Speaker 1: It's so insane.
Speaker 2: Bunker bunco unco funcer.
Speaker 3: All right, what's up everybody. We have our good buddy
David Patrick Carey from church Atternal Logos. He's joining us
today to cover a topic that I first saw maybe
a year and a half ago. Two years ago, I
was listening to a link that somebody sent me from
a weird Lutheran.
Speaker 1: Guy, and if you remember, the Lutheran guy was talking
like this, and he was talking about how he had
just engaged in deconstructing his faith journey and through this
deconstruction process he learned a lot about the oppression that
he found in Christianity.
Speaker 3: Since that time, this has become a trend where we're
noticing all over mainly TikTok. I mean, it's kind of
spilling out into other areas. And one of the key
characters that has helped promote this, we'll talk about Dan
McClellan as one of these characters. Or is that his name, Dan? Yeah,
Dan McLellan Yeah. And Codell just sent me his Instagram.
As you can see, it's basically all him and a
bunch of Marvel soy gears. So this is going to
tell you, right, this is going to tell you right
away like the sort of personalities that we're dealing with,
but also one of the big YouTubers, if you know,
Rhett from reht and link is one of the big
YouTubers and now TikTokers who's promoted this trend of quote
deconstructing my Christianity. So today we're going to cover that,
and this is an introductory stream. We're going to actually
deal with the more in depth theological challenges in the
second stream, which will be over on Cotel's channel. I've
got him linked in the show description and in the title,
so be sure and follow David Patrick Harry over at
his channel, and we'll do that part two probably next week.
But today we're going to introduce the topic. And again
it seems to right now be sort of confined to
the evangelical world, is apparently spilling over into Mormonism with
this McClellan guy. It's a lot of emergent church, non
denominational people doing this, and so what's what's your initial
assessment of this? When did you first hear about deconstructing
my Christianity and what's your initial assessment?
Speaker 4: David, So I had heard.
Speaker 5: About it, like you probably about a year ago, but
I'd have dove down the rabbit hole at TikTok deconstructing
my Christianity until this stream we start talking about this topic,
shout out to ac and once I dove down that
rabbit hole, I it's kind of surprised by how many
views they get. I mean, there are multiple videos that
have millions of views on TikTok where they really bring
the most basic criticisms of Christianity and act as if
they have uncovered these hidden, hidden jewels and secrets that
nobody's heard about.
Speaker 4: You know. Theodicy is a big.
Speaker 5: One, trying to explain the existence of evil and if
God's omni present, omni perfect, well then how come people die?
And they mock Christianity by saying, if God.
Speaker 4: Why bad thing? And then they go on to talk.
Speaker 5: About why it's a good argument, and it's like, no, no,
it's not.
Speaker 4: But it's kind of a.
Speaker 5: Pseudo intellectual social media trend where these criticisms are credibly
superficient and dealt with. I mean, for at this point,
you know, in two thousand years, and I was kind
of surprised to see how it is very very popular
right now, especially like you said on TikTok amongst the
gen Z. So you know, they try to utilize deconstructionism.
Speaker 4: And they really don't even know what it is. I mean, I.
Speaker 5: Would say maybe the McLellan guy is familiar because he
is academically trained. He has a PhD, master's degrees and
biblical studies and stuff like that. But you know, deconstructionism
as a general philosophical methodology begins with Derrida and his grammatology.
And when we talk about postmodern you know, Jordan Peterson's postmodernism,
it has to do with the linguistic turn in philosophy
in which they do away with the authority of the
author itself and therefore you move into infinite interpretations. And
so it's ironic that they're using deconstructionism to highlight how
biblical readings scripture are inaccurate. Meanwhile, their own methodology has
been criticized throughout scholarship is being relativistic and really is
it's deconstructing, but it never constructs anything. It's just constant criticism,
and they themselves are guilty of relativism and subjective interpretations
of reading. So's the what's the ultimate conclusion?
Speaker 3: And point of Yeah, this is a great point, and
this is a very common presubsisitional critique that I've done
over the years. I got this from Bonsen. When you
encounter somebody who is a deconstructionist, of course, they always
assume that they read dairy Da and they derive Deida's
meanings from his text. But wait a minute, I thought,
I can't know authorial intent, and I thought, I have
to deconstruct all of my narratives, my grand narratives. So
it's a very contradictory philosophical nonsense position from the outset.
But I'll briefly read a little bit here just to
give an introduction to the topic. Faith deconstruction is an
evangelical movement within particularly American evangelicalism, and it's closely related
to what's called the ex evangelical movement. And this is
a very adjacent to Reddit's, you know, the soy atheist
sphere of Reddit. Of course, it can have a range
of meanings. Alyssa Childers, So here we have it's beginning
with a woman defines deconstruction as a process so systematically
dissecting and rejecting the beliefs that you grew up with.
Now people are finding this to be some like groundbreaking thing.
But it's like, I mean, pretty much everybody who becomes
a teenager at some point, I know I did. I'm
sure like everybody questions their belief. Why is this some
like new phenomenon first question about Christianity. It's like I realized,
this is a system of oppression, as if no one
ever questioned their faith when they become you know, seventeen
year olds or whatever. Right from the outset. It's kind
of silly. And like you said in my notes, I
put this is a sued movement. This is like it's
a bunch of SuDS. It goes on to say that
Tyler Huckaby, who wrote for Relevant magazine, and you have
to keep in mind a lot of these emergent church movements,
a lot of these non denominational strip mall churches there,
a lot of these are tied to NGO's, are tied
to foundations that fund them to push these kinds of ideas,
particularly all who was one of the founders of or
early on if I remember, he's one of the early
emergent church people, and this was an idea to kind
of pick and choose from everything from Catholicism to evangelicalism
to classical Reformation theology to kind of create your own
evangelical church movement called the emergent Church back in the
two thousands, and this kind of was a big It
played a role in a lot of the megachurches that
popped off during that time period. But it goes on
to say that John, it's a process of re examining
your faith. John stone Street, Timothy Paget note that it
is both used descriptively, covering everybody from Kevin Max to
Derek Webb to Rob Bell or the prescriptive recommendation that
you question. The term, as David noted, derives loosely from
Jacques Garry does philosophical consts the deconstruction, and the idea
is that eventually you uh learn to erode the structures
that you were raised with because you figure out, oh, well,
I don't know Saint Paul's intention. I don't know the
you know, the basis for uh, you know why the
church fathers made this? This this the Bible? Like, so
I don't know, So why do I believe in you this?
It's just because I was raised with it.
Speaker 5: But I wrote down in regard to some of the
philosophical roots of deconstructionism is that it kind of is
a blending of really three important thinkers. One is Assur's linguistics, which,
for those who aren't familiar, his whole the whole claim
to fame there is that he's arguing symbols don't have
meaning and of themselves, and that meaning is derived between
the space between symbols. So therefore they're all uh sort
of relational in the concept of meaning, and so they
dare it up. Builds upon some Sour's linguistics, and then
adds Martin Heideger's phenomenology, which is essentially a critique of
Western metaphysics and his focus on the fluid nature of being,
which influenced Dardo's approach to questioning traditional philosophical concepts. So
you can see this fluidity and the idea of categories
and being mixed with meaning is now in the in
between space, it's not within symbols itself. And then of
course Nietzsche's critique of truth, which he is skeptical about
the existence of objective truth itself, which again is ironic
because the people presenting this as if they're presenting an
objective form of truth undermining Christian faith and so so
sore Heidiger and Nietzsche are really the core inspirations for
Dereduck sort of combining this into a deconstructionist philosophy that
is really in opposition to at that time structuralism and
building linguistic structures and understanding cultural phenomenon and all this
different stuff and then underneath it, and then we'll probably
discuss those more in part two, because they use a
lot of vaki and cognitive science of religion, and it's
because deconstructionism, because it was kind of a linguistic movement.
The way they rooted themselves in science is through psychoanalysis
and so lacan Freud. These are then inspirations for emphasizing
the unconscious and sort of evolutionary understandings of why religion
exists and why people are religious. And when we watch
some of the more tiktoks probably in part two, we'll
see that they always moved to a sort of evolutionary
understanding of why people believe certain things or why the
Bible says this or that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's often closely associated with postmodernism in a lot
of ways, because postmodernism was all about deconstructing your grand narratives,
and so there are no grand narratives. Even the Enlightenment
was a grand narrative, the universalism of the Enlightenment, the
age of Reason that had to be deconstructed as a
mythology that was promoted and proposed by certain power structures.
You can see how this is adjacent to Marxism. There
is a very clear demarcation though between postmodernism and Marxism,
and so this is an area where Jordan Peterson typically
kind of gets things wrong, even though there is some overlap.
So because many of the postmodernists did like elements of Marxism. Postmodernism, though,
was utilized by the CIA actually to fight against Soviet
realism and cosmism. So it's actually the CIA that went
and met with Dairy Daw and various deconstruction is to
try to try to incorporate and utilize this form of liberalism.
And it's a form of liberalism because it's it's radical
in its deconstructing process, right, so that for example, there's
no objective meanings, that there's no you know, universal narratives,
then sovietism cosmism is not true. And so it's part
of the arsenal of the Western liberal project, even though
it's a deconstruction even of Western liberalism. So people get
confused over this and they don't understand sort of these differences.
But I'm glad you mentioned semiotics. I had quite a
few classes that dealt with semiotics and in underground in
grad school, So this is an area I know decently.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 3: I'm not an expert in it, but you can begin
to see why semiotics, which is philosophy of signs and symbols,
comes to play a key role because if we get
really deep into deconstructing symbols, and like you said, there's
that linguistic turn in philosophy begins with Vico and by
the time it gets to modern philosophy, you've got you know,
Vickenstein and guys like this are basically saying that really
words are just language games. They're not really conveying meaning.
It's an illusion if we think we're deriving the author's meaning,
and so it's a breaking down of first books and literature.
You could see the same thing mirrored, for example, in
the higher critical studies of breaking down the Bible in
the higher the German higher criticism schools after Luther the
same thing's going on in philosophy. If I can't know
the Bible, if the Bible's deconstructed, you know, generation or
two after Luther, then it seems to follow, Well, wait
a minute, I don't really know anybody book, do I.
I can't. There's no book that I can actually derive,
So I'm just importing all of my personal presubsisitions and
meanings into the book. So that's kind of the setting
for this. But as David pointed out, most of the
people I think involved in this don't really they don't
know anything about all that they don't.
Speaker 5: And academically, it's in the nineteen sixties and seventies it
kind of grows prominence as a methodology within the academy,
but it's really relegated towards literary studies and like cultural criticism.
But once we get into the later nineteen seventies and
especially the nineteen eighties, we see deconstructionism now turning towards
biblical scholarship, more philosophical analysis. And really it's the nineteen
eighties that it became a very dominant. This is why
even today within the humanities, you know, Michelle Fuco is
the most cited scholar in the world, and of course
he died from activities at bathroomme hous Is in the
Bay Area. But I just wanted to point out that
this isn't a new phenomenon. Even though these TikTokers are
acting like they just discovered the sun or something. This
is kind of old hat stuff and they really don't
even know what they're engaging in, especially with their verritical
claims about what scripture says or what It's funny because
even the Dan McClellan glag, he will argue for what
he believes the intent of the author is, even though
his own deconstructionist movement rejects, like you said, a thorial
intent within textual scripture itself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I want to make one little sort of a
caveat here, which is that if you're into presuppositional argumentation
and logic, believe it or not, there's actually an interesting
role for postmodern people. I don't mean to say obviously
that I accept or I want to promote postmodernism, much
like David Hume is very useful to to show the
logical consistency of you know, skepticism and atheism and empiricism
or radical empiricism in the very same way. We can
actually take the some of the critiques that postmodernists have
and they're very useful, and they're they're very adjacent to
transcendental argumentation. Just the critiques though, So be very be
very clear with what I'm saying here. I'm not saying
that I want to adopt postmodern philosophy. There is no answer.
I mean, the whole point is everything is destroyed and
deconstructive because there are no grand narratives. So now, obviously,
if we believe in Christianity, that's our grand narrative. But
the postmodernists have a very good insight when it comes
to deconstructing language from an atheist empiricist perspective. So any
time you're talking to say, you know, enormy Reddit level
atheist who doesn't know this stuff, kind of the Dawkins Dinnet,
you know, Hitchins sphere, those kinds of people, they will
not have any significant answer to postmodern critiques of their
Enlightenment assumptions. So that's why they're very useful to us
if you're very careful. So exactly as somebody said in
the chat there more says you can deconstruct you deconstructionism, absolutely,
but they have very valid critiques of the presuppositions of
the Enlightenment. In other words, I could use, say, some of
the postmodern critiques against somebody like James Lindsay, right, Doctor
James Lindsay would not be able to I'm not saying
that the postmodernists are correct in their answers, but their
critiques can be valid critiques of Enlightenment assumptions. And that
will I don't want to yap too long, but that
will get into the very interesting questions that are raised
when we get into linguistic philosophy. And so for those
of you that one last point here. For those of
you that have seen me, for example, in a lot
of debates with atheists, you'll see me at times bringing
up linguistic issues. That's because I had enough of a
uh instruction in semiotics in my classes to know that
most atheists aren't aware of how nuanced and complex languages
and how nuanced and complex the philosophy of signs and
symbols is. And so if you know that stuff, that
could be it could be very powerful AMMO against sort
of the normy atheists.
Speaker 5: Right, And I just wanted to rebut your point is
that that's exactly why you're you're utilizing deconstructionism or postmodernism.
Is the scholastic approach, and I don't mean sclasticism, I
mean like academic approach, is that you're these are tools.
We're not supporting postmodernism or deconstructionism. But as you said,
when it when really all this stuff is coming out
of post enlightenment and really post contient critiques of rationalism,
you can utilize these things as AMMO from a theistic
orthodox perspective and undermine people that are your perceived intellectual rivals.
And that's what that's why this stuff is useful for us,
even though we would ject again postmodernism or deconstructionism as
an ultimate methodology or endpoint for philosophy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and there's some actually some really good philosophical books
from this school. Roland Bart actually has some really I mean,
he was a skittles person. I'm not backing him up,
but he actually has some interesting semiotic essays that that
I think an undergrad we had to read elements of semiology.
I've read a lot of umberto Echo over the years.
He's actually not just a famous author and kind of
weirdo anti Catholic, but he left Catholicism and Tomism actually
because of postmodernism and his atheism and became like a
committed super duper like hardcore you know, postmodernist and his
but his, his novels are actually really interesting critiques of
a lot of say, Roman Catholic metaphysical assumptions and things
that we would agree with without accepting the end result.
Because I mean he's a totally kind of wicked dude,
kind of like Fuco Right was totally wicked. But I
mean there are some really fascinating people. Uh and and
I mean I had to read Charles Sanders purse uh
and for for this domain as well as a you
know sorcerer that you're talking about back in the.
Speaker 5: Day, kind of founders of pragmatism.
Speaker 3: So let me I'll read a little bit more of
this and then we'll see what what you what you
what sticks out to you. It's interesting that it's that
is popping up in evangelicalism. I'm wondering why that is,
because is it just that evangelicalism is late to the game,
because you know, within mainline uh Protestantism or Catholicism, you
had this deconstructing going on, maybe even after Luther with
higher criticism. Uh, you know, why is this? I wonder
why this is hitting Christianity right now? It says after
preaching a sermon in which he equated deconstructions in with
leaving the faith. Matt Chandler clarified that it doesn't mean
necessarily doubting or theological wrestling through church hurt. John Cooper stated,
I don't even know who these people are. These are
like famous evangelicals. It is time that we declare war
against this deconstruction movement. It is anti christian, it is
a false religion. On the other hand, other evangelicals like
Tyler Huckabee argue that it can result in deconversion out
of Christianity and most often that it leads you into
something somewhere in between, to a form of progressivist Christianity.
So I think, from the vantage point of maybe the
power elite, why this would be pushed so hard in
these circles is maybe if they can't even necessarily get
people to be full on atheists, it at least gets
the evangelical world to be more progressive and more cocked.
And this is something that you and I were talking
about beforehand. There's an interesting pattern which we'll cover when
we get to your channel. With a lot of the
guys involved in this, what are some of the patterns?
And I think with the women too, what some of
the patterns you've noticed with the.
Speaker 5: People going through some of the tiktoks of some of
the more prominent deconstructionists of Christianity, and like you showed
on your phone, like Dan McClellan, his entire instagram if
you look at and they're all deconstructing Christianity. But they
begin by him holding up t shirts of X Men characters, Superman,
Marvel superheroes. And then there's another a woman actually, and
she has a TikTok called no Nonsense Spirituality. I mean,
this woman is not an intellectual. Her videos, some of
them have millions of views. And in her office where
she sits there in films these if that's not in
her car, she has Funko pops all over the background.
And I thought that that is iron It never fails.
Speaker 3: These are the religious iconography of the soy world, aren't they.
I mean, whether it's Marvel Universe or whether it's you know,
Phonko pops, these are the signs, and these are the
semiotic indicators of soyness, are they not.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: And it's funny because you were talking about like evangelical Christianity,
and it seems like for them, they think that they're
so much more rational. And I even watched a quote
unquote pastor who's promoting this deconstruction my Christianity, deconstructing my Christianity,
and he's saying how wonderful this is. And he didn't
he said that this was a movement that began the nineties,
no understanding of the history of philosophy or anything like that,
but you could tell. So he was super pro LGBTQ,
pro everything progressive, and it's a way for them to
have a foothold in quote unquote Christianity. But rationalizing this
is the modern person's religion. This is something that's deconstructed.
We're taking away all the fictitious aspects of Christianity and
now we're coming to for them a fuller realization, a
rational understanding of the Biblical God. And how you know,
all these criticisms of texts and discrept and sees what
they perceive to be between Old Testament prophecies and the
Messiah in Christ, this type of stuff. But it really
just seems a way for them to present themselves as
intellectually sound and hyper rational. And I think that's why
we're seeing it in like evangelical and Pentecostal charismatic circles
is one, you know, well in the charismatic circle is
kind of irrational, but they're anti intellectual movements. So yeah, right,
But I've made the argument because of the lack of
sacraments and Protestantism, it really is an ideology. And so
when you hear Protestants worry about the world, it's communism,
it's it's you know, undermining capitalism, it's it's ideologies that
are in competition with Protestantism. This is why, you know,
if somebody's possessed, even I know somebody here in the
local town, they went to a Catholic priest to get
an extracism because their Protestant church doesn't deal with that
sort of material realm of mystery and the sort of
super spiritual reality within the world. So I think Protestantism
is already lean because it's really an Enlightenment or early
pre Enlightenment creation. It is a hyper it's ironic because
they're anti intellectual, as you said, but at the same time,
it's an ideology itself. It's fundamentally about rational apprehension of beliefs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's difficult to in our society be
anti intellectual when you are constantly hit with intellectual challenges.
So what's happening is these evangelicals are then looking for
intellectual answers and intellectual ways to grapple with intellectual challenges,
and this is leading them to choose these kind of
pseudo intellectual answers and options. And this is in many cases,
I think, deconstructing and leading them out of Christianity. In fact,
one of the quotes here is by one of the
persons who's a promoter of it. For examp sample, they say,
you could look at Martin Luther himself as somebody who
was a deconstructionist. He deconstructed his own Catholic upbringing to
come to a new revolutionary paradigm which didn't wholly abandon Christianity,
but was something new and progressive. So that Luther there,
even the proponents of were saying, well, we're not doing
anything different than what Martin Luther was doing, which I
think is kind of true, and I think from orthodized perspective,
I could say, yeah, the pope too, like the pope
in the eleventh century of the grigoyin Reforms was, as
Saint Justin Popovich says, another kind of he was the
first Protestant revolutionary, was the pope at that time. Now,
one thing that immediately pops into my mind too, from
a philosophical perspective, is that the videos that I've watched
in these pseudo intellectual guys and I just I remember
this McClellan guy. I've actually people have sent me his
videos before. I didn't realize he was a Mormon dude.
But that makes sense because one thing you'll notice that
people who say utilize a lot of these deconstruction elements
and these postmodern ideas, these that's a filosophy where there
is no neutrality, there's no privileged position from which you
can judge. That's not theory lating. Yet every one of
the people who does these critiques in the evangelical or
even Mormon world here like they're assuming that they actually
do have neutrality, because they're saying that, oh, the Bible
has these systems of oppression, the Bible has these you know,
bad arguments and has these falsehoods. Well, all of that
relies on you having some kind of position from which
you can make those critiques. But the problem is that
if you're actually a postmodernist, there is no privileged position,
there is no theory neutral position, So they're inconsistent the
application of this philosophy.
Speaker 5: Well, and for McClellan, I was going through his YouTube channels.
I think he has like sixty some thousand subs, and
I was he introduces himself is that he's still part
of the Church of the Latter day Saints. And then
ac sent one of his books that's sort of free domain,
and I was reading it. And the reason why he's
so adamant about sort of undermining the Christology or the
christophanies of the Old Testament regards to Christ is because
of his Mormonism. He wants him to take on as
sort of aryan Christology and promotion of his Mormon worldview,
and so his deconstructionism and constantly undermining what we would
consider foundational Christian beliefs is part for him to elevate
his Mormon theology as being in his view, more consistent
with the Old Testament than you know, Orthodoxy or Catholicism
or mainline Protestantism.
Speaker 3: I mean, what has he done a deconstruction of Mormonism.
Speaker 5: I mean no, I looked, I didn't find anything undermining Mormonism.
Speaker 3: Well, I wonder how you would deal with the fact that,
I don't know if you knew this. I just actually
learned this a couple of weeks ago from an ex
Mormon that called in have you seen the Joseph Smith
translation of the Bible? No, So it's a real thing.
So Joseph Smith added himself off in eleven verses to
the end of Genesis. So I'm serious. So just like
more Muslims will say, oh, you know John, the prophecies
in John of the Holy Spirit, that's actually talking about Mohammed.
It's not obviously not talking about Mohammed and some bother
coming of the Holy Spirit. Well, Joseph Smith went one
step further and actually added eleven verses to Genesis to
predict himself in Genesis. So I'm curious what Dan. If
Dan was going to do some linguistic constructions right and
figure out if that's actually part of Genesis.
Speaker 4: The whole thing.
Speaker 5: Yeah, this whole thing is about breaking down the Hebrew
to undermine Christianity, and I'd be curious to see the
Hebrew of Joseph Smith and Genesis exactly.
Speaker 3: Now, that's a key point because this is something not
many people know. This is my own personal anecdotal observation.
So in dealing with a lot of academics over the
years and in a lot of circles, I've met a
lot of people who focused on linguistics. And you know,
there's obviously advantages to being a linguist. It's it's a
great skill set, a great tool to have in your toolkit.
But there's a there's something that's a problem I've noticed
with a lot of people who are linguists, which is
that they oftentimes assume, I don't know, if you remember
the debate that either was a JF a long time ago,
but Jay have kind of assumed that because he's studied
a lot of you know, neuro whatever neuroscience, that basically
he knew everything else, Like I don't have to know
anything about logic or philosophy because I've studied you know, neurology,
so I know I know what's going on. It's like,
that doesn't mean that you're gonna know anything in the
domain of logic, you didn't know basic you know, logical fallacies,
the exact same mistake, the sort of like boxed in,
you know, mono vision that they have is is definitely
the case with a lot of linguists, and so they
will assume that because they've deconstructed language, that that's all
that you need to know. And then most most of
the time they're absolutely they're absolutely totally inept when it
comes to philosophy. They have no idea what fallacies are,
They have no idea the historical discussions and disputes of philosophy.
They don't even know the history of linguistic philosophy. But
they've studied linguistics, and they think much like a physicist, Right,
you and I would know if we critiqued you know,
somebody like you know, Dawkins or somebody or or Nilda
grass Tyson. Right, they think that, well, I've studied a
lot of physics. That's the key to understanding and knowing everything. Well,
that's your assumption. So that doesn't mean you know everything.
In fact, you know very little of what's actually going on.
And most I mean every I mean, maybe Dan's a
unique exception to the rule. But I mean, most of
the time linguistics people, they're so like one sided, they
have no idea what's going on.
Speaker 4: Right, It's the Dunning Kruger effect.
Speaker 5: And yeah, in regards to the philosophy, like in his argument,
so he has a whole book that's on the divine
Yahweh's divine images, a cognitive approach, and so he's mix
it like cognitive cognitive science with his biblical criticism. And
at the end of it, so he's making the case
that the messenger of God in the Old Testament, that
Christianity associates with Christ. He's looking at certain words and
highlighting that it's not taking on the full divinity of
the Father, and therefore it's not He's leading them to
the argument that Jesus Christ, then isn't one with the
Trinity himself, at least according to the Old Testament. And
then he ends the book by claiming that logos philosophy
theology wasn't articulated till like the fourth century, and therefore
wasn't even available for early Christians, and that this is
a later innovation in Christian the I.
Speaker 3: Mean, and again that's rich coming from somebody who believes
that Joseph Smith is a prophet who added eleven verses
to Genesis to predict herself. But I mean logo logos. No,
it's not logos. Theology is in John one. The first
generation of apologists are known as the logos apologists. So
this would be like justin Martyr, this would be Tation,
this would be a lot of famous people right after
the death of Apostles, uh, who are known for being
logos apologists. So that's just on the on its face, preposterous, right.
Speaker 5: That's and that was my point with the Dunning Krueger
is he so focused on linguistics to make an argument
that the philosophy wasn't developed till later to even express
who the second person of the Trinity was. Therefore they
can't apply to the early Christian Church before the Nicene Creed.
Speaker 4: It's like, what are you talking about?
Speaker 3: Well, I did a whole Yeah, I did a whole
livestream with Inspiring Philosophy a few months ago where we
responded to Jake the Muslim metaphysician, who makes the same argument,
which by the way, he just cribbed from a Jehovah's
Witness website. Uh, they make I'm serious. Now they make
this argument that well, there there was no trinity prior
to Anicia because for example, they didn't have the philosophical
concepts to do it. First of all, it's just simply false, uh,
that they didn't have those philosophical terms. There you can
see the terminology of even Trinitas and Tertullian and is
it ignacious? Not ignacious? Yeah, the Aphulus, the Apulus of
Antiocho all so very early uses the term trinity. So
triad and Trinitas are used prior to and not i Sea.
But even apart from the terminology and the philosophical toolkits,
we don't it doesn't matter because we don't believe that
it's ultimately dependent on the philosophy terms. It's dependent upon
what's revealed in those texts. And as you guys know,
we've done multiple videos and streams where we've In fact,
a few months ago, I did a three hour stream
just in the Torah, just the references to the Triad
and the Torah, and it took three hours to get
through all those and I still missed one. So that's
not even counting all of the minor profits and the
psalms and so forth. So and that's the whole other
thing itself. We'll talk about more of that in the
part two that we will do with Kotel, But again,
I just wanted to stress this notion of the limitations
of linguistics. And it's odd too, because it's curious for
me to hear somebody who's a postmodern influenced person to
then think that they then have a key through linguistics.
I mean, the whole point of this is deconstructing linguistics.
So it's just it's just absurd.
Speaker 4: It's not inherent meaning in the in the.
Speaker 3: Hebrew Why would there be, Yeah, exactly, whether it be
inherent meaning in the Book of Mormon or in the
Hebrew words exactly.
Speaker 5: And to your point, I wrote down at least a
few references I can remember for my research that the
Trinity is mentioned by pre Nicene Christians, Ignatius of Antioch,
Justin Marter, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and even Origin all of them speak.
Speaker 3: Oh there's many more than that. In fact, yeah, in
the Inspiring Philosophy in the Aspiring Philosophy stream, we spent
two hours going through pre Nicene references. So what I
was earlier was just the words trinitas or triad the
words used by Theophilus and Tertullian first right early on.
But the teaching that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
all God. That's in almost all the Church fathers.
Speaker 5: And because the focus on linguistics, they don't even address
like historical traditions, so segy, prayers, hymnography.
Speaker 3: Oh, that's a great point. Yeah, all that's exclusive.
Speaker 5: Yeah, all these things also represent the trinity and divinity
of Christ pre Nicene Creed, but because that's not scriptural,
then that's not even taken into account.
Speaker 3: That's a great point. Yeah, they have a presupposition from
their protestant Ish derivations, and Mormonism is a Protestant derivation.
They just assume that we only go with the New
Testament textual evidence or the written patristic evidence. But I
mean even even the liturgies count as patristic and Apostolic evidences.
I mean, why would you not include them. But that's
a great point. They just exclude this because of their
assumptions of solo scriptura. And I think this is a
great point to highlight that none of these people are
ever self aware of their own presubpositions. That's so key
all right, now we have let me read a little
bit more a lot of this. Uh so, what does
it exactly mean to do this process? So we got
the idea of where it comes from, its origins and
post modern philosophy and linguistics. This is just like stuff
I found, just sort of normy stuff online. And this
is important to be Why are you going to normy stuff?
But because this is what all the TikTok people are
gonna search and find. This is where they're gonna go.
So the normy websites and everything said, this is involves quote,
first you break down the components of your faith. So
I believe in the trinity, I believe in the deed
of Christ, I believe in the salvation through Jesus and
his blood and so forth. And then it says you, next,
you have to examine your beliefs in God. Why do
you have those beliefs? Do you perhaps have presuppositions or biases?
It's interesting that that terminology is coming up. Here's a
key point. Do you have these beliefs because of your privilege?
Wait a minute, privilege? So now they're bringing in like
the critical race there crt right, the woke stuff is
starting to first, what would privilege have to do with
with my beliefs? But they don't even realize that they're
caving to a separate paradigm already. So they think they're
achieving neutrality, but they're adopting a leftist, woke paradigm to
begin to make these critiques. Do you see what I'm saying?
Because there's like the articles will start to sneak in
this idea that perhaps you believe in something because of
your privileges, which is all like classical Marxists is speak right.
Speaker 5: Well, and it ties in with Dereda because of his
attack on logo centrism. So the centeredness of logos, well
he calls foul logo centrism.
Speaker 3: Oh, because of male male supremacy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that has to be undermined.
Speaker 5: And so deconstructionism typically always focuses on the margins or
what they called the areas of silence. So women in
the Bible, non Israelite, how the Bible, How does the
God of the Old Testament deal with heretical views? These
are ways in which they can then what they perceive undermined,
this prespposition of logo foul logo centrism for a sort
of feminized, decentered, focused on the exterior margins of something,
and attack the idea of a metaphysical continuity of logos
metaphysical categories themselves. So all this stuff is embedded within deconstructionism.
Speaker 3: And you'll notice when you listen to the people that
do this deconstructing process, when they start to state what
they now believe and what they've come to realize, well,
it just happens to be a bunch of woke stuff.
In other words, they just happened to They just happened to.
Start they start saying, I realized Christianity was a tool
for a system of oppression of underprivileged people and minorities.
I realized. And a lot of them will say the
first thing they'll say is skittle stuff. They'll say, I
didn't realize that, like, you know, there's nothing wrong with like,
you know, being skittles, And Christianity is the thing that
told me that it's wrong to be this, which is
odd because it's like you never obviously Christianity told you,
Like what, how is that some new revelation in your
deconstructing process, Right, It's.
Speaker 5: One of the tictoks I watched with exactly that it
was a chick. I forget her name. I have it
pulled up somewhere. Oh, leaving the faith. Her name is
leaving the faith on tickets.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've seen.
Speaker 5: And her whole thing was exactly what you said, is well,
I grew up non denominational, and I believed all these things,
and then I went to graduate school and then I learned,
and then we deconstructed the Bible, and I realized that
it's part of patriarchal supremacy, and that really it's this Christianity,
is this hegemonic force that's oppressing us. And and she
was responding to a Christian who said that basically was
criticizing her continual criticisms of the Church, and she was arguing, well,
we have to because this is this is the how
we liberate people, how we liberate women from again this
patriarchal dominating force. And it's exactly what you just said.
And of course it's a woman who goes to graduate
school and all of a sudden, now she's enlightened about
how you deconstruct Christianity and Lily roo.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I mean she's just being brainwashed in the
same woke grad school stuff of CRT and all the
crap that everybody else who's been to grad school has
been exposed to. And so let's see where was this?
What was there? Okay, So then it says next, after
you wrestle with your privileges, you must release yourself from
what you've begun to realize is not God himself. Deconstructing
your faith can be a messy and complicated process, very
similar to renovating a house. It can involve removing, adding, modifying,
and rearranging the various structural elements that make up your
belief in, your lifestyle and your worldview to make it
more livable. Thus, deconstructing your faith is not abandoning your
faith wholesale, but rather looking for a more coherent and
consistent way without inventing a new religion wholesale. So in
other words, it's sort of like they're offering, like, look,
you don't have to totally abandon Christianity, just get a
bit rid of all the things that are you know,
goes against the modern world, like being opposed to skittle stuff. Right,
So that's all that it is. Right, So yeah, I
call yourself a Christian. Just scale it down to you know,
not talking about Jesus being the only way to have it,
kind of like Pote Francis the other day, Right, all
the religions are paths to God. The deconstructionism is a
relatively new idea that originated in textual criticism. So this
is again making my point, it's not just the deconstructionists
and the postmoners philosophers actually goes back to the post
Luther movements of higher textual criticism, deconstructing these texts down
to well, we don't really know what Jesus taught, and
we don't really know who the authors of these gospels are.
And so if you remember, there used to be this
thing called the Jesus Quest, and this was this, you know,
globalist promoted thing of scholars who are a bunch of
skittles people, shocker, who decided that we only know about
two to three percent of what Jesus actually said. The
rest of what's in the gospels are these accretions of traditions.
So what do we get this idea that there's these
accretions of traditions. Well, it sounds a lot like the Protestants,
doesn't it. Yeah, So in other words, it's the same
idea of Protestantism. And you'll notice that a lot of
the deconstructionists in the Christian world, they keep linking themselves
to Luther. They're like, we're just the next phase of
Luther's deconstructing and getting rid of the traditions of men
and the accretions. How often do you hear evangelicals say,
I don't follow traditions of men, I follow the Bible
of Jesus's word, and you believe in the traditions of
men and your adults and your acons. This is just
the next level of that by assuming that higher criticism
can now be applied to every aspect of your own life.
In other words, higher criticism was in academia. askTel said,
this is doing deconstructing and higher criticism in your own
personal walk in life. To say, you don't know what
these words mean. You don't know what the original Jesus was.
Nobody knows what the original Jesus taught, if he even existed, right.
Speaker 5: Well, and Dan McClellan rejects a historical Christ.
Speaker 3: Oh okay, well there you go.
Speaker 5: I mean, does he say, why is it like he
just said that we have no historical evidence for his existence?
Speaker 4: And then he makes the caveat.
Speaker 5: You know, we don't have the historical evidence for a
lot of people that existed at the time, and therefore
the only thing we can base it on is references
in the New Testament.
Speaker 4: Basically that one of the videos.
Speaker 3: Okay, did Joseph Smith not I mean I thought Joseph
Smith was a prophet from God? Did he not know
this wisdom that McLellan has that there's no evidence for
Jesus Christ.
Speaker 4: I have a good question.
Speaker 3: I mean that's true. That would mean that Joseph Smith
was a false prophet. Because Joseh Smith didn't tell us
that Jesus didn't exist.
Speaker 5: We don't have any Well, you know, Mormonism is the
first world religion to join the World Transhumanist Association.
Speaker 3: I remember you saying that I did not. Yeah, that
was fascinating. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Lincoln Cannon is the is the head of the Mormon
Transhumanist Association the MT and he makes the argument that
one doesn't have to be a Mormon to be a transhumanist,
but to be a Mormon is to be a transhumanist,
whether explicitly or implicitly. And they're part of this very
liberalizing transhuman morphological freedom movement within Mormonism, and of course
Mormonism just condone same sex marriage.
Speaker 4: Was that like three or four years.
Speaker 5: Ago, So now it's okay within the Church of Latter
day Saints. So I suspect that DAN is part of
the same, like liberalizing all these Mormons that have academic degrees.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and they're probably the Mormons, the Mormons that are
now pro Skittles, right, as we've seen that emerge in
the last twenty or so years where the Mormon Church
has shifted away from their anti Skittles stance. Interestingly, yep.
Now again, a lot of the articles that you'll see
when you read about this will that pop up. They
really like this house analogy, which is interesting because we
kind of agree with that from a presubpositional, you know, perspective, like, yeah,
you have these foundational beliefs and then the rest of
your beliefs are kind of built on those presubpositions, those
foundations that you have that make up your worldview. But
what they'll always say in these articles and these explanations
is to deconstruct is actually a process. It can be different,
but it is taking a part every idea, practice, tradition,
and belief into smaller components. So you basically break everything
down into these parts, and then you try to figure out,
how do you know that little part is true? How
do you know this little part's true? And so it's
ironically it's like an evil version of what we do
when we presupt people, right, where we're actually getting them
to question their presubpositions. The difference is that this is
like atheist presup where they're trying to get people to
become atheists right because they say, oh, it's a painful process,
but you may have to do this because you don't
really know. And now here's another thing I want to
come to, which is this is actually a fallacy. I've
noticed in a lot of these people when they describe
their journey, they commit the genetic fallacy. They will think
that when they deconstruct and they get to this point
where it's like, well, I just realized, like I got
that from my mom, like my mom raised me with this. Well,
first of all, that it came from your mom is
just the origin of the belief. That has nothing to
do with whether it's true or false.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: But they'll oftentimes make this lead, which is the genetic fallacy,
to say that I mean, why should I believe something
just because my mom said it. Well, that's true, and
it's okay to ask that question, but also it's not
false just because your mom said it. In fact, the
fact that your mom said has nothing to do with
whether it's true or false. And so there's a lot
of genetic fallacy going on with a lot of these people.
Speaker 5: Well, and I would say authoritative fallacy too, fallacy of authority,
because Dan constantly refers that what he's presenting as the
state of religious scholarship.
Speaker 4: So he's just behalf of the academy.
Speaker 5: So if you have problems with him, then you have
problems with contemporary biblical scholarship. And one of the academic criticisms,
I mean, because deconstructionism we've talked, there's plenty of critics
also within the academy. And one of the points I
wrote down that is fairly prominent is that it's overly deconstructive,
to the point that it's not constructive at all, as
the point that you're making it just breaks things down
smaller and small and smaller. And so academic critics have
highlighted that its primary focus of exposing contradictions and gaps
and tensions within texts without providing any sort of constructive
alternative response, has led people to describe just deconstructionism as nihilistics,
offering offering little in terms of positive or meaningful engagement
with any text, especially scriptural textual scholarship. So to your point,
it's just constantly breaking things down into smaller and smaller bits,
and of course, because it's ultimately relativisty, that's all you're
left with.
Speaker 3: Yeah, why isn't that McClelland, for example, deconstructing academia as
a system of oppression and power which is promoted what
it's paid to promote. So I can turn the tables
and use this very same argument, which I actually would do,
and I actually say that there's actually an agenda and
a reason why the scholarship that you're appealing to in
this fallacy of authority is promoted in academia, and that's
because academia is corrupt, which, by the way, he believes
that academia in prior generations was corrupt because it promoted
the patriarchal, fallocentric narratives. Oh, but now it's not corrupt,
and we're supposed to just default to these people as
if they're not corrupt anymore, when they're actually way more
corrupt because they push the most ridiculous, like you know,
like even just totally degenerate stuff from academia. They're the spearhead,
they're the tip of the spear of all of this
revolution against you know, what is just common decency. Now,
this article that I'm looking at here from the Sophia
Society about deconstructing your faith, it actually goes on to
describe again the breaking down of your paradigm, which is
the stuff that you talk about, and it says that
as you get older, you will realize that you encounter
situations in life that don't fit with this paradigm. Now
that's actually true, I think for evangelicals, right, Evangelicalism, as
you said, is an anti intellectual movement from the outset,
and so it doesn't really equip people to handle really complex,
nuanced situations. For example, evangelicalism can't tell you anything about geopolitics.
They're usually totally ignorant about that. So when they're confronted
with geopolitical issues like war, mass immigration, borders, they don't
have any coherent answer to that because it's an anti
intellectual ahistorical scale down, lowest calm denominator position, oftentimes based
on emotionalism. I converted in a big tent revival because
I was crying and the preacher made me feel bad.
And so it's a pseudo Christianity that causes people to
get angry and doesn't have any grounding or any coherent worldview,
and that's why these people are so easily let out
of this religion. Is that a pattern you've.
Speaker 5: Noticed, Well, you mentioned the ahistorical dimension of evangelical Christianity,
and I think when you're speaking, what kind of popped
in my head is that's another connector with what deconstructionism
is doing, because it's constantly trying to undermine tradition, because
history itself is plagued with injustices and all these different
things that they're trying to correct. So deconstructionism is, i mean,
really part of these critical scholarship or Marxist theories about
paving a new beginning point in history, right, so it
has to undermine and flatten everything that came before it,
And Evangelical Christianity is sort of ahistorical, and so it's
able to sort of bridge that gap even quicker because
it doesn't have any long standing traditions to uphold.
Speaker 3: Keep in mind, tradition is a key area of war
for these people. That's just showing that they're even the
they're the next logical revolutionary extension of Protestanism. Protestantism was
all about deconstructing the Catholicism of that day to get
rid of the accretions of tradition of the papacy, some
of which are actual legitimate criticisms, but from an orthodox
perspective we would disagree with both. But again keep in mind,
the idea is, oh, I got to get rid of
the man made traditions. Well, the assumption then is that, well,
how do you know there's not man made traditions in
this book that men decided to to put together. Oh,
I guess there could be could in there. So now
I have to scale down all of those things. And
even in my own life. Wait a minute, how do
I know I'm not believing in man made traditions? You
may be. So it's this scaling down process of lowest
common denominator which Protestantism was built on. Ecumenism is also
built on the same idea that it's not a holistic thing.
Everything is piecemeal, broken down. It's all based on independent,
little data points that don't connect in any holistic, meaningful way.
So there's a necessary anti holistic perspective that undergirds all
this as well.
Speaker 5: And the deconstructionists are sort of ahistorical in the sense
that they view themselves not within a historical context.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're in a privileged position exactly.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's influencing their beliefs, their interpretations, their perceptions, and
so they stand on this pedestal where they're able to
criticize all of history and talk about the historical injustices
and corrections that need to be made.
Speaker 4: Meanwhile, not recognize.
Speaker 3: Let me start over. Can you hear me?
Speaker 4: I can hear you?
Speaker 3: Fine, Okay, you're frozen, So let me see. Oh I
think we are back.
Speaker 4: I think we are back.
Speaker 3: Yeah we are Yeah. I think do.
Speaker 4: I need to back out and come back in?
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's try that. I think it's just stream lives
crash was all it was, because it doesn't look like
the internet went out, but we should be back. Yeah,
So it was just something happened with Sometimes collab cam
doesn't work that great. Usually it works, but as you
guys probably know, every now and then collab cam will
kind of crash and then I think it just crashed. Obs.
But okay, so we're back. I forget where we were,
But do you remember what we're talking about.
Speaker 5: The last point I was making was the the ahistorical
context of evangelical Christianity and deconstructionism and how people like
Dan kind.
Speaker 3: Of us historically situated.
Speaker 5: That's right, Yeah, do not view themselves historically situated, and
therefore they which transhumanism also argues, is that we're moving
to the point where the post humanity is a person
who's no longer within the historical context itself and therefore
is no longer constrained by these historical context because we're
moving to utopia. So I was just making that point
about deconstructionism and evangelical Christianity sharing that ahistorical nature.
Speaker 3: Well, here's a this is that's perfect timing because this
article over here at Sophia's Society about deconstructing. The next
example they give is precisely about being historically situated. So
I'll read this briefly and you can understand them what
we're talking about. Let me give an example of deconstructing
a young child grows up in a loving home with
a doting kind with doting kind parents that subconsciously believe
that all people are good. Why would this child have
any reason or cause to believe otherwise? All he or
she has ever known is the love, goodness, and warmth
of their family. The second child. But the second this
child encounters or witnesses someone in the world who is
therefore not kind, they begin to doubt this belief that
all people are good. Thus their worldview is shattered. How
is the child to make sense of this encounter? Often
they react by categorizing people then either as all good
or all bad. All that all and that works for
a while until until they've encountered someone who is that
they previously thought was good, doing something bad, or vice versa. Slowly,
then the paradigm must be rebuilt and shift to reflect
the reality now that not everyone is good, some people
can do good and bad, some people are largely good
or largely bad. As you can see without the ability
to deconstruct something that was previously useful in the case
of the child, new information then comes in which qualifies
this simplistic black and white attitude. Thus they no longer
have a dualistic way of seeing the world, because it
would only get them so far, so far. Thus this
is true also for our faith. When we're young, we
believe that whatever we were taught about God, Earth, after life,
and human nature is true. After a while, though, we
usually have to develop and reflect upon new information, and
thus we go into new stages of beliefs. People don't
usually try to explain the doctrine of, for example, total
depravity to if you're a Calvinist, to a four year old,
but they tell them basic ideas about Adam and Eve
and the fall. And thus, for example, a child is
taught Calvinistic told depravity and they're raised with this presupposition.
Now that's all well and good, and I would agree
that that's a fine example, but none of that actually
tells us though, which beliefs are true or false. Again,
because we're raised with something, we might actually be raised
with a belief that's that's true. Right, So the deconstructing
process is in part can be not necessarily, but it
can be built on fallacies. It can be built on
illogical non sequit or conclusions that we make just because
we're raised with something. And they try to always say
that The article goes on to say, deconstruction does not
mean that your faith must die. It simply means that
you have to update your faith and take into account
new information. But whoever said that we didn't do that anyway?
Like where was I mean maybe within the realm of
really fundamentalist evangelicalism. This is something that is true. But
as you can see, they're they're taking something that we
would agree with that you do need to kind of
question these presuppositions. Then they're saying, see, you need to
become an atheistic liberal is basically what it is. So
it does it mean that you become a more coherent
version of Christianity? They're said, say, I know, you've got
to be like an atheist or like a total progressive
cucked Christianity.
Speaker 5: Right right, And and that's again one of the leading
criticisms by academics regarding deconstruction is that it's ultimately relativistic.
And I have a point here that an academic made
is they argue that by focusing on the endless play
of language and meeting, deconstruction can suggest that all readings
are inherently unstable, which can paralyze interpretation rather than aid
it in any way. And that's that's exactly what we're
getting at by building something on fallacious fallacies. You know,
that stuff's really never brought into question within deconstructionism. It's
just constantly undermining whatever they can through.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, that's why. And that's why you said ultimately
it's nihilistic. Now and if you doubt that, just as
an example, at this Sophia Society where they're telling you
and that there's like tons of articles about how you deconstruct,
what it means to deconstruct, how do you relate to
your family? Let me read you a couple of the
other articles that help you after you begin to deconstruct.
This is a necessary death. You don't have to be
good recovering from evangelicalism. Jesus is queer. So I feel
like like maybe there's an agenda here, Like I don't
know what you guys think. Do you see any patterns here?
I don't know so, but yeah, but what's where again?
Remember this is like this is the domain of evangelicalism,
and I guess this Sophia Society is some sort of
like hub of deconstructionism. Now, there's another article here that
says what does it mean to deconstruct? Well, here's your
guide to doing it, and you're not going to be
surprised as to what you will begin to see. Rethinking
Christian sexuality, liberation, theology, why it doesn't work to try
to be pure in terms of sexuality, making sense of
the Bible post deconstruction, reframing your relationship with the Bible.
So notice that it's all it's all about the book
right now. Wait a minute, it gets better understanding the
divine feminine. Wait a minute, what is patriarchy? Deconstructing patriarchy?
God is our mother? Now, wait a minute, why is
the goddess gaia narrative not a narrative that needs to
be constructed?
Speaker 4: David, exactly, that's exactly it.
Speaker 5: Well again, one of my third criticism of it is
the subjective, reader centric interpretation. So as you're highlighting with
all these article titles, they're taking the progressive narrative and
then just reinserting that as a critical basis to undermine scripture.
And so deconstruction has been criticized for privileging the reader's
interpretation over the text itself and allowing personal by ICs
and theoretical predispositions to dominate the reading process, and therefore,
what exactly are we getting at here? It's just it's
just a it's a it's really a intellectual militaristic attack.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a good way. It's a weapon because listen
to the next couple of articles here deconstructing Donald Trump,
reclaiming Christian politics for the DNC, of course, the politics
of Jesus, deconstructing Christian nationalism. So basically, it's just anything
that is not total like you know, democratic party platform,
it needs to be deconstructed, right, black liberation, white evangelical racism. Right.
It's again, it's like totally obvious just seeing the article
titles that this whole thing is literally just a like
I mean, it's probably they're probably getting money from like
the d n C Soros, you know what I mean,
Like like black Rock is, like it's probably funded by
all that. I believe it.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 4: In regards to biblical.
Speaker 5: Criticism too, from what some of the academic critical analysis
of deconstruction, I saw a few that argue that it's
especially bad in biblical studies, where they kind of stretch
beyond the philosophical roots and even the context of what
deconstruction was supposed to do and kind of apply it
indiscriminately across various disciplines. And so the rigorous philosophical foundation
of deconstruction, grounded in Derita's complex theories of language and metaphysics,
is often simplified and then even misapplied in ways that
lose total philosophical nuance, leading to the superficial sort of
misguided readings and interpretations.
Speaker 3: Right, so Trump is a manifestation of the patriarchy, this
kind of stuff.
Speaker 5: Right, Well, Dan actually made a video I was going
through his YouTube channel, and it's a vertical video I
think he filmed on his phone.
Speaker 4: People can find if you put in his name.
Speaker 5: And the whole thing was about how Donald Trump and
those who support him are part of a cult. And
he used the imagery of idle worship and the golden
calf of the Old Testament to demonstrate that that's what
MAGA supporters are doing with Donald Trump. And therefore, if
anybody is a cult, and if anybody is idolatrous, it's
Christians who support Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but what makes the most sense is that Jesus
was queer. And this was written by a tra in
z Tia and z individual shocker who is pictured here
all about BLM shocker of course not a black person,
right right, But I mean it's all I need to
know there, But it's also I wanted to mention this too.
This is also connected to again this movement from a
couple of decades ago called the Emerging Church movement, which
was equated with the Emergent movement, a Christian movement in
late twentieth century early twenty first century, so nineties and
two thousands. Emerging churches are found all around the globe,
particularly though in North America. And if I remember, this
had some original origin source coming out of like ex
Episcopal Anglican people, so it's being sused from the beginning.
But this is kind of the seedbed from which now
the deconstructing movement has grown. The idea is that people
were tired of their traditional quote unquote churches. So even
Protestanism was getting bored with Baptist hymns and Episcopal hymns,
and so they decided to start making house churches. So
if you remember in the nineties, this popped off, and
I know because I used to go to house church
meetings in the nineties. I was immediately sort of swept
up into this stupid house church movement because I thought, well,
the New Testament says they met in households, that must
mean low church house churches. I don't know if you've
heard of this or familiar with this, but the idea
being that all of the religious imagery, investments and incense
or any of that kind of stuff are the trappings
and the traditions of men. We got to get back
down to this like simplified living. But what's interesting is
that it's not just about that. It comes out of
the home church movement, because some of the people who
were in the mergent church movement wanted to have liturgy,
they wanted to have these elements. So there's no cohesive
like actual doctrine or anything. It's just this sort of
like hippiest Jesus idea of like like Jesus was like,
you know, against the men or whatever. Do you remember
the Jesus People movement? Yeah, you know that. I had
a lot of CIA connections in terms of its word.
And this is where you get the Vineyard movement. And
this is where you get what's it called the FDA
used to be in this. He was raising this the
I'm going blank. No, the out of California, the denomination
out of California that was burned by by these people,
one of whom was actually in the CIA. No, I'm
serious Calvary Chapel. Oh, so the whole Calvary Chapel movement
comes out of the Jesus People movement in the sixties
and seventies, who were these hippies that converted to Jesus.
A lot of them read Late Great Planet Earth by
how Lindsay later on in the eighties, and and so
a lot of this like evangelical end time stuff was
influencing these hippie christian these hippies to convert to this
weird evangelical Christianity that unfortunately spawned a bunch of charismatic movements,
the Vineyard Movement and the Calvary Chapel movement. And I'm
going blank on the guy who was the Calvary Chapel
CIA guy, but he's one of the main early founders.
Saddleback also has these connections. I don't doubt that that's it,
Chuck Smith. And there's even deeper connections too, because some
of the guys were were actual Green Beret CIA operatives
in Vietnam. Now I'm not trying to be overly conspiratorial
like they just they may just have been like low
tier evangelical, you know, Vietnam guys who thought like Boomers
that we gotta fight for America. So we're gonna we're
gonna start at Jesus Church. We're gonna call it Calvert
Chapel because we're gona get back to the basics. And
do you know what I mean? They might have had
good motivations, But what you start to notice is that
a lot of these people like exactly Elon, like Rick Warren,
Why are they suddenly associated with Obama and the Council
form Relations? Are you familiar with that?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 5: And Rick Warren is spoke kind of favorably about transhuman
like eschatology, and so he was actually I read read
an article it was on oh here it is the
Singularity and the Rapture Transhumanists and popular Christian views of
the future in which people like hal Lindsay and Rick
Warren are mentioned specifically about how they are constructing this
sort of rapture. Escatology very similar has very similar accouterments
to technological advance being part of God's divine plan that
transhumanists kind of put forth. So I don't follow Rick
Warren super close, but when you said that, it kind
of popped out, because if he's associating with those types
of groups and people like Obama kind of makes sense
then maybe why he's constructing an eschatology for his following
that kind of mimics some.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's a great point. I didn't actually know that,
but I think people started noticing there was something obviously
sus with Rick Warren when if you remember back in
the two thousands, when purpose driven Life got really popular
and started selling like mega mega millions, it wasn't too
long after that that suddenly he was associated with Obama
and he flipped his position on Skittle's marriage. Did you
know that that was back? That was back in the
two thousands.
Speaker 4: Seems to kind of be his mo now.
Speaker 3: Trying to find there's a great article that was written
many years ago, it's really hard to find. It's kind
of been memory hold, but there's it's about the Jesus
people and the people in it that did have these
sort of CIA connections. I'm looking through my old archived
articles of stuff to see if I could by chance
find it, but I don't know. It was on an
evangelical website of all places, and then that website got
taken down and then it got put at some other
weird website. But but yes, there is those there is
that connection there. Again, I'm not saying that that makes
that's it. It was the Antipus article exactly, thank you,
But I don't think that website exists anymore. So that's
the problem is that you can't really find that. No,
SII go away. I don't want you go away.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, she went away.
Speaker 3: The lists exactly right. Maybe I'm four sex both now hahaha. Uh,
let's see, Lonnie Lonnie Frisbee might have also been one
of those people who was like a Vietnam black opsky
or something crazy. Uh.
Speaker 4: Peter in the chat said, wasn't it Rick Warren that
gave the.
Speaker 5: Intimous speech at the World Economic Form that they need
to incorporate faith into their movement?
Speaker 3: Who who was it?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 6: Peter in the chat said, Rick Warren was the person
who did that spoke at the WEF about how they
need to incorporate faith, which is really I mean, you've
brought you've read it too, Homa days by you've all known.
Speaker 5: Rob That's the whole thing about it dat it isn't constructing.
Speaker 3: The I haven't ready I got it, but by the
way I found the article. So I know this sounds crazy,
but this article, which is actually pretty good, has been
stored at Irosta website. So of all places this has
been archived. That it used to be at an evangelical
website that was critiquing Calbert Chapel. So but now it's
at a website called the dub Room Room Brada. So
there's the article, and it's by an evangelical woman who's
not Rosta, but her name was Barbara ajo Uh. And
it goes into a long critique of the Jesus People
movement and the odd characters and odd balls behind it. Particularly.
Let's see the antipaus papers written by sh R. Shearer
identify his intelligence assignments before and during the time of
the Jesus People Moving fro nineteen sixty seven nineteen seventy two.
He served as an intelligence officer in Europe during Vietnam
the Intelligence Group, the five hundred and twenty fifth Division
in the five hundred and fifteenth counter Intelligence Operative Group
nineteen seventy two, resign commission to become a pastor for
the Jesus People in Washington, d C. This is again
kind of the birthing of all this, these weird movements
that we're talking about. Now, remember there is this is
the deep state connection to just this. This is the
non denominational movement's birth. It comes out of this stuff.
You have to understand that. That's why I'm talking about this,
because you're not going to be able to separate all
this emergent church stuff from the same funding, the same sources,
the same origins. And that's why this is where you
get the Are you familiar with the Vineyard movement the
crazy stuff? Yeah, so that's these people too, Council for
National Policy, that's the fake right wing version of the
CFR anyway, so people can go read that there. We're
not going to go down that rabbit hole. But but yeah,
that's another angle that you have to understand to this,
which is that so basically that movement of sixties Jesus
People gives you Calvary Chapel, gives you Vineyard Movement, it
gives you modern charismaticism, gives you the revivalist movements of
the charismatic groups gives you no denominationalism. It all comes
out of that, and that's all a bunch of like
literal pentagon deeps day people. Right, all right, well we'll
try again.
Speaker 4: I can here. Let me back out real quick and join.
Speaker 3: All right, we should be back.
Speaker 4: So OBS is on one today.
Speaker 3: I don't know what's going on. I've never had it
be this fussy, but anyway, maybe we can try to
get through some of this before. I know you're gonna
have to go pretty soon. But we got a couple
of super chats. I'll read some of those before this
gets collapsed and nobody gets their superchats. Read Storm the
Cat ten dollars. I have a friend who's not a Christian,
but unfortunately she's some kind of red pill person on
certain things. And she's even noticed how utterly satanic modern
punk rock music is. He excuse me, he said punk
shows are full of skills, pride, and everybody has a
colored bathomet statues everywhere. I'm not surprised that sounds exactly
what I mean, But I mean, the punk scene was
always kind of like adjacent to a lot of that stuff,
and so it's weird that what was supposed to be
like you know, the most rebellious music is the most
establishment now ye anonymous and seven dollars, thank you so much,
Jeffrey Klein. Five dollars. I saw a progressive post that
was arguing that immigration law is against scripture and they
were using terrible theology. Yeah, I think most of the
time they do. I mean, I've seen a lot of
attempts by evangelicals to argue that we show totally open borders.
I think even Gavin Ortlund was arguing that, which I
think is preposterous. I think even Peter Leiheart was arguing
that that. But I mean, that's all just I mean,
to me, that's just fundamentally stupid. I mean, when as
any orthodox nation ever thought that you're supposed to have
totally open borders, just totally This is what I mean,
this is what happens when you become a Protestant, you
deny all tradition of the church, right right, swim of
the capt ten dollars. I know we already did excuse me,
Ac since twenty bucks question mark, question mark, Well, thank you, AC.
Appreciate that this is not the only stream. We are
going to do more streams over on cotails channel addressing
the specific challenges that the deconstructions all bring up. Ortho
Dbo three dollars. Who are your favorite saints? And why
this is off topic? I know, but just want some
of the lore, keep up the basic, keep up the
based work.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 3: I like Saint Photius a lot. I like Saint Daniel
from the Bible. I like John, that Saint John, that Theologian.
I like the Cappadocians. I like Saint anton Asius. Who
are some of your favorite saints?
Speaker 5: Patron is, Saint Patrick of Ireland, Saint George, and I'm
a big fan of Cyprian of Antioch. And Justina Ciprin
was like a great magician who was trying to cast
a spell on this pious virgin just they backfired. He
couldn't understand why it didn't work, and ended up giving
up his faith and burned all his magical text in
the center of the city and became eventually a bishop
and converted so many pagans that there is no longer
a magical tradition in his area.
Speaker 3: Oh wow, that's a great one. Jmail forty dollars. I
love you both, Thank you, min Well, thank you Jamel.
We love you too. We appreciate that super chest storm
the cat five dollars. How come they never deconstruct their
deconstructionism exactly. That's exactly what our point is today. It's
really philosophically nonsensical. But again, it appeals to a lot
of people precisely because of you know, evangelicalism is an
anti intellectual movement kind of incipiently, and so people feel
like they're getting some intellectual meat when they start to
delve into this, you know, kind of sued stuff, and
it sounds cool and they can make tiktoks talking about
how they deconstructed everything. That's really what that rat guy
does from ret and Link is it's it's super low tire,
like it's just really really like so, like, guys, I
know that, like you probably haven't seen a lot for
me lately, but that's because I've been going through a
process of deconstruction and it's very and they do a
lot of emotional appeals. They're like, it's gonna be tough
for you, guys, but we can do this together. And
one of the things I had to realize is that
like my views on Skittle's people like it was totally
coming from a place a privilege and oppression. I mean,
that's a letter of how it goes. And then he
goes on like how he Mendel's podcast to talk about
how he's you know, he's basically Laptist Christianity or whatever.
Speaker 4: That's that's pretty sad.
Speaker 5: I have four points in which I try to deconstruct
deconstructionism and highlight why it fails. So whether you want
to do that now or before we wrap up the stream,
I can go through those.
Speaker 3: I go ahead and do it right now, because let's
get it out what we can before it collapses.
Speaker 5: So I wrote down four points in which essentially deconstructionism
fails at its ultimate goals. Number one we've kind of
already hinted at, but the failure to acknowledge a text specificity.
So by treating text as primarily sites of linguistic play,
deconstruction can fail to engage with specific religious, moral, and
theological claims that biblical texts make. And this undermines the
possibility of understanding the text as a coherent expression of
faith and tradition, because, as you said, it's constantly breaking
things down into smaller and smaller bits, and therefore they
never even approach a comprehensive understanding of a larger meta
arc because they reject them. And then number two is
the reduction reduction of personal and ideological biases, which we've
already mentioned, but because deconstruction allows for multiple, often contradictory interpretations,
it can enable individuals to reinterpret scripture in ways that
align with their contemporary biases. This is particularly problematic and
religious context where the text is intended to convey a
specific teaching of truth rather than a canvas for endless reinterpretation.
And then number three is undermining communal and traditional readings,
is that deconstruction often dismisses interpretive traditions and communal understandings
that have been built around biblical texts. This can be
seen as a form of intellectual colonialism to use their language,
imposing modern, individualistic interpretive frameworks onto ancient texts that were
meant to be understood within a communal and traditional context.
Speaker 3: So that was that's a great point that, by the way,
applies not just to these people but to every Protestant.
Speaker 5: Right, I'm trying to use their jargon, throw it right
back at them, intellectual colonialism. And then the fourth one
is an adequacy of for theological engagement for religious communities,
the primary goal of engaging with scriptures theological understanding and
spiritual growth. Deconstructions focus on deconstruction, meaning often does not
align with these goals whatsoever, leading to a disconnect between
deconstructive readings of the Bible and faith based approaches to scripture.
Speaker 3: So yeah, that's a great point. In fact, I might
just retitle the scream this, retitle the stream deconstructing deconstructionism.
That's perfect title. Ac ten dollars hangeld Boyarin Hurtado Balcom
the same scholarship game that shows Hellenic philosophy was already
in use of the exegues of the Old Testament hundreds
years before christ philosophy and Maccabe's and Wisdom text the
Old testamenty. I actually wrote an essay ten years ago
before I had even read Hangelo or any of these
people we are in or any of the Jewish scholars
talking about. This was about Wisdom and the Old Testament
because I was arguing against EMJ. So EMJ has an
incorrect idea that John the Apostle, in John one is
using logos in the same sense as Stoics and other
Greek philosophers. No, he's pulling from the Hebrew wisdom tradition
of the personification of wisdom in the Wisdom text. That's
where John's getting that. It's not getting it from pagan philosophers. Now,
pagan philosophers might be groping in the for that, But no,
you already have, with the translation of the Hebrew text
into Greek, the septuagen in this tradition, So it's exactly right. Mind,
haag five dollars, Thank you so much. Mind, I appreciate
this storm of the cat. Ten dollars. We already read
that one. Pooh pooh McGhee. Five dollars. Can you do
a video? Can you do a video where Gavin Orland
talks about a fallible collection of fallible books or have
you seen it and quickly explain why it's false. I mean,
I've been responding to that for ten years on videos,
so I mean it's just again, they're just recycled the
same argument. Just watch any debate that I've had with
the Protestants where I talk about how if you say
that the whole collection is fallible, then it really doesn't
do any good. If you say that the books themselves
are infallible because if I can start removing them, and
that's exactly what Luther and higher critical scholarship did. The
end result is where we are today with today's deconstructioning
deconstruction is do not see that like this sets the
precedent that there's no normative authority in history in the
Church to say, okay, here's the canon. This is it.
It's established now every individual Protestant can do his own
personal research to figure out what he thinks the canon is.
And since there's no living historical authority from the time
of the Apostles till now, that's all Protestants are united
on this. No one can bind anybody else's conscience in Protestantism.
That's the Protestant basics, right, No freedom of conscience, freedom
of worship, freedom of private interpretation. Since nobody can communicate anybody,
nobody can say anybody's wrong, you end up with this
position of anybody can say, well, I prayed and study
a lot, and here's my new Testament canon. And who
are you to say I'm wrong? You can't bind my conscience.
That's what you know protestantsm built on. So it's it's
all absurd from the outset, and I've done probably one
hundred videos where I talk about a fallible collection of
invaaluable books. But okay, so I know you've got to
go pretty soon. Is there anything else in this introductory streaming? Again?
Next week we're going to do some more end depth
responses to the actual arguments that these people use. What
else comes to mind? Any other things that we didn't
hit on in this well?
Speaker 5: In regards to deconstructing deconstructionism, I'll just reiterate we've already
mentioned them, but I had them listed regards to like
the six main points in regards to even why academics
criticize deconstruction and I'm not going to reiterate why we've
already mentioned them, but again, the reaffirmation of authorial in
ten and historical context, the focus on canonical context and tradition,
defensive coherent meaning again, the idea that these deconstructions they
can't defend a coherent meaning because they reject any sort
of overarching narrative that connects through history, and then the
rejection of the role of tradition and community, and then
their constructive theological engagement. Scholars like Stanley Howerwass advocate for
constructive approach to scripture, which is obviously an opposition to
the entire agenda of deconstructionism. And therefore they really, as
we highlight earlier scholars that point out that because it's
constantly deconstructing, it really doesn't give you anything to build upon.
It's just constantly taking things apart. And then the last
one and really the most really devastating, even though they
don't like to deal with it, is relativism that many
scholars refuse to use deconstructionism because it ultimately it's inherently relativistic.
And that connects back with the early part of the
stream where Dereta is appealing to Nietzsche's rejection of objective truth. Therefore,
like Fuco, everything is power structures regarding to the privileging
of certain truths and knowledge, and therefore you have to
undermine all sources of power, which get back to the
article you're reading. With all those titles about BLM and
Queer Jesus and all this different stuff, what they're doing
is focusing on the marginal. Again, the foul logo centrism
which Dereda wants to destroy and undermine is the privileging
of the masculine role in society, a logos theological, metaphysical understanding,
and the focus seeing on the centeredness of concepts and meaning.
They want to reject all that stuff, and so ultimately
what you're left with is relativism. And so as much
as we watched Dan McClellan or all these other people
that were in a deconstructing Christianity, the ones that want
to appeal to these academics is ironic because those same
academics reject objective truth itself.
Speaker 4: It's all just power struggle.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a great point that helps you understand where
leftism and liberalism is today. It is essentially capitulated into
nothing to do with what you would think of, like
you know, traditional progressivism in America with the fight for
like you know, EBT cards and a great society and
all that LBJ era progressivism stuff. Nowadays, liberalism and leftism
is one hundred percent totally about which is all it
Nietzschean power struggle. It's it's completely capitulated to literally everything
being about powered. Aynamis That's a key to understand, because
that's how you understand that they don't care when you're
arguing with them about what's true or false. Every argument,
every every debate, every engagement is pure power dynamics. And
so it's all about the display, the spectacle, and the dominance,
and that is the key to all of it. So remember,
you're not engaging with people that believe or even care
about what's true involves. They don't care about you exposing
their lives because they see all engagements as pure power dynamics,
which is odd because it's Nietzschean, which you wouldn't think
the left would be in that motive of of thinking,
but that's exactly where they are, right.
Speaker 5: So it's all rhetoric and it's all sophistry, and that's
why utilizing things like social justice and all the modern linguo,
the reason why that's powerful for them is because they
believe they're garnering a higher ground of.
Speaker 3: Moral higher they're getting power from it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, they're they're gaining power from perceived contemporary biases
that they are elevated over you, and that you then
are forced you're on the back heel defending the patriarchy,
defending ancient traditions, defending you know, miracles or this type
of stuff, and they view this as again a way
to undermine your source of tradition and identity and religious beliefs,
but at the same time elevating them as modern, contemporary
people that are more rational and more up to date.
Speaker 3: But at the same time, there is no basis for reasoning,
there is no basis for log there is no base.
It's all oppressive except when they use it. Then it's
not oppressive except but also it is oppressive because everything
is just power oppressed or dynamics. So yeah, it's it's
this is why these people are insane. They lose their mind.
They're at war with reality, with logic, with reason, and
with God. So that's why these people will act the
way that they do. That's why they have these meltdowns.
They have these they're essentially demonic. Uh and alex Is
Alex's playing a clip of today one of these, like
when you go out to the Abration march when people
are marching against Abrassen and we have the pro Abraution
people show up, and then the the pro p E
d O people and the tier A and Z people.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: They actually sometimes manifest demonic uh traits like they're possessed. Yeah, uh,
and alex Is playing a clip of that today. So anyway,
that's what's really going on. It's actually spiritual battle. It's
not all intellectual. I want to remind you guys, head
on over to chalk dot com. That is the show
sponsored c h o Q dot com. The link is
in the show description. Those are great products for getting fit,
for getting healthy, for upping your testosterone. A lot of
guys are low te, a lot of pretty much all
the dudes that are into deconstructing or low T. I'm serious.
I mean, we watched a bunch of these videos. The
guys are skittles. The guy it's at degansjecting, they're oppression,
and the girls are girls are actually more high T
than the dudes that deconstruct.
Speaker 5: Uh So.
Speaker 3: So anyway, so we're gonna be talking about this again
next week with my good buddy Cootel again. Use a
promo go j forty to get forty percent off all
those products. J Ay forty, jy four zero to get
forty percent off Ji four four Life, Jay four four
La f E to get forty four percent off all
the great products over at chalk dot com. Link is
in the show description. Also, Cootel and I are going
to be doing a stream on Eventually, we'll figure out
when we're gonna do this, but yeah, a separate stream
not related to this stuff on the history of intelligence operations,
British intelligence in particular, and Muslim Brotherhood, Radical Islam and
the West. A lot of people don't know about this.
This is another key insight and angle that's very relevant,
especially as the Internet puts a lot of focus on
Islam in the last few years. The Tates, hit Job,
Daniel Hikikachu, all these promoters of Islam in the West,
all over the Internet and YouTube. They're really calling attention
to Islam, and so it's very crucial that we address
Islam not just from the theological perspective, which is the
most important, but also understanding the Western linkage linkages to
Islam in its various forms, and that's an area I
have read quite a bit. In fact, I knew more
about that than I did before I'd actually read any
of the Islamic texts themselves, or the theological traditions of
Islam which had been forced forced into in the last
few years.
Speaker 4: Which is it.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just so ridiculous. It's like the most
ridiculous cult man. But you know what, actually that's important
because it's a very useful cult for getting people to
act in these radical ways. And so if you're an
intelligence agency, this is a ready made, perfect lab from
which you can pull lunatics to do all kinds of
crazy stuff. In fact, Miles Copeland actually says that in
his Game of Nations book. He says, CEE, we love
these people in Egypt because we could get them to
do what if we wintered, if we needed a ready
made t R R O R event, we could just
use them right away, right anyway, So we're looking forward
to what made you, what gave you the idea to
do that, or what hipped you to this whole issue
of Islam in the West geopolitic.
Speaker 5: Well, you've covered it and as I mentioned before, you
did a fourth hour on Lord Valdemort's programs.
Speaker 4: It was I thought it was great. It was so succinct.
Speaker 5: It was just point by point by point, and it's
something that I've never covered on my channel, and it's
not something that I've delve into much. So I'm excited
to cover it with you because I know you have
been covering it for a while and if you have
any specific articles or anything to read in preparation. I'd
love to kind of grab a hold of that because
it's becoming very obvious about the Red Green Alliance, you
know how global communism, if you want to coll that globalism,
the centralization of power is utilizing utilizing the dialectic of
Islam in the West, and it I mean, it's with
anybody who has the eyes open to see, it's quite
clear that that's happening. So you've covered that, and I
mentioned that to you, and then the fact that I
was kind of looking for new stream topics and somebody
brought that up.
Speaker 3: So I'd love one article I would recommend every body
that's very insightful that was actually pulled down from a
very prominent formerly. I don't know if this website is
still love, but there used to be a pretty well
known kind of left oriented critical of the CIA. Website
was very useful though, because they had a lot of
great articles are called CounterPunch, So CounterPunch was very useful
for many years. They used to have a lot of
great pieces of critique in Brazenski and people like that.
The neocons, I don't agree obviously with every take that
CounterPunch had. I don't know if it's still around, but
there was a great article that was off that was
pulled because it was so controversial. You can still find
it though on academic dot eedu and it's called Shills,
Spooks and soufis the case of the Maria Mariami Mariamiya.
Here's the article here. It's not very long, but I
do recommend people will go take a look at that
because it's just one article that's an insight, a window
into particularly the usage of Sufis by Western intelligence. There's
obviously a lot more Muslim Brotherhood has a much longer
attachment to British intelligence than Soupe's per se. But that's
that's one window into this this stuff. That's a good article.
Speaker 4: I just found it. Yeah, I'm downloading that pdf. I'll
read that. Awesome.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So we'll figure that out maybe in like two
or three weeks. We'll set a date for that. But
the next week we'll do a part two regarding some
of these TikTok deconstructionists, and so we'll address a lot
of the religious contentions. And and again they pull from
what I found. They reference a lot of sort of
rabbinic interpretation of Old Testament text to reject the Messianic
prophecies of Christ. They tend to reject the existence of
the Holy Trinity as being scripturally justified.
Speaker 4: And then they pull from these.
Speaker 7: Reddit level is it like reddit level stuff about God's
mean and stuff. Yeah, that's basically it. And and they
I wrote down four that I found multiple times, and
that's the Great Flood, the attacking the youth, and four
kingdoms or second kings, depending on what Bible you have,
the Canaanites punishing Israel, and then Israel destroying the Canaanites.
Those four instances I found multiple people on TikTok referencing
as oh, the old old tea God is He's mean
and nasty and vengeful. And yeah, a lot of them
take like a sort of Marcian I yeah, the scripture.
Speaker 3: And I'm able to we can address those very easily.
So yeah, looking forward to that. Hey, thank you so much. Man,
be everybody in the chat. We got up to a
thousand to day. Glad to hear it. I'll be sure
and follow. We mentioned Rob Bell earlier there, Cindy, we
should actually do maybe more of a deep dive on
people like Rob Bell. And the Emergent Church Founders. But
I'll be sure and follow Church Eternal Logos David Patrick
carry over at his channel. I've got him linked and
anything else you want to promote before we call it
a close.
Speaker 5: No, just go check out my YouTube channel, Church of
the Eternal Logos dot com. It's hyperlinked in the title here.
Speaker 4: Click that.
Speaker 5: I'll take you over there, give me a sub and
check out. Jane and I've done multiple streams. Each one
is a totally different topic. We've done Circularity in philosophy,
deconstructing the Vatican and the evils of the Pope, the papacy.
We have one on Protestantism that has been shared a
lot of times as one of my more watched videos.
So looking forward to whenever we can get together. It's
always great content.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, thank you very much. And I, guys, I want
to remind you too. I will be over at the
comedy event. It's a two day comedy event. They still
haven't people asked me what day are you there? They
haven't done the lineup yet, so I don't know exactly
which day it is, but it's Brohemian Grove and so
Elijah Shafer's Elijah Shafer is going to be there. Maybe
Shane Cashman will be there. We had a great chat
the other day over in his podcast from Tim Cast.
Who else is Leonarda Joni the comedian. She's going to
be there. A lot of people are going to be there.
They're trying to, I think, secure more and more and
more people to come for sure.
Speaker 4: Is that in Florida.
Speaker 7: It is.
Speaker 3: It's in Florida, number twenty fifth and twenty six and
so here is the link to that for those that
are interested. I'm gonna be doing I'll be going on
the different podcasts, and people want to come and talk
to me, they can, But I'm not gonna be doing
a talk on anything serious. It's gonna be all just
totally for my vantage point fun. I'm gonna be doing
some karaoke. I'm gonna be performing Cringe Corp Live. So
it's gonna be a fun. It's more of a comedy
event for me. But I will have books and I
will have you know, be doing interviews and so forth.
So if you want to come get signed books, you
can and that will be October twenty fifth and twenty
sixth in summer summer Field, Florida, anyway, the link is
there anyway, Thank you very much, Kotel