debt to the Can you name anybody that
taught this before Luther? No, I'm not going to name
it right because nobody taught it because you believe in
a stupid heresy. That's one I would say, where do
Where did Paul teach that Jesus paid a debt to
the being of God?
Speaker 4: Probably Romans five?
Speaker 1: Okay, I got Romans five? Here? Can you explain where
in Romans five there's anything like that?
Speaker 4: All right? Uh, this is one chapter or so let
me look through it real quick.
Speaker 1: So you're not familiar with basic Christian Trinitarian theology. You
didn't know what pair of cariesis was. But you're gonna
tell me that Jesus is damned by the Father, the
Father and the Spirit and dwell him, but they're not damned.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, I'm gonna say what my church teaches.
Speaker 2: I'm not going, what is it?
Speaker 1: What is your church?
Speaker 4: The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran said.
Speaker 10: It, Okay, I mean like, just because I'm not.
Speaker 1: Like you don't know anything. Where in Romans five is
the paying of damnation debt to the being of God.
Speaker 10: I'm trying to find the second Adam verse, but I'm
bringing a point by point which.
Speaker 11: Is not.
Speaker 1: How does second Adam teach you that Jesus paid a
damnation debt to the being of God?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 10: So since I'm not finding it right now, by one
man uh entertained and then through one man all we're
all forgiven?
Speaker 4: Is my para face the diavors.
Speaker 1: What is Where does that say that Jesus paid a
damnation debt to the being of God.
Speaker 4: Because he reconciled us.
Speaker 1: None of that says anything about paying a damnation debt
to the being of God. That doesn't even make sense.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 10: Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification in life
for all people. For just as through the disobedience of
one man, and that many were made centers souls of
the obedience of the one man.
Speaker 1: Where does that say that, where does that say that
the divine person of the Son went to Hell?
Speaker 4: Okay, so last time you got upset when I asked
this question.
Speaker 1: But I'm not upset your Your statements are just insanely
heretical and you don't even realize what you're saying.
Speaker 10: All right, but this is kind of uh, this is
important to discussion. You don't think that Jesus send it
to hell because.
Speaker 1: I think no, I believe what the Church thought that
descent into Hades is where he went. You believe that
he was damned by the Father. You're a blasphemer. I
believe that he went to Hades to preach the gospel,
as Peter said, yeah he was yeah, yeah, No, he
went to Hades because he went there to destroy the
power of death. He was not damned by the Father.
You anti trinitarian inherited?
Speaker 4: Is it a that's christas victor?
Speaker 3: Right what you this?
Speaker 1: But that's called right, Yeah, that's not the doctrine that
he was damned by the Father. He went to Hades willingly,
not because he was damned. You can't split the trinity.
You just said the Father damned him against You said
the Father turned his will against the son. Thus it's
not willingly, but the son goes willingly, then how then
why would the father turn his will against the son?
You literally just said that, all right.
Speaker 10: And if somebody asked you to do something that you
didn't want to do, but you wanted to do it
for them, in some sense.
Speaker 4: Your will is against that.
Speaker 1: But in another way, you're just you have no idea
what you're talking about. So this is this is the
people that talk Tomac all day long at me on
Twitter and then when they come they have no idea
what they're talking about.
Speaker 12: Yep, oh, hey, jing, quick questions if you quick questions.
Speaker 3: So I'm a raised Roman Catholic.
Speaker 2: I've been going to an Orthodox church for about a year.
Speaker 12: But I got some questions just I want to do
my due diligence on Catholicism just before I make any
big decisions for some personal reasons. But okay, the biggest,
the biggest thing that I'm kind of struggling with right now,
just because in talking to a lot of Catholics, the
energies kind of comes up as a thing that I
think about a lot, or the Theophanes in terms of
understanding the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Speaker 4: So I know that it's been said that.
Speaker 12: Like the Tomism is the official philosophy of the Catholic Church.
Is that still true or is that was that in
a like a I can't really find a document on that.
Speaker 3: Do you know?
Speaker 1: Yeah, in cyclical it's famous in cyclical Attorney Patras, Okay,
but it doesn't know, they don't really care. So most
of the Roman Catholics in the Vatican and the academic world,
many of them might appreciate Thomas Aquinas, but they don't
really care about medieval Tomistic stuff anymore. They're largely modernists.
They don't care about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 12: So, because I was looking at the Catechism and I
was trying to see what it said about the Theophanes,
and it didn't really give a clear answer of whether
it was a creative effector or whether it was christ.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, but they've already dogmatized that there's no
uncreated energies and that Grace itself is created so of necessity.
They will all tell you, as Tim Gordon says in
the debate, that it's a creature.
Speaker 12: Is that and then that that comes from trench right,
the document of Creed to Grace or is that somewhere else.
Speaker 1: It's in several places, but Trent is one of the places.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, sounds good.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Absolutely, yeah. The the official doctrine
of Tonism, as the official philosophy is Attorney Patris of
Leo the thirteenth and I forget what year this was,
eighteen hundreds or something, eighteen seventy nine, Attorney Patras. Now,
who's not voilable. So you know, I don't guess it
really matters. I like I mean, in other words, in
Roman Catholicism, it's just another type of Protestantism where you
pick and choose what type of Roman Catholicism you want
it to be. You want to be you want Pacha
Mama with rainbow flags, you got it. You want to
pretend that you're a medieval crusader wearing templar gear, you
got it. It's whatever you want it to be. Man Brantley,
what's up? Shout out to Biaggio became a member. What's up?
Speaker 13: Man, Hey, j I am curious to hear your opinion
about the authority of the septuagen I come from a
Protestant background, so.
Speaker 2: My family didn't even know that it.
Speaker 3: Was a Schofield Bible.
Speaker 2: So like, why is.
Speaker 14: It that the Orthodox have kept that tradition in their
Bible and it's been completely lost through falsism and Protestantism
Because I'd just recently gotten into it reading the septuagen
and there's like pretty remarkable discrepancies.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, the early church fathers believe that it was
a better, more reliable text of the Old Testament, like
Justin mart and Aaron A has discussed this, because they
would argue that what's called the Masoretic or the proto
Masoretic text, that it would have been interpreted and retranslated,
so to speak, to tone down anything that would refer
to Christ. So that's there's a book by W. Jtenowit.
There's a book called Rebooting the Bible on this that's
about the history of the septuagen and why it's in
the Orthodox Church. It's a good book on this. But yeah,
the other reason is that most of the time and
when the apostle are citing the Old Testament and their epistles,
they're almost always citing those subtu agent.
Speaker 14: And so when they're not, which is like what less
than ten percent, what are.
Speaker 1: They citing well, Matthew, for example, because his audience is Jewish,
is going to cite the He cites what we call
the what's the proto masoretic text?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 14: Yeah, I would just encourage anybody lifting who's like just
getting into this to pay attention to it, because I
think for me personally, the most striking, the most striking.
Speaker 2: Removal is the final line of job.
Speaker 4: Do you know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 1: I don't remember that one. What's that one?
Speaker 14: The final line of job and septuagint is and so
it is written that he will rise up again among
the rest that the Lord chooses. I mean, it's basically
like a resurrection body imagery. It was totally striking to me.
And that's the final verse that that would be removed.
Speaker 1: I didn't even know that the masret texts had a
different ending there. That's interesting.
Speaker 2: It's just happy and full of days.
Speaker 14: That's it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's all I was wondering.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it. I'm looking at the Mazaret or the The
last verse I see is his friends that came to
were elephas.
Speaker 3: He saw.
Speaker 1: The king of Timanites, Bill Dad, so far, et cetera.
So what versus this? Okay, maybe it's it's seven, it
was verse seventeen, it's eighteen. Maybe when Joe died he
was old and full of days. It is written, he
will rise with those whom the Lord resurrects. Okay, eighteen, Okay, gotcha.
Speaker 14: Yeah, I mean that's that's pretty uh, that's pretty striking
imagery to not survive, you know, And and the and
the mt post dates the Septugen by what.
Speaker 2: Almost one thousand years?
Speaker 4: One thousand plus years?
Speaker 11: M M.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I don't even know if
we know exactly what the data of the Masoretic is,
but it's you know, it's post post Christ.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So that the book that you're that you would
probably want to get a hold of, which is good
is this book here called Rebooting the Bible by Doug Woodward.
But great, great point there, Corey. What's up?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: So Jake, can you hear me? Hey, dude?
Speaker 15: So, first of all, last time I called in, it
was just really great, and I appreciate everything that you
said to me.
Speaker 2: I just I really have kind of ran with it.
Speaker 15: So I'm pretty much convinced. I'm a Presbyterian for those listening,
but I'm convinced of the essence energies distinction, especially.
Speaker 2: When it comes to Old Testament Theophanes.
Speaker 15: It really only makes sense to me that there could
be physical manifestations of God if it.
Speaker 4: Were his energies.
Speaker 15: But I'm thinking in the New Testament context when it
comes to the transfiguration, how is it that Moses and
Elijah are able to be shown in physical form if
technically they're kind of dead in an intermediary state, and
like Moses is buried somewhere, how does that work?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, people can appear in a form you have,
you know, Samuel appearing in the Book of Kings to Saul.
So the fact that a person is is is a
spirit doesn't mean they can't appear.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I guess it's it's just kind of hard for me.
Hard for me to separate physical body from spirit. I
guess it's it's weird. I can't imagine like a spirit
having eyes to see your witness or a mouth to talk.
Speaker 2: It's just I try to try.
Speaker 15: And create a way in which it could be.
Speaker 2: I just want to know the way.
Speaker 1: In which it happens. What I mean, Angels can appear, yeah, true.
Speaker 15: And I guess, And I guess angels, depending on what
your interpretation, they can physically interact with humans.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, I mean Hebrews says that people have entertained
angels unaware, So yeah, of course they can physically interact.
They do throughout the Bible.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, I guess.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that maybe a lot of times people
have an assumption that somehow the word spirit or something
being quote spiritual means that it's quote anti anti physical,
and that's not actually the Biblical view. It's more of
a Gnostic view.
Speaker 15: Yeah, so you couldn't throw out the idea that perhaps
whenever they were up on the mount, that it was
kind of like a rift in time and you were
actually seeing them when they were currently alive, and you know,
Jesus is just kind of showing himselves as a creator
of the cosmos in time and everything else. But or
is actually happening in that moment years after they were dead,
and they were just spiritually.
Speaker 1: Benefitted, not dead. They're alive to God and they're worshiping
and in the presence of Christ at all times.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, I understand.
Speaker 1: So to be just because we're severed from our body
doesn't mean that we have no form exactly how that works,
we don't know, but a good question. It's brosey, Jay,
you should pay all of up taxes because we're getting
wage cut. Rob, Well, taxes should just go away. What's up, dude?
Are you there?
Speaker 3: And I got a quick question.
Speaker 9: You made a post about something a couple of weeks
ago about Max was the Confessor's two hundred Chapters of Theology.
Speaker 2: I wanted to understand what you were saying.
Speaker 9: I actually just bought the book, and so what you're
saying that the first five chapters where he was writing
was that.
Speaker 2: The as that the usia the asses of.
Speaker 9: God is not is not actualized, but the energies are.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 1: I didn't say the inner there. I said. He says
within the first five pages that we name God in
two different ways. We name God in contrast to creatures,
and in that sense, he could be called the first cause.
But within the Trinity, in the intratrinitarian life, you can't
call God or call the Father the first call, the
first actualizer. So there's it's naming God in two different
ways in himself and in contrast to creatures. Is what
I said.
Speaker 9: Okay, got you got you awesome? It was what you
said it was. It was pretty helpful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so the reason that matters is that Roman
Catholics will name God in they will collapse those two senses,
and that's where you get things like Philly oquick.
Speaker 2: Awesome.
Speaker 9: Yeah, when you had posted that, I just bought the book,
and so I can much appreciated when you said, when
you say first five pages.
Speaker 2: You're talking about this. The actual pages are like this,
the chapters.
Speaker 3: It was like the numbering.
Speaker 1: Well, when you read the first few pages of Maximus's
actual writing, not the introduction by the scholar whoever translated
the actual writing of Maximus, the first five pages makes
the argument that we name God in two different ways.
Speaker 3: Right, Okay, I do remember reading that.
Speaker 2: Awesome, Well, much appreciate, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Good question. Glad you got Glad you got that book.
Speaker 3: That's good.
Speaker 1: Here bird, what's up man? Oh the way, if you
want to call in, you can call in here on
X right here. What's up bird?
Speaker 4: Hey, appreciate what you do.
Speaker 16: I've been a Christian for about a year now. I
live in a really rural area. There's no Orthodox churches
near me. My wife and I ended up going to
an Episcopal church that I would say is sort of
more on the traditional side of that. But I want
to get your take on going to a little o
Orthodox Episcopal church. And I haven't really heard you talk
about homosexuality, uh, and whether you can be in communion
with openly gay or you.
Speaker 1: Know, what are you talking about. I'm just tweeted about
it today, like, what do you mean? I never thought, no,
you can't go to an openly gay Episcopal church and
you know, of course not Penguin. What's up totem poll
sixty nine dollars. I want to do a magga debate
on the Book of Genesis. Is it real history or
is it metaphorical? This will sort sheep from the goats.
Are you up for it? I mean, I don't see
you in the chat, but Collin.
Speaker 3: Hi jam yep.
Speaker 4: I wanted to ask.
Speaker 17: I've been Protestant for majority of my life, and now
I kind of started inquiring a sort of traditional faith.
But I'm from like a Catholic country right that there's
Catholic churches everywhere.
Speaker 4: And I'm sending a Catholic church.
Speaker 17: I'm not baptized, though, but I'm getting into Orthodoxy as well,
and I.
Speaker 4: Just wanted to kind of ask.
Speaker 17: You because the reason I'm thinking about Orthodoxy is you know,
all the scandals in the Catholic Church with like the
Pride ray and stuff. But I'm just not sure, right,
I'm not sure, and I don't want to convert.
Speaker 5: I don't I don't want to.
Speaker 4: Become Orthodox just because of like political reasons.
Speaker 17: Sure, So I'm just kind of in this, like you know,
in between stage and I'm not sure where to go,
you know, And because I like a lot of things
about Catholicism.
Speaker 4: I like the churches, I like the history and all
that stuff.
Speaker 1: But yeah, well, I mean, is there a specific issue
that you want to discuss or I mean I would say, yeah,
I would actually encourage you to take your time.
Speaker 17: What some advice, you know, like what what what would
you what would you do in my situation?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, obviously I think orthodoxy is true. Is
I'm going to tell you to continue to pursue that.
But you know, there might be some challenges if you're
in like, you know, Brazil or something. I don't know
where you are but from.
Speaker 4: I'm from Slovakia, but I'm in Sugar right now.
Speaker 1: Oh, I think you can in European most European countries
you can find a good Orthodox church. So it might
have to go a little ways or something. But again, yeah,
we just keep seeking it, keep praying about it, and
visit orthodox church. That's the number one thing. Don't treat it,
don't treat it as something purely intellectual. But go and
actually check out an Orthodox church and spend some time there.
See which one vibes with you. Gauge what's up? Where's
the guy that wants to debate totem where you're at?
Gauge what's up?
Speaker 3: Hey?
Speaker 18: What's up?
Speaker 11: Ja?
Speaker 2: So I'm an ex Catholic.
Speaker 6: I've been going to define liturgy at an Antiochian parish
here in Texas on and off for the past year.
I'm pretty convinced of Orthodoxy, if I know, and I'm
ready to start going more consistently and become a cate Ofcuman.
I'm looking at the handouts for the catecumulate classes. I'm
looking at one about Mary in particular, and I'm a
little anxious about some of the language in it, and
i was hoping you could explain it to me.
Speaker 1: I have a talk on all the Mary stuff. So
rather than I'm not trying to be rude, but rather
than like rehearsing the whole thing done many times. You
can watch my Mary video.
Speaker 19: Okay, do you.
Speaker 6: Discuss the idea of Mary as mediatrix?
Speaker 1: No, But I mean, I'm not aware I'm familiar with
that in Catholic theology. Is that in I've never heard
that in the Orthodox liturgy.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's the part of the section here that I'm
looking at that makes me a little anxious. It just
sounds very Catholic to me, like very Megrigorian Garbin Doll
kind of thing. And I was wondering if that's just
like Catholic marry ology, she's kind of sneaking into Orthodoxy
kind of through the back door. Or is that is
that a term that Orthodoxy has in its tradition but
maybe has.
Speaker 3: A different meaning.
Speaker 1: I've never heard. I mean, it could be just I
don't know what the print out is or where he's
pulling from. But I've never heard an Orthodox person use
this terminology. I've only heard it in Roman Catholic circles.
I think it's an odd, ambiguous term, so I wouldn't
use it. But I also wouldn't, you know, I wouldn't
make that like a reason not to become Orthodox because
you know, there's always there's always going to be in
your catechsis some you know, imperfections. You're going to get
people that are not perfect in their theology. So I
wouldn't make that alone an issue. But are you sure
it's the term mediatrix?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know.
Speaker 6: It discusses, you know, different ways of preferring to me.
You know, theo tocos ever virgin. One of them says
mediatrix and queen of heaven. And it has a collection
of quotes mostly from like I see one from Losky,
a couple from Gregory Palomas.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've just never I've just not seen a quote
about mediatrix. So I don't know about that, but yeah,
I wouldn't. I would just say, watch my merry video
and the rest of the terms I think or no
big deal. I would have some hesitations about mediatrix. But Willie,
what's up, Willy? You want to I'm mute?
Speaker 18: Yeah, hey, so I hope you think you're hearing me
clearly on outside right now. But I am an Orthodox,
but I have an objection. I would say, or a
confusion rheteran the essence energy distinction, so our noose or
our ability to reason is dependent on our enlightened noose
correct or is it incorrect?
Speaker 1: No, the heart is not the reasoning faculty.
Speaker 18: All right, Well, that my entire objection just pretty much
falls away. So then you will say them that it
is all growning in the logos, right or but it's
it's a reason.
Speaker 1: Or our ability to reason is part of our human nature.
It's a faculty that we faculty that we have that
is part of what it is to be human. So
dogs do not have the faculty of reasoning to degree
that humans have it. So when we say that Christ
has human nature, his human nature is body, mind, soul, will,
and soul is a rational soul according to the Church fathers.
So reasoning as a faculty is a property or a
trait of human nature.
Speaker 4: All right, clear, think of them? That was all that
a God blessure, Thank you.
Speaker 1: We had good questions, Jason, what's up?
Speaker 2: Hey, j can you hear me? So I had I
guess a couple of questions to start off with with
this one, and we'll see where we go from there.
Speaker 4: I was just curious.
Speaker 2: Because I know in Orthodox Church every bisheckt is equal.
Speaker 20: How does Orthodoxy justify the unresolved schism over Ukraine and
contain and noble who decides, like how does how do
they figure out which synod is right?
Speaker 3: Basically is that kind of right?
Speaker 1: So, as Orthodox we believe that in time, these kinds
of disputes get resolved. For example, there was a recent
schism and I think it was Macedonia that had happened
for a century, and it was resolved through sinodyl Church government,
the same way that in most of church history schisms
have been solved, not through a single autocratic papacy, but
through time and through synods. So time is what we
would appeal to in terms of vindication, and in your
own situation in the cow Play Church, this is actually
how it happened in the first thousand years for the
most part.
Speaker 3: All right, awesome, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Aaron. What's up?
Speaker 4: Hello, Hey, Jay, what's up?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I just got two quick questions.
Speaker 21: So basically, I'm starting to look into Orthodoxy.
Speaker 4: And I was on the phone.
Speaker 21: With somebody the other day and they were basically trying
to dissuade me from going Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 4: And he said something about.
Speaker 21: Eastern Orthodox started in like six hundred or seven hundred ad.
Speaker 4: You know anything about that?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's really really dumb. I mean I don't like,
you know, I mean, we can read all the people
before six hundred, So I don't like. I think, I
think you need smarter friends. But would no, I never
heard this argument. That's a funny one, right, And one
more question. I would say, just go read people like
Saint Athanasius, read the Cappadocians, read you know, John Chris System.
I mean, those are people before the year six hundred.
Speaker 4: Okay, all right, one more quick question.
Speaker 22: How should I respond to someone who doesn't care what
the church fathers say because they could all be wrong?
Speaker 1: Well could they be wrong about the Bible because they're
the ones that decided what books go into the Bible.
So that's a double edged sword that they probably don't
want to accept that, but they'd have to to be consistent.
So just hit them with the cannon dog. Vincate, vinca tash.
You want to umute? What's up?
Speaker 3: Can you?
Speaker 23: Ye?
Speaker 11: So?
Speaker 24: Yeah, I was anquering about the Christian faith and basically
I have a question about the divinity of Christ.
Speaker 2: So what is the.
Speaker 24: What qualifies Christ has given for you? I mean, is
it the resurrection or is it the miracles he performed?
Speaker 3: What is exactly the thing?
Speaker 1: Uh? He's the eternally begotten son of the Father from
all eternity.
Speaker 2: Like, how can you.
Speaker 24: Determine it from his human life?
Speaker 7: Uh?
Speaker 1: No, I don't argue that he's divine because he has
a human nature. I argue that he's divine because he's
revealed as the eternally begotten son of God. And John one.
Speaker 24: But it is the account of John Great.
Speaker 3: How did John wan about this?
Speaker 4: Is Christ divinity?
Speaker 1: How did he know about any he it was spent
years with him as a disciple.
Speaker 24: Yeah, so that's what what made him think that Christ.
Speaker 1: Was given because he knew and in person and he Well,
another way to see this is that he fulfills dozens
and dozens of prophecies from the Old Testament.
Speaker 24: Uh uh huh, so like being born in Bethlehem.
Speaker 1: And there's dozens and dozens of them. Most of the
psalms are all prophecies of Christ. Half of the Book
of Isaiah's chapters are about Christ and prophecies about him.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 24: But uh, the main thing I was hiring Christians and
confessions of what was any person could be performing the miracles.
Speaker 1: That's why I said it's not just miracles. I never
made the argument that miracles or the proof of his divinity.
They're an evidence and an attestation to it. But other
prophets and other holy Men have have done miracles. So
that's why the proof has to be all of those
specific prophecies. Look up the Messianic prophecies and see that
there's not just two or three, there's many of them.
And what's up? Yeah, I mean most of the Book
of Isaiah like prophecies of Christ. And what's up? I mute?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 25: Hello, uh huh, hey, Jay, I had a question, not
much of a debate here, but I'm having some problems here.
Speaker 1: I thought, you mom, are you ann? Are you a
male or a female?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 4: I'm a male.
Speaker 25: I'm just a fan of Anne Culcher.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, never mind, gotcha, go ahead.
Speaker 25: But okay, Well, personally, I'm having some problems here at
my local parish as well as at home with my parents.
I guess I'll start with my mom first. She's a
very very heavy Protestant person right now, and every time
she sees my icons or anything, he starts to get
mad at me and starts to tell me all these
weird different things, and I was wondering what advice you
can give me to help me with that.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, don't argue with your parents, to try to
love them and be sweet to them, because they're never
going to You're never going to argue your parents at
a position. Guys, we're taking calls today if you disagree,
So it's not private advice day. I'm not mad at
that guy. I'm just saying, like, that's not what we're
doing today. We're not doing practical wisdom day. It's if
you're a Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, Mormon, Anglican, or anything else
else and you disagree, that's what we're doing today. Paul,
what's up.
Speaker 4: Hello? Yeah.
Speaker 26: I would say, like I identify with about I'm an
inquirer for Orthodoxy. I would agree with probably ninety percent
of the theology and stuff like the philioque and the iconography.
But I feel like this is an objection I've heard
from some Protestants that like, if you go into one
of the true churches, you're still using your own interpretation
every day to grant yourself to be in that church.
Speaker 4: Like, isn't it kind of like the same thing with Protestants.
Speaker 1: No, it's different because it's the means that are different.
Everybody's going to be interpreting the text as an individual directly, yes,
But the difference between you and a Protestant, or between
us and a Protestant or a Roman Catholic, is that
we have different means. We use the Holy Spirit guiding
us through scripture, tradition, councils, church fathers, et cetera. Protestants,
it's the scriptures and the Holy Spirit. For Papists it's
the pope's teachings and the Holy Spirit. So at the
end of the day, everybody's in the same boat. Where
we differ, where we disagree is the means. And that's
why we have to look to history to see, well,
what were the means that were used in the first
thousand years. Did everybody just default to the pope? Did
everybody read their own private Bible scrolls, or did they
go to the local Orthodox Catholic church. So, guys, today
I'm looking for people to disagree. So it's not the
day for basic inquirer questions. What's up, man, Oh my bad,
what's up?
Speaker 27: I kind of just had a well to start off with,
I'm a cdic human. I've been going to an Orthodox
church for about a year, and I've watched.
Speaker 2: A good amount of your stuff, and I would say
that I've.
Speaker 4: Learned a decent bit.
Speaker 27: I came from an evangelical background, so it's a there
was definitely a lot of baggage I had to shut
off and something like it's I mean, granted, like like
I said, I'm I good when Orthodox Church.
Speaker 4: I submit to the teaching. It's just kind of something
that I.
Speaker 2: May need more clarification on.
Speaker 27: Is just like the whole Like certain Protestant apologists online
like doctor Gavin ort Lyn and.
Speaker 28: Stuff like that.
Speaker 27: They'll dispute, Uh, what is it the story of the
door mission of the thea tokos Because like they'll they'll
bring up things. You know, well, if this is such
a huge big thing, why was it like never mentioned before?
Speaker 4: Said year after?
Speaker 1: Just to apply the same argument to the canon of scripture.
If solar scripture is the foundation of the church as
they believe, then why wasn't there a fixed canon of
scripture from day one? Why didn't Jesus fix the canon?
So just take their double standard and apply it to them. Gorbon,
what's up?
Speaker 4: Hello?
Speaker 1: Hija.
Speaker 22: I don't have an argument per se, but I'm not Orthodox,
I'm not Catholic or anything. I just noticed this interesting
difference between the beliefs. The Last Supper you have in
Orthodoxy they have leaven bread, they have risen live bread,
and then for Catholicism they have those fucking wafers that
have the stamp on them, right, and they put it
up to the sun with the monstrance. It's like an eclipse,
but it's a fucking wafer instead of the moon.
Speaker 4: You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Anyways, Yeah, I mean, I don't think it's supposed to
be directly anything to do with worshiping the sun, but
I think that they you know, the Jesuits were big
promoters of the idea and the counter reformation of eucharistic adoration,
which I think is Orthodox we really see as nonsensic
because outside of the context of the liturgy and the
communal celebration, it really doesn't make sense to have the
separate devotional service where we all just come and worship
the host. It just it just doesn't make sense. But
the motivations that the Jesuits had to do that was
to combat Protestantism in the counter in the period of
the counter Reformation. Caleb, it's not a fish hat.
Speaker 5: What's up, man, Hi, I just wanted to make a
quick comment on the on the whole thing that's been
happening with like cleave to antiquity.
Speaker 2: I noticed something that you had brought up before.
Speaker 5: In a video that I mean a lot of these
like online Protestant dudes will like try to act like
they're so pious and so holy and so nice, like
so much nicer than you. Once something like this happens.
I mean, they were touting this guy as like the
biggest like Protestant apologist out there. Yeah, and then now
that he's like going through this process, it's like all
the slander. Like I've never talked to non dy Nams ever. Again,
I'm never having anyone on my channel that's not like educated,
like all this like nasty stuff, but it really exposes
like a lot of their true character.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's uh, I appreciate that you notice that, and
you know, it's good to hear that that he's made
this move towards Orthodoxy, and I hope he you know
continues and he you know comes into the church and uh,
I think that's it's it takes a lot to admit
that you're wrong, and you know that you're gonna get,
you know, a lot of this heat, You're gonna get
a lot of hate, a lot of flak. I was
looking for that video, but it's not popping up.
Speaker 5: Yeah, But like I mean, guys like like Riden Zumer,
who's like obviously very young and whatnot. Like I even
noticed he took down his his original video about cleeved antiquity,
and it's like very upset about him, and it's.
Speaker 4: Not uniquely him, Like there're a lot of them are.
Speaker 5: All doing this right where it's just like we'll will
like sort of idolize this guy and like prop him
up when when.
Speaker 2: We need him.
Speaker 5: But now all of a sudden, he's like he smelled
his way to Orthodoxy or he's just like he's some
uneducated nandy nam you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well he was fine, you know, a month ago,
and now he's he's the worst thing ever. Right So yeah, good,
good point. Caleb, appreciate that. Yeah, I think it does
show kind of the hollow nature of the criticism of
oh DIYers is mean when you know now they're all
extremely mean because you know they're one of their heroes
has converted. But temple are five dollars day. I have
a Greek church in Oca church. I visited both. I
like the priests. What do you recommend? I mean, you know,
you guys can make your own decisions, man like I don't.
I can't tell you what your local parishes are like,
So you're gonna have to choose. You know, which one
you think is a better you know, spiritual fit, spiritual
father person for you, if that's where you find your
your spiritual father.
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 1: One two dollars. When do we get a Mormonism video?
I mean I think, I mean Jim Bob and I
did a three or four hour Mormon livestream. I mean,
how many times do we have to cover the same stuff? Like,
I don't like if you if you still find Mormonism
convincing after you know that Joseph Smith wrote himself into
the Bible, there's not much I can do to help you, Like,
I can't really, I can't really help you.
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: Is this the guy who called in earlier? You want
to call in again? Go ahead?
Speaker 2: Hey, yeah, Jim?
Speaker 29: Uh?
Speaker 2: First off, yeah, I don't think I represented myself too well,
last time I was kind of nervous the first time
I ever did any of these things up. I listened back.
You mentioned, like the distinction there is rational soul. Is
that correct?
Speaker 1: Like, that's what determines I mean, it's one of the
characteristics of what makes up human nature. So for us,
human nature would be derived from our Christology, the way
that the Bible and the Councils teach that Christ had
a fully human nature, meaning he possesses a fully human
body mind, the soul, and will. Okay, so every human
being has a body, mind, soul, and well, whether they're
a ninety eight year old person about to die, a
fifty year old track star in peak, forty year old
track star in a post peak position physically, or a
baby that's two years old that's not yet exercising those
a baby that's two months I should say, they have
those qualities which make them what they are, even if
they are not yet actualized or if they are in decline,
because those are inherent qualities that make that nature what
it is. So we believe in natures, and natures are
defined by the things that make them what they are,
not another thing. So those things are essential to human nature.
Those things are not found in animals. Animals have natures,
but they do not have human nature, so it's a
metaphysical category.
Speaker 2: Okay, But would you agree that there is a biological
aspect to that, just because, like you said, animals do
not have so there is some like biology.
Speaker 1: Biology of course, yeah, I mean the bodily aspect is
a biological ass mak sure, okay.
Speaker 2: And so like, what do you know Evola at all?
Speaker 1: I don't, Yes, I've read, and like, what what is.
Speaker 2: Your reputation of like his idea that like like biology.
I guess maybe I'm extrapolating and not representing him well,
but what I took from it was material and spiritual
can't be separated completely. And I don't even know if
the creation.
Speaker 1: I don't believe they are totally separated. I mean, man
is intended to be a whole. He's intended to be
body and soul, and that's why for us, death is
a bad thing. It's unnatural because it's the severing of
the soul from the body. So I would agree with
the phrase of Evola that you can't separate spirit in matter,
but that doesn't mean that they're identical.
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course, so then wouldn't is it is it
fair to say that that your material manifestation on this
plane had like there's some connotation with your spiritual quality
as well? Is that like, because I believe that's what
E is.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Again, I don't think we can have a reductionist
view where we identify man with biology or reduce them
to biology. But in many cases, yes, even negative traits
can manifest physically. For example, a person who has a severe,
you know, addiction to food and they're overweight, right, you
have an inner vice, the spiritual problem that is in
that case manifesting physically and somebody is significantly overweight.
Speaker 29: Absolutely, But couldn't that also be pushed to primes like
couldn't what to prime? So like before birth or before manifestation,
Like say, like, couldn't it be argued?
Speaker 2: And I'm not arguing this, I'm just asking a question,
like someone born in a good situation versus someone born
in a very bad situation, Like, couldn't it be argue
that maybe that person that was given the good situation
has some sort of spiritual quality that the one born
in the bad situation.
Speaker 1: Doesn't, like karma or something.
Speaker 2: I guess, yeah, that would be I don't want to
use that.
Speaker 20: Well.
Speaker 1: I mean, we believe that God has within his infinite wisdom,
you know, knowledge of all divine providential situations, but we
don't believe in the pre existence of souls. So like
you know, no, it wasn't from some previous life that
that person was placed into an aborigine tribe or something.
Speaker 2: No, that's yeah. I think that My last thing would
be I guess that kind of approaches it, which is
what is the justification for like no hierarchy among quote
unquote human rationals. So it was like, why on the
other plane in Christian and correct me if I'm wrong.
In Christian the Christian framework, everyone's equal.
Speaker 1: So I never said that. I said multiple times to
you that people can be equal in one way and
unequal in other ways, just like members of a family
can be equal in the sense that they are all
humans and share the nature that they have, but that
nature can manifest in different ways and in different talents,
different gifts. In the same way that dogs are all dogs.
Some of them are tiny, some of them are massive.
There's different breeds. You could use the analogy to human beings.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, like on a spiritual clan.
Speaker 1: Hierarchy between Well, I think that some civilizations and people
groups have accepted the truth and then thus express a
higher kind of civilization and ethos than others. So, for example,
the Spanish, and I'm going to use them as an
example because I'm not Roman Catholic, but I think that
the Spanish brought a much better spiritual reality to the Aztecs,
who were sacrificing human beings every day. So that was
a better civilizational culture that was brought to replace a demonic, disgusting,
degenerate culture. And so that was a step up absolutely.
Speaker 2: But like if an Aztec and whatever other higher civilization
in this context, their souls, their human rational souls, are
the same.
Speaker 1: Well we don't. We don't equate this that to the soul,
right because everybody has a soul. But the distinction here
has to do with grace, and so in this regard,
it's not only biology. There are biological differences between people groups, obviously,
but I also think that there's an influence in an
effect that is quote spiritual that I'm not equating to
the soul. The spiritual here is the influence of God
and the Holy Spirit and the Church.
Speaker 2: Okay, so then it just makes a question like, what's
the justification.
Speaker 4: Is it right to say that the soul?
Speaker 2: If we could move to the soul now that human
rational soul is equal across all biological manifestations, that's.
Speaker 1: Correct, right, Well, it's equal in that everybody possesses it,
but in the same degree, but it's uniquely utilized by
the individual persons that have it. Or you could argue
to the different societies or tribes or groups. So everybody
has a soul, but you might have a culture or
society that's more prone to certain vices or certain traits,
and that might have a biological component, it might have
a spiritual component, it might have a soul component. You
could say. So for example, I don't know, Let's say
there's some tribe in Africa that is addicted to worshiping
some deity that requires human sacrifice, and the human sacrifice
then causes the people to have koru disease, right, because
you can't eat human meat and not get sick if
you do this for a long time, and so you
get a degenerate to effect on say this tribe as
an example over many centuries. I would say in that case,
you're getting a combination of demonic diet biology all playing
into it.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, but like and correct me if I'm asking the
same question, Like, if we move to the spiritual realm,
like the Kingdom of Heaven, everyone every human being is
basically they're misery by the weight of their sins, of course,
but like in the kernel of the valuation, everyone is equal.
Is that a fair statement.
Speaker 1: In the sense of everybody everybody being sinners, Yes, but
not everybody is the same equality of ciner No. And
in the resurrection, Paul says, there will be varying degrees
of blessedness based on you know, recapitulating the virtues and
living the life of grace. So not everybody in heaven
is equal.
Speaker 2: No, Okay, So the soul is like mutable based on
your actions within the material plane.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I say the soul is like a tool. Like
the soul is you know, your inner the inner man,
the inner mind, the life of the mind, et cetera,
which can be a tool of the virtues or a
tool of devices. And so if you make it a
conduit of vices, you're misusing your soul and deforming it.
Speaker 28: Okay.
Speaker 2: I appreciate that the only thing that I really get
something is the human rational soul, which I guess I
got to read up on.
Speaker 4: Just because there is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got to think about that more.
Speaker 4: But but thanks for your time then sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I apologize for getting impatient earlier. Barefoot, what's up?
Neurisa fifty dollars one hundred percent? Agree? Your metaphysical traits
can absolutely be manifested. If you're always negative, your life
will be crap. Yeah, I mean without you know, adopting
wholesale like the whole uh what's that stupid Oprah book
The Secret? Like, I'm not going full Oprah here, But
if you are constantly negative and constantly you know, I mean,
that would just be manifesting a vice, you know, advice
of envy or advice of anger or hatred or whatever, like,
you will consistently draw that type of a vibe or
energy to you. What's up, man? No, it's not new
age if I mean, that's that's just a basic fact, right,
Like if you are like to like, if you're wicked,
you're gonna draw it more wicked people to you. What's up, man, Brandon?
You when I mute or barta Barefoot, excuse me?
Speaker 4: Hi?
Speaker 21: J Hey, hey, I don't know if this is a
little bit off topic, but how do you feel about
brother Nathaniel?
Speaker 1: I think he's an insane person.
Speaker 21: Well, I would like to challenge you to reconsider that notion.
Speaker 1: Being well, I mean he literally said, like a couple
of months ago that Orthodox he doesn't teach thiosis. So
this is for a person that's supposed to been Orthodox
monk for twenty years. That's per it's pretty insane.
Speaker 21: Okay, I'll tell you what I would. I would call
him out of man.
Speaker 1: But no, why why am I supposed to rethink and
reassess and have some kind of debate with a person
who just constantly calls me out for the stupidest shit.
And it's just the good If you don't have the
discernment to see a person that's mentally unstable, like what,
I can't help you, man.
Speaker 21: So I'm not asking you to, you know, debate him
again or anything.
Speaker 1: I just why would I want to associate with mentally
insane people.
Speaker 21: I'm not saying you should associate with him either, I
just rethink it to rethink your label as writing him
off as insane.
Speaker 1: I mean again, if you can't discern an insane person,
then I can't help you, and you might be insane.
Speaker 21: I might be too, I don't know, but you know
the reason is I've actually met him in person and
been getting to know him, and he's a little intense.
He yet has a touch and edge of insanity, but
he's actually very well.
Speaker 1: There you go, thank you. So yeah, I'm good. I'm
all good. You can have all the fun you want
with him, pabl. What's up? You notice he admitted that
when he met him he's kind of crazy, So thank you? Exactly?
What's up? Pabel? I'm not taking care of chemic questions.
What's up? Regenerate? Here we go, Regenerate. You want to unmute? Hello? Unmute?
Let's see. I thought we had a Protestant dad who
was going to come and talk to me, but he
won't unmute. Do y'all not know how to unmute? I mean, like,
we won't try again? What's up? Man? The one guy
that was just waiting for like the last thirty minutes.
I was about to go to him, and then why
would you drop all? He dropped off right before us.
You've been waiting all this time, dude, and then you
dropped off. What the heck methodist. What's up?
Speaker 3: Hello? Yep, Hey, So I just had some questions about kind.
Speaker 30: Of some the differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology, but
more so different arguments that you've made against the Catholic theology.
Speaker 1: I'm not Catholic.
Speaker 3: I'm just watched some of your.
Speaker 30: Videos that I'm interested about. Okay, what you would say
against my argument? Against your argument? Typically, you know, you
make the argument against their like they have they don't
know whether it's a seed that turns into a tree
or if their dogma was there from the beginning. Well
didn't did the patriarchates?
Speaker 1: That was a development?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: What the patriarchates?
Speaker 1: The patriots?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Was it a development? It's a it's a canonical development
within the canons.
Speaker 30: Yeah, sure, okay, So I was just wondering if that
can develop, then why would the papasty not be able to?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: So do you understand what the argument was that I made,
because you just did a too quote way and it's
not even equivalent arguments. Okay, Okay, do you understand what
I'm saying or not?
Speaker 30: Okay, So you're saying that basically accidentally misrepresenting the thing
being a little hypocritical.
Speaker 1: No, what is the argument that you think that I made.
Speaker 30: That since it has developed and it was not there
from the beginning of time, and that they have an
inconsistency with whether or not they even though in and
of themselves whether or not it was there from the
beginning of time.
Speaker 1: No, that wasn't the argument. I said. There's two conflicting claims.
On the one hand, the claim is that the teachings
of Vatican One were always there from the very beginning,
as Leo the thirteenth says. That's a contradiction with the
claim that it wasn't always there from the beginning and
it was a seed doctrine that developed. That's the argument.
Speaker 30: Okay, So they're saying that it was not always there,
not that it was always.
Speaker 1: There, and they do they're saying two different things.
Speaker 30: Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, And just one more thing
about icons. It was just kind of confused about different
things that we're talking about icons. Okay, in terms of
the prayer going over the icon and it goes to
the host.
Speaker 3: That that's correct in terms of the saints.
Speaker 1: Because over the.
Speaker 30: Thees, yeah, yeah, it goes over the the icon and
he goes.
Speaker 1: To it passes to from the type to the prototype,
not to the host Roman Catholic language. Okay, well, go ahead.
Speaker 30: So typically you make the argument of where they bowed
down and worship the arc, like, just so that I'm
not actually misrepresenting anything.
Speaker 1: They don't worship the arc, they revere it, right, would.
Speaker 30: It not be different since the presence of God is
on the arc?
Speaker 1: Well, the presence of God is in the liturgy and
in the icons.
Speaker 30: Right, So that's so the connection is God is not
the same sin, that's what you're saying.
Speaker 3: Okays.
Speaker 1: The Saints are the deified members of Christ's body, so
they're living relics, right.
Speaker 4: I was just confused as to how.
Speaker 30: How so they're not on the present and God is
you know how everyone having the same icon all around?
Speaker 1: Right, So if you read it, right, if if you
read Revelation five through nine, and I have a whole
video on this, the saints, the saints are in the church,
in the liturgy, alive, worshiping with us. But thank you
very questions, regenerate, what's up? I'm you? Did you turn
your mic permissions on? Dog? Come back out, come back
in man, you gotta turn your mic permissions on what's up?
Meta logician.
Speaker 3: And there considering.
Speaker 21: Yeah, so basically.
Speaker 31: I was raised Orthodox Christian, but now I will be
arguing for atheism.
Speaker 1: I guess I'm I'm not doing tag today. It is
specifically not listed that I'm doing tags.
Speaker 11: So.
Speaker 1: Doubt that. What's up? Do I need to block somebody
in the chat? Who do I need to block? This's weirdo?
All right, he's going spamming nonsense. What's up?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 1: Guys? For people disagree, I'm not doing atheist tag stuff today. Catholicism, Islam, Protestism, Mormonism, Aganism,
Gnosticism all on the table. Don't ask me your FAQ
catechumen questions. Maddie, what's up?
Speaker 32: Can you hear me?
Speaker 4: M yes, bro, I just wanted to quickly ask.
Speaker 2: It's a little bit, I guess, uh.
Speaker 4: Tags onto geopolitics. I've been listening to your.
Speaker 32: Sort of fabian side stuff in the past a few weeks.
Speaker 3: It's been fascinating.
Speaker 32: I want some though, whether or not you've had a
gander in the Tiny Mustache Man book. He references another book,
The protocols have builded as on I don't know if
there's just some crazy conspiracy theory or anything like that.
I you wonder if there's any I think too that
if you've had a look into that, any authenticity of
meeting videos.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, I knew I read it twenty years ago.
I'm familiar with it. I'm not sure what to say, Trey,
what's up? There could be an inner conspiracy, it could
be a fraudulent document. What's up?
Speaker 3: Jay? Yeah? Oh okay?
Speaker 28: Uh?
Speaker 4: So I called in.
Speaker 26: Uh I'm a Presbyterian calling about Sola scriptura. Okay, are
you familiar or you read the book Robinson Crusoe.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Okay.
Speaker 26: So on the one hand, I understand, like I haven't
crazy aunt who teaches our living room, and I get
why that's a problem. But on the other hand, you
have like the Crusolian thing where he comes across the
Bible on the island and then teaches too Friday the scripture,
And I'm just wondering what's the protocol for solar scripture
as far as that situation, Like if you came upon
a tribe and you had a Bible and maybe you
weren't ever you know, a leader of a church or anything.
Speaker 3: Do you well?
Speaker 1: I think God will meet God meets people where they're at.
But why would an exception to the norm somehow be
a proof of sola scriptura. I think that's kind of ridiculous.
Speaker 26: I understand that, But you wouldn't disagree that they could
find Yeah, okay, so I think I got your Yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Mean there are you know, odd anomalies and exceptions to
the rule. I mean, you know, maybe a pirate picks
up a pirate Bible and he starts reading it on
the island of Tortuga, and uh, you know, he starts
to believe in Christ. Right as you know, the captain
Barbosa stabs him with the sword, and then perhaps he
repented at the point of death, and you know, God
accepts him because God met him where he was. I mean,
that's entirely possible. But what where how would I get
from that? Well, bro, solo scriptura? Man, clearly that's a
proof right there? JR? What's up?
Speaker 33: You must be believing in solar scriptura.
Speaker 1: You're in one, John. We can't hear you your muffle?
What's up?
Speaker 14: Will you hear me?
Speaker 11: No?
Speaker 1: Sort of you there?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Can you hear him?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 34: To So the fellow who was asking about the protocols
he should read Orthodoxy in.
Speaker 2: The religion in the future.
Speaker 1: Does he talk about that? I forgot, Yeah he does. Okay,
I won't.
Speaker 3: I won't get up into it.
Speaker 34: But also for any Protestants who are in the audience
and specifically speaking to the caller, was that the Fabian
Socialist influence on Protestantism, particularly in the twentieth century, is magnanimous.
Like all all of the all of the original Fabian
Socialists all come from Protestant backgrounds or instrumental in inserting
the Fabian socialist ideology into modern day Protestants.
Speaker 1: Except for Chesterton. I believe Chesterton was a member of
the Fabian Society.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is true.
Speaker 34: But yeah, like Beatrice web and even I think, I
think anti Possan before she was an accultist, she was.
Speaker 3: Honestism.
Speaker 2: But there's a document from two thousand and five that's
put out by the Fabian Society.
Speaker 4: It's particularly talking about ecumenisma.
Speaker 1: Like I can barely I can barely hear you, John,
you're cutting out there's a two thousand and five document.
Speaker 34: What there's a two thousand and five document by the
Fabian Society.
Speaker 4: Uh huh, look it up.
Speaker 34: That's particularly talking about acumenism.
Speaker 2: Being beneficial to world government.
Speaker 1: No, that sounds really really interesting, do you know. Let's
see what it might be called.
Speaker 34: I don't remember it off the top of my head,
but I'm sure if you look up Fabian Socialist Document
two thousand and five, Protestantism.
Speaker 1: Okay, nothing comes up for a humanism. Let's try Protestantism.
In two thousand and five, the Fabians recommended ending the
preferential status of the Church of England, arguing that it
was unfair. Uh, and it didn't promote Islam. That doesn't
sound like it.
Speaker 34: I'll find it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, no, I don't. I don't doubt that it exists.
I just I just want to I want to read that.
Speaker 34: But a lot of Protestants, and you know, being raised
one myself, is you don't ever think that, Like the
way Protestantism is framed in mass culture is that it's
very rigid and even within your own you know, like
perception of what you think of as you know, when
you're in a when you're Protestant, you you might even
think of yourself as pretty rigid, like as far as like, oh, yes,
I'm a fundamentalist or I'm a traditionalist.
Speaker 4: But the religion.
Speaker 2: Itself is not even based off of.
Speaker 3: That per se.
Speaker 34: It's just it's all like any of the later offshoots,
like especially in the twentieth century, it's more focused about
spreading Christianity out. But like the Christianity it's spreading is
adaptable to any situation, to any situation. And I don't
I don't think Protestants actually cognated in that way.
Speaker 1: Flesh that out more. What you mean they don't think
about the malleability of evangelical Protestantism exactly.
Speaker 34: Yeah, like they they themselves are thinking it's very rigid
and very fundamental.
Speaker 11: Hmm.
Speaker 4: But it's not.
Speaker 1: But it's not. Yeah, it's it's very able to adjust
to the times, and thus it's much easier to be
used I think by power leads is up maybe what.
Speaker 34: We absolutely and that's what that's what the Fabians recognized
got you and we're able to you know, manipulate it
in that way.
Speaker 3: That's that's the point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you're right that I think you know
in this this comes up in the David Wimhoff book
that he says that the rock Fillers realize that it
was much easier to influence Protestant and evangelical churches towards
accepting uh you know, contraception and birth control, abortion, uh,
all those things. Than it was to get the Vatican
on board. So they talked about how like all it
took with with the Protestant world was like, well, we'll
build a million dollar building over there, but you're gonna
let the Rockefeller approved you know, seminary head be the
new professor. Right, So that's how it worked. It's very easy.
Even even mainline Protestants recognize this. In fact, Jay Gresham
Machen wrote a whole book. I remember reading this back
when I was a Calvinist. I think it's called what
is Liberalism? But he didn't mention, you know, the Rockefellers
by name, but he kind of figured out that like
how did the pc USA, the Presbyterian Church in America?
Like how do they just flip liberal so quick? And
the easiest answer, the obvious answer as well, big money
comes in and says, start pushing skittles and you'll you're
going to get a ten million dollar facility, belt John
anything else?
Speaker 4: Oh no, you can go on the next call.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, remember Rachel wrote a good article too some
years back on her substack about the same principle where
you get basically the push of the skittle stuff in
all the churches, including an Orthodox church, through the networks
of NGO's think tanks, white papers, found foundations, think tanks, whatever.
Here it is how big foundation money is subverting traditional Christianity,
and this, you know, just lays it all out in
no uncertain terms. No one two dollars. When do we
get another way? He asked about Mormons. No one five dollars.
I think Mormons need to see that there are differences
between the early Church and what they believe. There's nothing
to stand on. Yeah, I mean, but really, I think
the way that's going to have to work is like
a Mormon's just going to have to go and do
some of the reading. I don't if a Mormon is
not going to read some of the Church Fathers, they're
not going to listen to me and Jim Bob talk
about the Church Fathers for three hours. So Ceeus twenty
dollars puts a I guess there's all these new emojis now,
so this is some sort of Corgi samurai emoji, and
I like it. I appreciate that. That's very cool. Guys. Also,
if you want to support, you can do so through bitcoin,
of course. This is my Bitcoin support wallet address right there,
y'all on Vounder shoot five dollars. I'm on lunch at work.
Thank you for doing this. Here's a five dollar hala.
Thank you so much. Totem Pole, don't I don't understand
that you weren't saying you wanted to debate. You're saying
you want me to debate Protestants and Catholics on the
Book of Genesis. I just I don't. I don't know
if anybody's really wanting to do that. I mean, I'm
sure there's some Protestant or Catholic who wants to debate it.
But to be honest with you, man, like I'm kind
of I'm kind of tired of finding and trying to
find the Roman Catholics that want to I'm over it, man.
I mean, for me, Tim Gordon was kind of the
last one. We're at the point where it's like, if
you still want to be a Roman Catholic, go do it, dude,
go be gate and I'm good. So I just don't
see much more point in trying to reason with people.
I feel like the Tim Gordon debate was the last
thing that I had to say on that topic. Now,
Roman Catholics can always call in, it's always open for him.
But like, I'm not gonna go down go out hunting
another high profile Roman Catholic because it just don't like
who who even is there? And I'm not talking about Oh,
you won't debate so and so with two thousand followers
because you're scared talking about anybody. I know there's no
incentive to debate a person with two thousand followers. You're correct,
it's not because I'm scared. It's just another waste but
my time, and it's giving some goober a bunch of
traction that I don't want to give traction through. So
you want to be leather Duddy ol bricked. We tried
for years to set up debates with all brick. UBI
tried to set up debates. All he does is play
phone tag gay games with you. He's never going to
actually do a debate. It's not hard to set up
a debate. We do it all the time. Scam shamou
never going to do a debate. Plus he's an insane person,
So what's the point of trying to debate? You can't
debate insane people whoa won't you talk to brother Nathan
because he's an insane person? Well, sew, what do you mean? Well, so, like, dude,
why are you even here?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 1: Like, if you want to go be with insane people,
go do it, dude, Like nobody's making you be here.
Like I'm over I'm girl, I'm over it. Okay, I
am over it, honey. I like what I talked to
Ubi the other day and he said that, you know,
debating on the internet theology these days, it's not like
it was ten years ago. Ten years ago, it was
very academic. It was a lot of nerds. It was
a lot of quotes, a lot of references of books.
And nowadays, debating Roman Catholics is debating screeching sixteen year olds.
It's just not because there's nobody else really that would
be compelled to adopt that religion other than screeching teenagers.
And I feel bad for Tim. I liked him, get
along with him on a personal level really well, like
his family, great family. It's why it's really cool. But
I mean, we were dimming the other day and it's
just like nothing that I said or argued in the
debate has registered, so It's like this is what it
was like with a bar ten years ago, where you
would have these long conversations. You would think you're making
headway in terms of you know, I just want this
person to understand what I'm what I'm arguing, and you
think you've made headway, and then the next day you
never had that conversation. It's back to like repeating the
the Roman They're like Mina birds, right. Romancalolics are like
the Mina birds. That's just of chirp the same phrases
and it's it's it's almost like the Oprah shit. But
with Roman Catholics, right, Like the Roman Catholics think that
if they just say this stuff, it'll manifest. If I
just say that there's not a bunch of gay stuff
with Pope Leo in the Vatican, it'll just manifest. Yo, dog,
I'm about the manifest a base trad church.
Speaker 35: If I just gibber and gibber and repeat it on repeat,
pete and repeat, it'll just go away.
Speaker 1: Oh, I forgot to mention the here got to have
a reminder of this.
Speaker 11: Thousands of LGBT Catholics, their families and supporters have participated
in a Holy Year pilgrimage to Rome. They just walked
through the holy door of Saint Peter's the Silica. They
say this is a historic moment in the life of
the church and for their community. They say they have
long felt discriminated against, shunned by the Church, that they
now feel a level of welcome and acceptance that they
attribute to Pope Francis. Francis spent the better part of
his pontificate insisting that the Catholic Church must be a
place of welcome to those, to those who used to
say these I.
Speaker 1: Mean say, if this doesn't like show you what the
wrong in the right church is, like, there's no point
in debating anymore. I mean, we're dealing with people that
are like fully in delusion, like I'm done. They're like,
my job is done, my job's complete.
Speaker 11: That they have been participating in vigils, talks.
Speaker 1: And masters and there's really not any reason even to
interact with most of these people anyway. I'm not talking
about Tim, I'm talking about whoever would even be Like
Trent Horn Trent is terrible, like like he's not I
don't mean personally, I don't know Trent person like as
an apologist, he's he's garbage, dude, Matt Frad. I mean, like,
who else is there.
Speaker 11: Isn't putting one celebrated by an Italian who drew a
sustained standing.
Speaker 3: Ovation this morning.
Speaker 1: So here they're processing the Rainbow Cross into the Vatican
and this was done with Leo's approval and permission. So
what are you talking about.
Speaker 36: Oh, it doesn't count. The Pope didn't do it. From
the chair doesn't code. It never counts. It's never from
the chair, never counts. There's never a contradiction because it's ah.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I know, Mattras not even an apologist, but like, like,
who else is even is there to debate? By the way,
there was there was one guy that was friends with
Tim Gordon, suppose a professor, but he had like five followers,
and he was like, I will debate you on history
of the papacy. Well, I thought he meant he'll debate
my challenge of the geopolitics of the papacy in the
twentieth century. No, No, he meant debate me on medieval
papal doc I'm like, I can debate you on the
medieval papal documents. I want to debate you on the
twentieth century explanation for the actions of the papacy, and
it was some guy. I'm not trying to be mean,
it's just something to do with five followers. I'm like,
come on, man, do they don't have anybody who can
actually just defend a simple challenge. My challenge is that
geopol political explanations are a better explanation for the actions
of the papacy in the last couple centuries than the
supposed claim of petrine infallible terrorism. That's my challenge. I
want a Roman Catholic apologist. This is the last Roman
Cathy debate I'll do because there's none of them are
left that are any good. Tim was the last one.
Some Roman Catholic if they will stand up and debate
the geopolitical Cia masade angle, let's do it. But I
guarantee you none of them will. I've been waiting for
two years, two and a half years for that specific challenge,
and I've asked them all. I've emailed professors, I've DMD
multiple Catholic academics. I've asked Tim, tell all of your
professor friends, academic friends, I want to debate this topic. Well,
is there any Roman Catholic that will even touch the
geopolitical side of the stuff. Not one, not one of
them will. What about the EP Do we talk about
that all the time? I share Father John Whiteford's stuff
all the time, calling out the EP. You won't fuck
a building your church, Yes we do. What are you
talking about? Motoco?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 3: Jay? How's it going? Man?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 3: Hey?
Speaker 9: Going on?
Speaker 23: I just wanted to know if I could flush an
argument by you in regards.
Speaker 1: Of hold on one second. Yeah, to the question to
the guy asking the question, what about Michael Knowles? Why
I won't you debate Michael Knowles? Guys, Michael Knowles deferred
to Tim Gordon. Tim Gordon is the backup guy that
Michael Knowles looks to. Go ahead.
Speaker 23: Yeah, so, especially in some regards to Roman Catholicism and
some of the arguments, especially for low information Catholics, in
terms of them always pointing to the keys in the Bible.
Speaker 3: I've heard your argumentational.
Speaker 23: You know, the keys are defined as you know, like
preaching the Gospel, universal binding, and the sacraments.
Speaker 3: And I think there's one more so.
Speaker 1: It's jurisdiction, preaching the Gospel, celebration of the sacraments, et.
Speaker 23: Cetera exactly, And then you said that if this was
given to all the rest of the apostles later on
in Matthew eighteen eighteen, then what does Peter have that
they don't. But I was wondering the fact that I
still don't see why we grant them that when I
don't see how the keys are geographically tied to Rome,
because the Bible doesn't mention anything about Rome, and from
my understanding is that the martyrdom should not allow the
keys to just be placed solely in wrong.
Speaker 1: No, agree that I agree with that, Yeah, because.
Speaker 23: The prismatic in one states that it's not based on
Paul and Peter.
Speaker 1: It's based on Peter dying.
Speaker 23: Yeah, so what is so I've been thinking that this
is a strong argument. I just wanted to make sure
because you know, you have more of the history than
I do. But I just don't see how they can
tie the keys directly to Rome, especially when you also
mentioned that right.
Speaker 1: Now the keys the keys are Yeah, I agree with you.
The keys are stated to be I think given to
Peter honorifically first because he says the confession of the
deed to Christ first. But there's nothing specific to Rome.
About the keys, especially given that Rome admits that there's
three patrine sees exactly. So there's no reason why that
kerorism of infallibility is somehow exclusive to Rome. And in fact,
to your point, if you were going to try to
argue that there was some special kerosm of infallibility unique
to Rome, it seems like it would include Peter and.
Speaker 3: Paul exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: And the Vatican expecially says no, there's nothing to do.
Speaker 3: With Paul exactly, A literally denies it.
Speaker 23: So I've been using this recently and I just think
it's really good for low information Catholics because it stops
us from getting into all the councils and all these
different things and all that kind of stuff that people
just don't have the time to tye to, and they
always run back to what he got the keys. He
got the keys, that's special, that's special. But if we
hit them with both, that is not special, because all
the Apostles get it, but yet you can't even tie
to Rome, then it just defeats the whole argument.
Speaker 3: It's just like an ultimate presupposition.
Speaker 1: To me, I think you're right. I think that is
a better approach because the whole thing is resting on
that assumption that there's something unique about the city of Rome,
and then when you really press Roman Catholics on it,
it really just falls back into well that's a tradition. Yeah, okay,
from what where?
Speaker 3: From the exactly.
Speaker 1: Great point there, Motko Satoshia. I appreciate that, really good points.
He's right. Sometimes it's difficult to remember in the heat
of discussion, you know, to go back to, you know,
the basics and the assumptions like that, because you get
you get all sort of off in the weeds. What
about Honorius and this that Uh, let's read this real
quick before we go to SBM, because this is of
course the the weekly scandal. The scandal of the week
is Leo's interview about gay stuff. Okay, so I may
this was. I was a little surprised to see Lofton
deviating from his pope's planning a little bit, because I mean,
he's still a pope's planner. But he's even seeming to
say he put up a video saying something like, uh,
the I'm trying to remember how Lofton worded it, something
like be prepared word there might be a change about
the skittles in Rome. So let's see what Leo actually
said in this interview. This is a translation, So who
knows if this is if you start pulling, if you
point this out, the Roman goes, Oh, it's miss Treasury,
who didn't that. What I'm trying to say is that
Francis said very clearly when he said, totos, totos totos,
everyone is invited into the church. I don't invite a
person in because they are not of a specific identity.
So he's admitting that gay is an identity, which it's not.
But that's already a problem right there. I invite a
person in because they are a son or daughter of God. Well,
you're not actually a son or daughter of God just
by existing or being a human being. You have to
be baptized to be a sun or daughter of God.
So again more ambiguity here as to what he's referring to.
You are all welcome, not all people are welcome. That's
not actually true. You cannot be a vicious, unrepentant person
and still welcomed in the church. You must at least
be repenting. Let's get to know each other and respect
each other. Okay, but it's not about acceptance and respect
it's about virtue and vice, good and evil. So notice
there's nothing about good and evil. It's all about tolerance
and acceptance. At some point when specific questions will come
up and he's talking to This is all in the
context of skittles. People want the church doctrine to change,
They want attitudes to change. I think we have to
change attitudes before we can think about changing what the
church says about any given question. Now wait a minute,
the church doesn't change in its morals. So even the
possibility which is being entertained here is itself proof. What
more evidence do you Roamacotholics need? Oh well, there is
no evidence, right because notice disproving evidentialism. The issue isn't
even evidences. So that notice the when people everybody says
co co co cop cope everything is co co. The
more you see people talking about and using and repeating
mindlessly the phrase cope it evidence is the point that
we make that evidentialism is false. If evidentialism were true,
people wouldn't vehemently double down, triple down, quadrupleed down in
the face of mountains of counter evidence. And yet that
is exactly what they do. So the guy that called
me a cult leader Day, by the way, wouldn't show
up to debate. Shocker, in the face of mountains of evidence,
can't acknowledge that there's a problem at the top of
his church. He says, attitudes must change before we can
think about changing what the church says. That doesn't even
make sense. Attitudes have nothing to do with church doctrine,
and church doctrine doesn't change. So remember the delusion of
all the tradcats acting like this guy was going to
be somehow a based in trad like what again, It's
like they don't even realize that the religion has already
solidified in the Vatican two documents and a long time ago.
Now miles here in the chat says, Oh, let me
read the rest of Leo's quote. He says, I find
it unlikely, highly unlikely, in the at least in the
near future, that the church's doctrine in terms of sexuality
could change. In other words, it's possible to change, it's
just unlikely in the near future. What regenerate, Yeah, so
I will allow you about regenerate, Sam, you would like
to come back, you says for five dollars he had
a connection issue. Yeah, I'll bring it right back. Up now,
I did miss this, So mister Feast says, you missed
this part. Jay, let's read what this is. This is
the same interview. Earlier this year there was a discussion
or there was a jubilief for permanent deacons, so all
men but their wives were present. I had the Katechisus
one day with a fairly large group of English speaking
permanent deacons. The English language is one of the groups
where they are better represented because there' are parts of
the world that are never really promoted the permanent dacon
it itself became a question, why would we talk about
ordaining women to the d'acon it if the dacon it
itself is not yet properly understood and developed and promoted
in the church, and what are the reasons for that.
So while I think there was a significant inspiration at
the time of the Council when the permanent daconate was
re stated, it has not become in many parts of
the world what I think some people thought it would be.
So there are some questions that have to be asked
around that issue. So, in other words, it's an open question. Still,
can we change the gay stuff? Can we have women deacons?
Which is the stuff before women priests open questions. They're
not open questions by the way, So sbm what's up?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 31: Sorry, sorry, hey j thanks for having me. I wanted
to ask about Trinity. I heard you a couple of
time talk about the difference in the West and the East.
Speaker 4: I'm a Protestant.
Speaker 31: I would like to understand why when I converse with
some of the Roman Catholics, they say that the East
has a faulty or wrong view of Trinity, and you
say the otherwise.
Speaker 4: I kind of like that.
Speaker 31: Not that I'm making the decision on my understanding, but
I see the biblical basis for.
Speaker 4: The monarchical trinitarianism. Could you help me to understand.
Speaker 31: Briefly what's that stick, especially given the What's at stake
is the loss of beginning your Trinitarian theology with the
person of the Father, which leads to essentialism, putting the
essence before the persons, which leads to a diad in
the philioquay, which then leads to.
Speaker 1: The removal of the doctrine of the energies and uncreated grace.
That's what's at stake right there, Bridge, what's up? Regenerate Sam?
Call back in where are you at.
Speaker 4: Hello, j How are you?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 4: So Jam, excuse me for my English language.
Speaker 37: I'm not a native so I'm turned up between Catholicism
and Orthodoxy. I'm currently a Catholic, but I mean I'm
up with a way that's Scholastics use philosophy in terms
of epistemic justification and they cannot handle David human very
well and even in philosophy. And I'm turn up or
Orthodoxy because of the Catholic claims of papacy, the historical
claims of the economical councils.
Speaker 1: And that's what what are you talking about? Where is
Vatican One papacy in the ecumenical councils?
Speaker 37: No, I mean the the first Ecumenical Council, in the
sixt Sick Comdical Council, and the how these Scholastics render
their philosophy with Hume And I feel like scholastics, as
a Catholic myself, forgot about the last five hundred years
of philosophy in terms of human count I mean probably
of the natural theology. Can Catholicism recond and so with
modern philosophy?
Speaker 1: I mean, Catholicism did reconcile with modern philosophy and that's
why it is what it is. It is process philosophy.
Speaker 37: And what uh how their natural theology.
Speaker 1: Because yeah, that's what led to where it is. That's
that's precisely the false roots and foundations that led them
to accept Gaudia metspest teaches, Marxism. I mean again, like
everything that I've been detailing in the last few weeks,
just think of the last couple of months, guys, for
the Roman Catholics, how bad it's been. We have the
debacle of Trent Doherty and all these gubers defending that
Muslims and Christians the worst being the same God. And
then Michael Loften comes to the rescue with the Vatican
documents pointing out that Muslims can be saved in Islam
according to the Vatican teaching. He's correct, that is the
Vatican teaching. And then we get like, there's there's a
scandal every week. I can't even keep up with it.
What was the next one? The next one was Doherty
crashing out and team up with Skittles people, Like we
said then it was, what was the next one. I've
already I've already lost track of all. It's like every
week we get they make a hubbub, and we get
rewarded by the papacy. Right, we get our staking rewards
from trusting in and staking our arguments on the papacy.
And that's we get weekly staking rewards. After what was
the what was the the voice of reason? Was the
next scandal? Thank you v O R. Voice of Sleason.
Speaker 33: I would like to kish body by the way, probably
probably I have a problem. Sorry, please accept me back
into being a public minister. Just leg Jimmy Swaggert. I'm
I'm the Latin liver, leg Jimmy Sweggert.
Speaker 1: Uh So, then we got after a voice of reason?
What was next? Next? Was it gay gay pacy? The
gay papal stuff I've already forgotten anyway, It's like everywhere
every week, dude. And if it's it's not an argument
that the papacy is false because there's bad people. This
is every low tier Roman Kale thinks that that's the argument.
You got bad people. Yes, that's not the argument. Nobody
ever made that argument. That's the dumbest argument ever. The
argument is that you have a system level contradiction that
doesn't allow for you to fix Vatican two, to reform
Vatican two, to fix the papacy to you can't do
any of that with an ironclad, already set in stone system.
That's the argument. Just like that guy that called in earlier.
I'm not trying to be mean, but he didn't even
understand the argument. He thought I was urging that we
have development a doctrine and they don't. That's not what
I argued.
Speaker 38: Uh.
Speaker 1: Oh, Tim Gordon's bad debate performance. That was the end
of the next one, exactly. I feel like I'm missing
one though. And then we had the gay procession. So
it's just like Catholic loss after Catholic loss after Catholic
loss after Catholic loss each week. And then their response
is Jay Dyer is a cult leader. That's all they
have when they're at that point, like all they have
is to just talk about how bad I am. Uh Morgan. Oh,
then they're mad that Cleve's antiquity is becoming Orthodox and
not Roman. Kelly, what's up man?
Speaker 4: Hello?
Speaker 39: That Hey, how are you doing?
Speaker 4: My friend?
Speaker 15: So basically got a question about it's about Mary.
Speaker 2: I'm an extra protestantly.
Speaker 19: Coming out of that and an Orthodox prayer book, and
I do understand obviously they used to argue a lot
about with people online from Chians, and you talk.
Speaker 1: About the correct So I'm not trying to be rude,
but I'm not specifically so I'm not taking catech human
inquirer questions. We had the Mary topic come up earlier.
I have a talk on Mary from the Bible. You
can watch that video on the Veneration of Saint Mary
on my channel. But we're looking for people who disagree
today or have questions where they would take issue. What's up?
Man regenerate saying where you're at?
Speaker 3: Gee, yes, Jane, you're here?
Speaker 4: Sorry?
Speaker 3: Sorry again?
Speaker 19: So I wanted to check with you as about the
Ecumenical Council in the Orthodox perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong,
if I'm approaching in this like the Nicea one had
the Emperor bishops and and then over time doctrine of Pentokey.
I'm struggling with understand the sort of when it comes
to the Union.
Speaker 31: Council, how is that macha of emphasis? How do you
reconcile this a march of surphasis was able.
Speaker 3: To go against you.
Speaker 1: Watch the talk that we did on this, me and
David are Hen six years ago. So I have a
whole talk on this from six years ago. So, guys,
most of your questions like that, those kind of inquire
faq questions. I'm not mad at you. I understand. We
all have those issues, right, we all get hung up
what about this? What about that? Most of these we
have addressed, you know, many times over. So, guys, if
you're in the chat, we got a lot of weird
weirdos in the YouTube chat over here, all you weirdos
saying all this weird stuff. Why don't you call in?
There's the link right there, Paul, what's up man?
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 26: Yeah, Hey, I was just wondering, like why there's such
like a large emphasis on not rejecting like icon veneration
and just icons in general, like to the point where
it's clearly seen as like a primary like function of
the church, and like where where's like the biblical basis
of that come from? And like do we see that
type of importance in the early church?
Speaker 1: Right? So we do, because it's tied directly to the
notion of the incarnation and the real presence in the Eucharus,
that God can unite with and has united with and
has utilized created material means to give us grace. So
they become means of grace, including the bodies of the
righteous men. So the relics that we see in the
Book of Acts, that we see with the bones of Elijah,
those are all examples of this, as well as in
Joshua seven when they all prostrate before the temple and
the ark of the Covenant. The arc and the inside
of the temple were very ornate and full of iconic
grass imagery. Early synagogues in the first second third century,
the Dory Europo Synagogue, for example, are covered in imagery
all over the walls. So it is a Jewish principle,
a Hebrew principle that the Church adopted when it adopted iconography.
Speaker 26: Okay, so would you say that they're essential? Yes, you
would say they're essential. And then one more question, how
would you or like, what would the Orthodox response be
to like, I guess the good things that we see
from Western Christendom, like the universities and different philosophical innovations
and the evangelization, Like, what would the Orthodox position on
that be?
Speaker 1: I would first of all, hold on universities come out
of Byzantium philosophical What do you mean, I don't know,
I don't know what you're.
Speaker 26: Talking about I'm just talking about, like I guess that
the good fruits that have come from Western ways of theology, philosophy.
Speaker 1: And honestly, I wouldn't attribute that topism. I would say
that it's in spite of papism. I would say that.
I mean, a Protestant person could invent a machine, an
iPhone calculus comes out of you know, people like Leibniz,
who's Lutheranish. I mean, does that make Lutheranism true? I mean,
it's just has nothing to do with proving that the
religion is true. You can have a Buddhist that invents
some amazing invention, does to make Buddhism true?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: Apache yep, And yeah, I mean I'm sure that, like
I said, you know, rather than having Aztec human sacrifices,
you know, Spanish Catholicism is a step up from that. Well,
that doesn't make Spanish Catholicism free from heresies. In fact,
Spanish Catholicism was always prone to and struggled with Arianism.
That's where you get Phillyoque as a response to trying
to refute Spanish arian to vulturo ten dollars. Catholics are
officially the Christian Muslims, that's correct. I mean they say
we worship the same God as Islam, and they tout
this and are proud of this. Why are we surprised
that they and the Orientals act just like Muslims. They
deny that they want to militarize the same way Islam does.
Well historically they have though, so, I mean, the pope
is the one that first called for having standing armies
to defend papism in the Renaissance papacy. And if you
didn't fight for the pope, he would excommunicate you. Vulture
ten dollars? Did Pope Gregory write a letter to the
patriarch given the additional title of universal or ecumenical, restates
that this title does not give him total authority in
the church. Yeah, I mean, it's a famous back and
forth between I think was John the patriarch Constantinople and
the usage of the term universal or acumenical patriarch and
Gregory says he doesn't like the title because it gives
the impression that the person with that title is the
super bishop and everybody, all the other bishops in the
world are priests underneath him, which is exactly the papal model.
Of the Church regenerate Sam five dollars Jay, apologies my
mic didn't come through. Would you allow me back on Yes,
I don't know where you are, but you're welcome to
call in. So anybody who disagrees today, if you're a
Roman Catholic, if you're a Muslim, a Protestant, a Mormon,
an Anglican and Evangelical, a Gnostic, the only thing that
we're not doing today is tag atheist type stuff. We're
not doing that today. So if you disagree on any
of these other topics, I think there was something I
was going to hit on in terms of recent j R. Says,
how would you approach a Protestant who feels that the
very very late instrument of online Orthodox work is too late.
With the exception of early missions, it doesn't meet the
zeal of Catholicism and Protestantism. I don't understand why this
is a good argument trying to measure zeal of evangelism
to try to prove the true Church. I just think
this is a silly attempt at trying to figure out
the true Church. By the way, UBI has I think
three part documentary on the history of Orthodox missions Listy
hell M Yeah, so.
Speaker 4: I'm trying to understand like the what's it called?
Speaker 2: Like, I'm I'm I want to know.
Speaker 9: What philosophy right, Like, what philosophy do you think would
be the best to study to understand the Orthodox perspective.
Speaker 1: I don't really think philosophy is necessary for Orthodoxy, but
I think that if you did want to study philosophy,
I would get your Slav Pelican's book on the philosophy
of the Cappadocians. That would probably be the best thing.
The book is called, Yeah, let me rate that down.
It's called Christianity and Classical Culture, The Metamorphosis of Natural
Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism by Yurislav Pelicon.
That will give you an overview of the philosophy of
the Cappadocians. You could also, you know, study the basics
of Aristotle, basics of Plato, basics of Neoplatonism. All of
those would help kind of give context to a lot
of the terminology that the Church fathers use when they
hammer out you know, trinitarian and Christological stuff. But I
wouldn't worry about studying philosophy to become Orthodox Orthodox. He's
not a philosophy it's a way of life. It's a church.
It's not an ideology. C K ten dollars. Black keeper
Israelites think that Jewish means sort of kind of Jewish. Yeah,
I mean, that's probably one of the best examples of
like a grammar word concept of linguistic mistake that leads
to an entire heresy. It's that one's really funny. Though
Richard Lyon became a member vultrue five dollars. How will
CALVICHX defend Pope Leo permitting a pride parade into the Vatican?
I thought he was infallible. They'll just say he made
a moral mistake, and infallibility doesn't include impeccability. However, infallibility
actually is supposed to cover moral teachings of the papacy.
So how they're they would, well, they're just again, they're
going to say it doesn't count. We excuse this one.
He's a bad pope, Aine Schultz, what's up? And then
when you point out the dogmatic contradictions, Oh, that one
doesn't count either, because that wasn't actually dogma. So it's
a unfalsifiable Uh. Moving the goal post based system, which
should tell you right away that it's a very weak system.
I'm mute.
Speaker 3: Are a test?
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right?
Speaker 2: Can I ask a question about the transcendental argument?
Speaker 11: Now?
Speaker 1: I'd said multiple times that I wasn't talking about tech today,
so you may not. But thank you for calling UH
regenerate Sam five dollars. No, we already did that. By
the way, one of the major tag critics UH, I
think turned out that was constantly going after FDA. I
think it turned out he was a t R A
n Z. I'm not one hundredercent positive. I think that's
what somebody was saying, which I just thought was funny.
So it's like like I was like, I'm supposed to
like take serious, you know, all these obscure philosophical arguments
from like somebody the equivalent of Matt Dylan Monkey's lover.
Like at a certain point, it's like the weird thing
about the Internet is that it makes people think that
you can completely divorce everything. It's all abstracted, right, Like
like at the end of the day, it's true that
arguments aren't proven or disproven by the people. But at
the same time, it's like, yeah, but why do I
even have to listen to or entertain or point by
point refute an insane person, and people think like the
Internet gives the impression that no, you have to you
have to you have to publicly refute and debate every
single insane person, or else well you're scared, right. So
if I don't debate a trans atheist and refute every
one of his arguments, then I guess Matt Della Hunty
wins right. He was right all along. Matt Dela monkey
won all along because I don't. I don't debate the
I'm trying to think of way. I mean, this is
a where is such a weird world?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 1: Why won't you interact with an insane person? Like the
guy called in about brother Nap. It's or I always
think of him as brother Nappy. It's Nathaniel Kappner, but
I think of it as brother Nap because he has
nappy hair. And I'm like, why do I Why am
I supposed to entertain and work with? And it's like
all of these people, by the way, act insane, like
most of the media people that are out here yapping
literally act like insane people, and they have giant insane
people followings. It's kind of weird, and why won't you
interact with and REFUW and work. It's like, do you
not have discernment? How do you not have discernment? And
that goes for a lot of the talking heads. First
of all, I want in a talking head, yapp or
person that I'm gonna listen to to know that they're straight.
I'm not interested in hearing the opinions of Skittles men
or Skittles internet yappers. And yet for masses of people,
they don't care. No, actually I should care what Milo
or any of the other Internet yapping heads say. No,
why should I care?
Speaker 33: It's cause you're scared of talking about you?
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, So what's more important is not is this individual
saying are they straight? The only thing that matters is
do they talk about Jews every single day? That's the
only that matters?
Speaker 7: Correct you?
Speaker 1: Oh no, we are here. When Jay Dyer went full
don iMOS, well don iMOS was making fun of black
WNBA girls. So why don't you take the sons of
Ballio seriously?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Like, uh, I mean think of all the years that
people were saying, why won't you debate destiny? You need
to debate destiny. You need to be in it. You
need to be interacting with Destiny, and I realized back
in the days of Warski that Destiny was a worthless person.
He was wicked, he was disgusting, and he didn't debate
in good faith. So there was never any point in
debating Destiny. I told Tristan I wouldn't waste my time
debating that guy. And it ended up being a disaster,
not because Tristan was bad, but because Tristan thought that
he would go into a debate with Destiny that would
be good faith, and I'm like, he's not going to
debate you in good faith. He's not a good He's
a completely disgusting person. I said he was discussing in
twenty seventeen eighteen. Nobody listened until now, Caln, you believe
a Dustiny is disgusting? Yeah, the guy who talked about
eating another dude's j I z Z after a threesome.
You just now figured out that he's discussed thing, you idiot,
And why did you not have discernment that this person
was completely obviously a meth disgusting demon. What's wrong with Milow?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah. Enjoy enjoy your talking heads, Enjoy your yapping
talking head goobers, please please go on, go go enjoy them.
Your people are dumb. You guys are dumb. I feel
sorry for you guys that you couldn't that you had
no discernment. Why did you have no discernment? It's weird
to me. You need to debate well, you need to
interrite with Destiny. Do you know how many people told
me this since twenty eighteen? And I'm like, why you
need to work with and talk to Brother No. I
don't like. If you see instances of insanity, you should
be able to make an assessment that this is not
a person that I need to follow, right, But I
don't like people can't figure this out. I don't understand.
So I say, good luck, good sir. We part ways,
Good sir, good luck to you. Deutgel five dollars. Jay,
What do you think about Tucker as a bagel asset?
There's I don't think Tucker's a bagel asset. Why would
he make contact with Father Josiah to interview an Orthodox person?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean you would think that like if I was
telling you about Zionism in two thousand and eight, if
I was telling you about these problems in the Orthodox
Church with the State Department of the CIA in two
thousand and seven and eight. If I was telling you
about Fabian socialist open border stuff fifteen years ago, like
you would think, people might think, maybe I know a
few things, maybe I've got a little bit of discernment.
I mean, I've had a pretty good track record of
not tying myself to an associating with people who ended
up imploding and being basically psychopedes. I'm not toxified by
being closely aligned with anybody. That's a bad look. But no,
none of that matters. All that matters is who is
the best race debater on Twitter? And why won't you
talk to so and so or debate with so and so,
or work with so and so or not with so
and so? Because because I have discernment, that's fine, because
I know and can see who's worth talking to and
who's not worth talking through, and I have a good
track record of picking and being able to discern. I'm
not always right. I've gotten a few people wrong. I
associated with a couple minor figures that ended up being weirdos,
mainly from the Orthodox world in the last eight years.
But for the most part, thank you for your recommendations.
I'm good. Do you know about Timothy Alberino. I don't
orthodox should rest from the internet. I quit and heal
my brain. I do think that it's very beneficial to
take internet breaks. Jamie, for example, has been taking a
Twitter break and she has been healing. So I don't
count going on somebody's podcast as Oh, you associate with
Ethan Ralph, you're a bad person. I don't. I don't
think that Alex is a bad person. I mean if
I went on the Ralph retort to debate people, let's
not me working with Ralph. Like now, now you guys
are playing the you know, oh we gotcha. You you
went on somebody There's some Infamous Persons podcast eight years ago. Yeah,
so what Welcome everybody. We are doing open form still.
If you want to call in, you can call in
on Twitter. The link is right here. If we don't
get any more call ins, we might wrap it up.
I do have a video that I want to show
you guys really quick as we wait for more people
to call in. And this is a video that we
created for I didn't create, my buddy created and you'll
get an idea. It's really well done video. So shout
out to Mark for this.
Speaker 40: What is the relationship between reason and revelation, between philosophy
and faith? For the Orthodox Church, the answer is clear.
Christianity was not born in the lecture halls of Greek philosophers,
but in the encounter with the Living God. Yet the
Church did not ignore philosophy, she baptized it, using the
language of reason to proclaim truths that reason alone could
never reach. So what is the Orthodox view of philosophy?
What role does human reason play in the life of faith?
Does Orthodoxy believe in natural theology? And what is the
difference between knowledge about God and knowing Him? Join us
for an unforgettable conference exploring these timeless questions and encounter
the answer not just in words, but in worship, in truth,
in the experience of the Holy Trinity. Come and discover
the true faith, the faith that establish the universe.
Speaker 11: HM.
Speaker 1: That was an awesome ad there, big billy boy. Do
you want to call in and discuss your dispensationalism. I
know it was muted, I was coughing, I had shipped
my throat. Dude, y'all don't have to y'all don't have
to freak out every time. Do sometimes I want to
be mute. Do you ever think about that? Sometimes I
just want to be muted. Sometimes I want to mute
talk a bunch of smack, so that like a vagina,
y'all don't call me out for it, and you don't
know what I said, and I can just hide behind
the keyboard as a vagina, a keyboard warrior, Trey, what's up.
I'm trying to I'm trying to get like y'all. I'm
trying to learn to be like you guys, you cowardly
keyboard warriors, where I hide behind the mute button talk
a bunch of smack, and then y'all don't know what
I said. I'm mute. What's up? Hey?
Speaker 2: Baby?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's up? Thank you? What's up?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 26: I just want to follow up on that Solis subject
I brought up earlier.
Speaker 1: Uh, what was your comment? I don't remember.
Speaker 12: It was about the Robin and his crew.
Speaker 1: So so oh yeah, yeah, So the book is I
was just referring to that as a.
Speaker 4: More intense version of like bait. Basically what America is.
Speaker 26: You could apply the same like him meeting Friday to
basically all the Presbyterians come to the United States are
not Presbyterians, but the Protestants. But what I just I'm
struggling to understand what the stance on the souls care.
Is it like a net or do you believe it's
a net good, net bad? Or it's just not.
Speaker 1: Preferable, or it's just simply false. I mean, the Bible
doesn't teach sol the scripture, Yes.
Speaker 26: So you're is it discussing the purpose of the Bible?
Speaker 1: What so is that?
Speaker 26: Are you just saying the purpose of the Bible is
not to go out and teach people.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 1: The Bible is a liturgical document. It's meant to be
heard in the context of the liturgy. It's not your
private devotional book.
Speaker 26: Yes, But if I so, I'm getting led back into
the fate by Protestantism and I'm ultimately going to Orthodoxy
in the end.
Speaker 4: So I'm just wondering, was it bad that?
Speaker 26: I mean, it's it's good to a certain point, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, like it's you're oversimplifying. There's nothing in the
world that's usually totally good or totally bad. We don't
make our decisions though, on the base of the fact
that there's some good in some things. Therefore it's all good.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: I mean, heresy can have ninety five percent true and
then one significant wrong. So the fact that there's degrees
isn't applicable to the question of what's the Apostolic faith? Right,
there's no such thing as well, I'm thirty percent orthodox. Oh,
I'm seventy percent orthodox. You got to have the whole
thing proxy. What's up? And then we'll go to Gilbels. Hey.
Speaker 32: I I have a Presbyterian friend and he's restuguing with
the Confederation. Is there any statement by a church father
before free fifty eighty that speaks about icons and that confederation?
Speaker 4: I'm aware that Gregory of Nissa mentioned.
Speaker 32: That he had a icronography in his church of the
Abraham and Isaac. But that's not sufficient enough for my friend.
Speaker 1: Well, where is the Protestant canon of scripture before three fifty?
I wouldn't know, right, So he has an unfair standard
that he his own position, doesn't hold too. So he's
asking you for something that he doesn't even hold to.
In other words, we're supposed to believe that what we
only believe things that have explicit mention before what the
year for three fifty? Okay, but Protestants believe in all
kinds of things, like the Protestant canon of Scripture that
are not mentioned before the year three to fifty. So
that's the assumption is that there must be a written
reference to it. He doesn't hold to that. There's other
things that don't have explicit reference that we hold to. So,
I mean, the Book of Revelation isn't even accepted in
most of the church by the year three hundred, so like,
I guess we got to throw out Revelation like it's
just an arbitrary point to pick. And also in church history,
a lot of things don't get mentioned until there's a
controversy about it. So the fact that it's not mentioned
is just an argument from silence. Where is the doctrine
of perichoresis mentioned prior to you know, Chalcedon or Saint Maximus.
Well it's not, Oh, well, I guess it's not true
because it's not mentioned. Part of that. Well, there wasn't
really a dispute about the nature of the dwelling until
a certain time period when people questioned it. So it's
a it's just a silly expectation that Protestants themselves don't
hold themselves to.
Speaker 7: Matt hell out.
Speaker 4: Oh sorry, hold on one second, Jake, Sorry about that.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, what's up. Yeah, So, just out of curiosity,
I saw on your stream title that you were talking
about libertarianism.
Speaker 36: That was one of the topics.
Speaker 1: No, there is nothing about libertarianism, but I will debate libertianism.
Speaker 14: So I just I'm not.
Speaker 1: Sure that I really wanted to debate it, but I
had an I I just thought I went enerjet to
get your opinion on.
Speaker 2: So one of the ideas, and I've heard.
Speaker 1: About it, libertarianism in the last.
Speaker 2: Few years is a national divorce. And I am newly orthodox.
Speaker 1: I'm still akadechy of And right are you calling me?
Are you calling me from the metallurgy factory or like.
Speaker 7: What are you?
Speaker 1: Where are you at?
Speaker 3: Dude?
Speaker 1: Let me see if like, uh, that's okay, that's all right, good,
go ahead, Now some question we can barely hear you.
Speaker 28: Is that?
Speaker 1: Just ask the question? Man, I can be here.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Sorry, the chat says you're calling from a mine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yess, it just ran the line here, I might.
Speaker 1: That's okay. Yeah, I'll put libertarianism in the title next
time and then we'll talk about it. But that's okay,
dude's calling me from the mining shafts down there at
the at the base of the of the pyramid. He's
trying to get some of that some of that pyramid gold.
I'm gonna uproot that pyramid. I want to go. I
want to know where the gold at. Give me the gold.
I want the goal. No, get me the gold. I
want to know where to gold at.
Speaker 32: Well.
Speaker 33: Just in time for Saint Patrick's Day, crowds are coming
by the dozens to get an up close view at
what some say as a piece of Irish folklore. Some
people in the Criton area of Mobiles say.
Speaker 1: A leprechat leprechauns. That what a leprechaut. The leprechauns go
whoo who.
Speaker 8: Curiosity leads to large crowds in Mobile's Critened community. Many
of you bring binoculars, cancorders, even camera phones to take
pictures to me.
Speaker 1: Trying to find a leprechaun. You hold all your horses?
Who else said?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 8: I witnesses say the leprechaun only comes out at night.
If you shine a light.
Speaker 1: It suddenly disappears.
Speaker 8: This cemetery sketch resembles what many of you say the
leprechaun looks like Others find it hard to believe and
have come up with their own theories and explanations for
the image.
Speaker 41: My theory is casting a shadow from the other limb.
Speaker 35: Good be your crackhead exactly got onto the wrong stuff,
and it told him to get up in a tree.
Speaker 1: And play a leprechaun.
Speaker 41: We don't get down to the bottom of this. Yes,
still down there, guy, don't be afraid. Don't be afraid.
Speaker 7: Man.
Speaker 8: This guy helping to direct traffic says he's prepared for
his encounter with the leprechaun. He suited up from head
to toe.
Speaker 1: This war is all spells right here.
Speaker 41: This is a special lepercut and flute which has been
passed down from thousands of years ago from my great
great grandfather who was Irish.
Speaker 3: Now, I just came to help out.
Speaker 8: Others just came to get lucky in hopes a pot
of gold may be buried under this tree.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna run him back home route that tree.
Speaker 8: I want to know.
Speaker 1: Where to gold.
Speaker 2: I want to go, give me the gold.
Speaker 11: I want to go.
Speaker 1: I like that guy's tenacity. What's up man?
Speaker 5: I like Jake.
Speaker 3: Hello, Honestly, I'm gonna be honest with you.
Speaker 42: I don't really know much about you. You know, I
started following you for like, you know, one month, you know.
But yeah, I'm a Muslim, you know.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 42: I mean, I'm a Muslim.
Speaker 3: I'm Muslim.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I'm sorry you're Muslim.
Speaker 42: Oh okay, but you know, actually I don't really know
much about autodoxy. But is it true that you know
Orthodox believe that you know Christ is Lord?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 24: Oh but.
Speaker 3: How comes?
Speaker 11: So what.
Speaker 2: I don't you know?
Speaker 42: Like, how can you know a man? And you know?
Speaker 1: Well, look, I I would say, go check out some
of the Muslim debates that we've done. I've debated all
the top Muslims except for hit Job. So I would
just say, go check out some of those debates and
then come back and uh, if you got more questions,
I'd be happy to answer him. Chingo, what's up, broll,
I'll come. I like that. That's a unique approach to debate.
How come I'm just gonna start saying, Okay, you believe,
how come? Chingo? How come? How come?
Speaker 4: How come?
Speaker 3: Fallacy?
Speaker 1: Exactly? What's on your mind?
Speaker 3: I just wanted to say that I'm a good one.
Speaker 1: She's getting weird, now, Cory, what's up your boy, Cory,
what's up? Cory?
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 4: Can you hear me this time?
Speaker 7: Uh huh?
Speaker 38: All right, So my question for the last time was
about atheists who believe that Jesus and.
Speaker 3: Paul didn't exist.
Speaker 38: They say that Tacitus his writings were of a medieval forgery,
and then Josephus wasn't actually talking about Christians. They were
talking about Christians. But where where would you say the
go for information to disprove that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it just sounds arbitrary. What's the evidence? What's
the proof that Tacitus is a medieval commentator and not
an ancient Roman commentator? I mean, it sounds like something
they're just saying. And a lot of times atheists just
say this stuff. So you need to ask for the proof,
the evidences. Where's this coming from?
Speaker 4: And what's up?
Speaker 1: Look? Where is the goal? That's the question?
Speaker 8: What a go?
Speaker 39: Let me go, Let me go?
Speaker 4: What am I coming through?
Speaker 1: Okay, you are cool?
Speaker 2: Cool.
Speaker 28: I was just wanting to bring get your opinion on
two points. One is I wish I had a good
solo accent like you. But did you ever see that?
It's a Syrian news clip from twenty thirteen when Obama
deported some like MS gang members to Syria and they're
like out there shooting a K forty seven's like we
out here owns like fighting.
Speaker 1: No, it sounds funny, though, dude. You know the title of.
Speaker 28: It, I it's it should be Memory.
Speaker 4: It's like a memory.
Speaker 28: Gang members twenty thirteen in Syria.
Speaker 4: They're like all shaped.
Speaker 28: They're standing behind some brick walls, like just popping offs.
Speaker 25: In Syria, thirty miles northeast of Damascus.
Speaker 21: Checking any alliance with Western backed opposite.
Speaker 1: Solos toy if we're clear, what does have to do
with Syria.
Speaker 28: Yeah, let me.
Speaker 3: Dud uh.
Speaker 4: Am I still on Sory switched tobs.
Speaker 28: Okay, No Obama did those deportations of those gangs.
Speaker 3: But uh.
Speaker 28: Recently I think and Andy know reported on those trans
militants training in Syria. Uh, and I think they were
some of them were from the States, some of them
were from France or Germany.
Speaker 3: I think, uh. One.
Speaker 28: I was one point I was curious about your you know,
geoplical background, what what role does.
Speaker 1: Does Syria have any role or connection to like.
Speaker 28: Training for militant groups or I mean I understand you
know it's a de state blast country, so it's kind
of like open field over there.
Speaker 3: But I was kind of relating that too.
Speaker 28: I mean, I know, h there's a lot of talk
about Israel's connection and the Kirk assassination, but I just
I think it's bizarre how no one's talking about these deranged,
sick transgenders that are like forming militias.