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