Speaker 1: All right, So I'm glad actually that all of these
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics are in a tizzy over the obvious massive
Speaker 1: failure of Tim Fordan in the debate. First of all,
Speaker 1: all three of us were loud and interrupted, and these
Speaker 1: hippocrites ack like I was the only one that was
Speaker 1: loud and interrupted, which is just a ridiculous double standard.
Speaker 1: Everybody did it, including Temple. It was an informal debate. Obviously,
Speaker 1: people lie and act like I've never done formal debates,
Speaker 1: that there aren't civil formal debates. There are dozens of them.
Speaker 1: But we also do the uncivil informal blood sports style
Speaker 1: as well. And so what amazes me is just the
Speaker 1: consistent just gas lighting and lying that Roman Catholics do
Speaker 1: no matter what. They're actually incapable of reading comprehension, of
Speaker 1: just basic honesty about any of the topics that come up.
Speaker 1: And just like a bunch of feminists or women on
Speaker 1: the internet, the only thing that they care about is
Speaker 1: the optics, how it makes them feel and who hurts
Speaker 1: their feelies or whatever. It's nothing to do with the content.
Speaker 1: None of these people will actually stick to the content.
Speaker 1: And then anytime you invite them to come discuss, they
Speaker 1: whine and complain as if you're mean, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: is a self like gay as hell to complain. But
Speaker 1: beyond that, it's not true that you don't get a
Speaker 1: chance or an opportunity to come make your case. You
Speaker 1: only get interrupted when you don't make arguments, and when
Speaker 1: you shift into various fallacies or various straw men. That's it.
Speaker 1: It's pretty easy. We have atheists, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics they
Speaker 1: call in all the time. I've done so for years.
Speaker 1: If you could just simply coherently make an argument, it's
Speaker 1: very easy to make your case here, and I welcome it.
Speaker 1: I offer it all the time. And what's funny is,
Speaker 1: out of ten reven cathoy shit talkers, none of them
Speaker 1: will actually come debate their arguments. All they want to
Speaker 1: do is debate your debating, debate your meanness, your style,
Speaker 1: or what you did bad. Now you'll notice too, that
Speaker 1: any moral qualm they have about me, when they pile on,
Speaker 1: they let loose ten times more venom than I letless
Speaker 1: in any of these conversations. But it's okay for them
Speaker 1: to do it, but not for me. So it's all
Speaker 1: just insane levels of democracy, idiocy, childishness, stupidity, and that
Speaker 1: it just never ends. So let's get to the actual issues. Kevin. Kevin,
Speaker 1: when you commented, you commented to me about what Vatican
Speaker 1: two says about Hindus, and I replied to that, and
Speaker 1: then you said all this other stuff about Muslims, which
Speaker 1: I never even replied to. I didn't even listen or
Speaker 1: look at any of your comments about Islam. So why
Speaker 1: did you then lie as if I deflected and I
Speaker 1: was misleading people. That's why I blocked you, is because
Speaker 1: it's a total dishonesty. I made one reply to one
Speaker 1: of your comments, gotta I'm me and Kevin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't lie. I'm not really sure what you're
Speaker 2: talking about. I said, Vaticant two does not say Hindus
Speaker 2: worship the same God or.
Speaker 3: The one Truth.
Speaker 1: And I did I reply to that. You did reply
Speaker 1: to that, okay, And so that was it, right?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: That was one post and then I reposted or whatever
Speaker 2: you yeah, quote what Twitter calls it. I quoted a
Speaker 2: second post. This one was not about hindu it was
Speaker 2: about Muslims. And then I made an argument from Romans one.
Speaker 2: You commented about Hindu use again, so that was a
Speaker 2: totally different context.
Speaker 1: But I was obviously still replying to the original comment
Speaker 1: because I'm talking about Hinduism.
Speaker 3: Pretty it wasn't pretty obvious. It was not obvious from
Speaker 3: you at all.
Speaker 1: If I'm talking about if I'm talking about Hinduism, is
Speaker 1: it not obvious that I'm still talking about that post?
Speaker 3: It's not. I mean the post the second post was about.
Speaker 2: I mean, if I'm going to respond to somebody, I'm
Speaker 2: not gonna respond to them about something.
Speaker 1: Does Vatican does Vatican who actually say that? Say what?
Speaker 1: Your first comment was that Vatican.
Speaker 3: Two doesn't say that, right, it does not say what.
Speaker 1: It does not say what my original comment said about
Speaker 1: throwing Hindus into the mix. That's right. They do not.
Speaker 3: They do not worship the same God.
Speaker 1: And yet what term does Vatican two use in no
Speaker 1: sat It says they. You do read it.
Speaker 3: I'm carrying my my daughter me read it.
Speaker 1: You can't. You don't know what it says.
Speaker 3: I don't want to butcher it says.
Speaker 1: It says they. Finally they in Hinduism they value the
Speaker 1: moral life and worship God. Excuse me, let excuse me,
Speaker 1: that's the uh, let me go back up. That's the
Speaker 1: Muslim comment, it says, let me pull it up. I
Speaker 1: got a different spot. That was the wrong comment. Okay,
Speaker 1: here it is. I'll read the whole section, so you
Speaker 1: know with the context. I thinks it says thus in Hinduism,
Speaker 1: so we're talking about in the religion, men contemplate the
Speaker 1: divine mystery and express it through an exhaustible abundance of
Speaker 1: myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom for
Speaker 1: the anguish of our human condition, either through asthetic practices
Speaker 1: or profound meditation, or a flight to God with love
Speaker 1: and trust.
Speaker 2: Is that the same thing it says about Muslims that
Speaker 2: they worship the One True God?
Speaker 1: Does it? What's what? What? When it's uh? What does
Speaker 1: this say about God? What? What does it?
Speaker 3: Does it use the proper it does? Does that mean
Speaker 3: it's the one True God? What?
Speaker 5: What?
Speaker 1: Which one is? It?
Speaker 3: Does that mean it's the one True?
Speaker 1: How many gods? How many gods do you believe in?
Speaker 1: How many do you capitalize?
Speaker 3: Well, the Hindus believe in many gods.
Speaker 1: How many do you capitalize?
Speaker 3: I mean I only talk about one usually, but.
Speaker 1: How many do you capitalize?
Speaker 3: You're falsely inferring that because do you capitalize?
Speaker 2: I think you're falsely in capital you're.
Speaker 1: So, how many gods are there that you capitalize? Anybody?
Speaker 1: The ones that you believe in? Right? Right?
Speaker 2: But I think you're falsely assuming they're That means is
Speaker 2: that they're worship the One True God.
Speaker 1: Why is it capitalized? You liar?
Speaker 3: I'm not lying, Jay, Why is it capitalized?
Speaker 1: I don't know. You don't know exactly, I don't know. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: you don't know.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I can make a property, I can
Speaker 2: make a proper guest without jump into conclusions that that
Speaker 2: they worship the same God as you know Muslims, or
Speaker 2: as Christians or as.
Speaker 1: So you think Muslims, you think Muslims and Christians do
Speaker 1: worship the same God?
Speaker 3: Of course that's what the document says, Jay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, thank you. So it's not what Tim Gordon said.
Speaker 3: Right, I'm not aware of anything. I don't follow Tim Gordon.
Speaker 3: I have no idea what.
Speaker 1: Okay, right, Muslims and Christians worship the same God when
Speaker 1: Muslims don't acknowledge the Trinity?
Speaker 2: But why are you changing topics? Let's stick to the
Speaker 2: Hindu So.
Speaker 1: You don't want to go there were brought up Muslims.
Speaker 1: We're gonna go. We're gonna go.
Speaker 3: We haven't finished hind.
Speaker 1: You brought them up because you just said you don't
Speaker 1: know why it's capital g. Now we're going to go
Speaker 1: to your other argument because you don't know. So tell
Speaker 1: me how do Muslims worship the once your God when
Speaker 1: they don't believe in Christ or the Trinity?
Speaker 3: Talking about Hindu?
Speaker 1: All right, so this is why this is what you
Speaker 1: guys do. You just said, you just said about the
Speaker 1: Hindu you don't know. You said, I don't know, you, bro?
Speaker 1: Did you say I don't know?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can't. I can't read into the end why
Speaker 3: they capitalize the words in God?
Speaker 1: And you don't know. So we're gonna move on. And
Speaker 1: you lost that point, We're gonna move on.
Speaker 3: I haven't lost any point.
Speaker 4: You still have.
Speaker 1: I don't know you still your argument? Argument is you're done, dude.
Speaker 1: This is why you're a liar. You're a liar. Get
Speaker 1: out of here. That's why these people are discussing liars.
Speaker 1: It's Brosey and you noticed he would not go to
Speaker 1: the Muslim argument. It's exactly how this is gonna I
Speaker 1: told you. So this is what these people do. They
Speaker 1: make a big stink. They don't even actually have any
Speaker 1: capability of dealing with the argument. It's all that I'm bad.
Speaker 1: And then when we get to the argument, they lose
Speaker 1: and they flounder and they don't know and they don't
Speaker 1: want to talk about it because they're dishonest. That's my point.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, h browser, it was going on, Jae, Can
Speaker 1: you hear me? Yep?
Speaker 6: All right, cool, Yeah, it's gonna be quick, man. I
Speaker 6: just wanted to say, you know, just with this, this
Speaker 6: small bit of engagement I've been doing with these guys
Speaker 6: for the past I don't know, like a couple of months.
Speaker 6: I genuinely I don't understand how you're still doing this
Speaker 6: ship man.
Speaker 7: It's that.
Speaker 6: Do you remember earlier that that guy under one of
Speaker 6: your posts that I called out for that for that too, Kokoy?
Speaker 6: Absolutely yes, yeah, so so he did. He took a
Speaker 6: while to reply. Once I saw that he did reply,
Speaker 6: he completely ignored what it was that I was saying
Speaker 6: in the reply, So I just let it go. There
Speaker 6: was there was no point in your reply. And then
Speaker 6: he went to then he went to my page and
Speaker 6: then he uh he he left the reply under under
Speaker 6: the picture that I shared of yours, saying that you
Speaker 6: would smoke you were smoking Aiden and Tim in the debate,
Speaker 6: and I was just from a couple of days ago
Speaker 6: when he said something and he completely ignored what I
Speaker 6: said regarding the different ecclesiologies again, and he asked me,
Speaker 6: he said, uh, he he brought up something that, you know,
Speaker 6: like something that Carill has said in the past. He
Speaker 6: brought up Bartholomew again and uh fuck, who's the last
Speaker 6: patriarch of what of John? John of Antioch? He he
Speaker 6: brought it, He brought up three and he's he's asking me, Okay,
Speaker 6: so are they accumulated? Like how do you how do
Speaker 6: you completely ignore what I said under the post reply
Speaker 6: to that, completely ignored again under something that under something
Speaker 6: from days ago, and then leave another damn reply Like
Speaker 6: these people are so fucking dishonest. Man.
Speaker 1: That's crazy, man, It's crazy. So the thing with the
Speaker 1: Orthodox patriarchs, the page is just a bishop with canonical privileges.
Speaker 1: It's not some it's not a little pope like they
Speaker 1: think that patriarchs are like many popes, and if they
Speaker 1: have a patriarch saying something wrong or ritical, then it's
Speaker 1: a gotcha. They're every patriarch. From the Orthodox perspective, every
Speaker 1: patriarch it has had has had heterodox patriarchs at some point.
Speaker 1: They've all fallen into heresy, including Rome, including the ep
Speaker 1: in any of them. So for us, it's not a
Speaker 1: defeater if there's a heretic patriarch who falls away, or
Speaker 1: if there's one even that says something heretical. Now, another
Speaker 1: point that should be made is that our ecclesiology candon
Speaker 1: law is different. So the methods about how the Orthodox
Speaker 1: Church goes about dealing with heresy at that level, it's
Speaker 1: not the same as the methods that Roman Catholics have
Speaker 1: and how they view the relationship of Candilaw to the Church. So,
Speaker 1: for example, if a patriarch commits error or heresy, schism, whatever,
Speaker 1: and he continues in that, there's phases too can procedure
Speaker 1: in the Orthodox view, So eventually, after removal from communion
Speaker 1: there's a sonodal excommunication, the rest of the Orthodox laity
Speaker 1: are not bound morally and to be expected to remove
Speaker 1: themselves from communing with that person until there is a
Speaker 1: sonodal pronouncement like that. That's Orthodox ecclesiology. So when these
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics are replying to us that Carol said something heterodox,
Speaker 1: Carol said something wrong. I can easily say absolutely he did,
Speaker 1: and it's just as wrong as Francis. But I don't
Speaker 1: have the same ecclesiology as you, and so I am
Speaker 1: not bound to become a set of a contest as
Speaker 1: an Orthodox person like you would be bound as a
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic to become set of a contest if the
Speaker 1: pope becomes a heretic er says something heretical. So all
Speaker 1: they keep doing is just reading Papism into Orthodoxy and
Speaker 1: acting like it's a gotcha when it's a different system.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and but see the day obviously, you know, I've
Speaker 6: heard a damn billions on the Twitter spaces where you
Speaker 6: will explain that that verbat into somebody and say if
Speaker 6: they come back on or maybe even later in the debate,
Speaker 6: if it's brought up again, they'll just say that you're
Speaker 6: you're using a double standard and it's a so like
Speaker 6: based on what happened earlier. It's like they just don't
Speaker 6: understand what it means to have different ecclesiology under under
Speaker 6: that post. I'm not the first one I said it.
Speaker 6: I say that one more time.
Speaker 1: Jay thieve of it.
Speaker 6: Hold on, Jay, say that one more time. My connection
Speaker 6: went out.
Speaker 1: No, it's my connection. I said. They just can't literally
Speaker 1: can't conceive of it because they don't think in terms
Speaker 1: of different systems. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 6: So I'm not the first one that said anything about
Speaker 6: ecclesiology under that post, but he ignored it.
Speaker 1: When I said that.
Speaker 6: Every I went I went back maybe about like an
Speaker 6: hour after his reply, just to check and see how
Speaker 6: dishonesty was being every other every other person. And there's
Speaker 6: a guy Henry I don't I don't know if you
Speaker 6: follow him, but I mean, you know, a lot of
Speaker 6: a lot of other ortho guys following them whatever, he's
Speaker 6: the first one that said something about it. He did
Speaker 6: not want to engage with him. And I guess I see,
Speaker 6: I see now why, I see why now I don't
Speaker 6: I don't see how you're still doing this, ship man. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 6: I don't get it. These like this level of dishonesty
Speaker 6: I've just seen just today, just today under you know,
Speaker 6: like under like with Vain. I see Vain is in here,
Speaker 6: you know, him replying him replying to some of these
Speaker 6: motherfuckers under your post, man, is it's madness. I just
Speaker 6: don't understand how you can how they can't understand it.
Speaker 6: It's like it's basically just an internal critique and they
Speaker 6: just don't know how to do that. They just they
Speaker 6: just see it as any any critique, you're giving them
Speaker 6: a double standard.
Speaker 7: Instantly, they just they just a man.
Speaker 1: Like, yeah, well you have problems. You have problems too,
Speaker 1: at doak P. Notice how like only one of all
Speaker 1: of them even came.
Speaker 8: Okay, Jay, I just wanted to so obviously, I know
Speaker 8: this whole discussion is with Catholics Muslims, and they called
Speaker 8: they worship right I always. I know you've previously said
Speaker 8: that Catholics and Orthodox on what should have seen God either.
Speaker 8: So would that be a contradiction within the Catholic system
Speaker 8: to say we should have same God as he?
Speaker 1: Would it be a contradiction within the Catholic system for
Speaker 1: a Catholic to say that he worships the same God
Speaker 1: as the Orthodox? Yeah? Oh uh, Well, I just think
Speaker 1: the Catholic system is just basically entirely operates on word
Speaker 1: concept fallacies that anything that calls it's deity God is
Speaker 1: therefore the same reference as the Catholic God. So when
Speaker 1: a Hindu says that he believes in Atman or Brahman
Speaker 1: or whatever, Oh that's God. Or when if a scientologist
Speaker 1: says he believes in a first mind, oh that's God.
Speaker 1: That's the same thing we believe in. So it's so
Speaker 1: flexible and elastic that literally anything can be equated to
Speaker 1: quote one God or the first cause or I mean, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: Catholics going to say that he has the same God
Speaker 1: as an Orthodox person, the same God as a Muslim,
Speaker 1: the same God as as capital g of the Hindus
Speaker 1: in Vatican two.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I guess what I'm wondering is like Catholic was
Speaker 8: the say, you know, Orthodox and Catholics wiship would that be?
Speaker 8: You know, like always when you say Catholics and Muslims
Speaker 8: wishes God. That sounds like massively cregious in one year
Speaker 8: listening to that, but I mean would.
Speaker 1: So the reason they say that is natural theology. They
Speaker 1: think that there is a generic theism that is the
Speaker 1: theism of all the world religions in some loose sense,
Speaker 1: but a little more so the monotheistic ones they're a
Speaker 1: little bit closer. And then supposedly Trinity is like the
Speaker 1: one that's the closest of the close. So it's like
Speaker 1: a graded scale of what of worshiping God, and that
Speaker 1: doesn't exist. Like a heretic is in the same boat
Speaker 1: as a pagan. Now, a heretic is not identical to
Speaker 1: a pagan. They have different theological views, and certainly a
Speaker 1: heretic is closer to an Orthodox Christian than a pagan,
Speaker 1: but they're still in the same boat of being outside
Speaker 1: the faith. This is what they say can't seem to
Speaker 1: grasp and that's why their whole ecclesiology, their whole system,
Speaker 1: is built on being twenty percent right, being fifty percent right,
Speaker 1: being thirty percent, seventy percent Catholic, which is ludicrous even
Speaker 1: in their own system, because you've got two dogmatic statements
Speaker 1: in Roman Catholic theology that one heresy or schism or
Speaker 1: action of apostasy literally automatically puts you outside the mystical body.
Speaker 1: In other words, if I'm a Roman Catholic and I
Speaker 1: decide I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception in
Speaker 1: Catholic theology, I'm no longer Catholic. It's a packaged deal.
Speaker 1: You can't have nine out of ten dogmas and still
Speaker 1: be Catholic. This is something that they don't understand their
Speaker 1: own system says this.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I've overready understood the whole like you know, you know,
Speaker 8: Orthodox have the same similar like sacraments or whatever as
Speaker 8: the Catholic. Therefore, you know, we can receive their echerysm
Speaker 8: just like well, they haven't got the same faith then,
Speaker 8: so why can we What can you take you know, communion?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a fair critique. I mean, if they are
Speaker 1: outside communion with the Roman, see why is it still
Speaker 1: quote valid? And again the all goes back to the
Speaker 1: ex operatta ex operaparado, a sacromatology of Augustine, which the
Speaker 1: Orthodox do not entire in its entirety except Foggy Mountain.
Speaker 1: I want to go to Ruman Catholics to have any
Speaker 1: arguments or points or if I want to try to
Speaker 1: give some explanation. You can even have sixty seconds and
Speaker 1: I'll be quiet if you can actually make sense of
Speaker 1: Attican too.
Speaker 9: Hey J, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yep?
Speaker 10: Hey J, thanks for having me on. Just this is
Speaker 10: my first time on. I just wanted to say, I
Speaker 10: think this all just sounds like relativism. To be honest,
Speaker 10: it just sounds like.
Speaker 1: Of course it is. That's what I'm saying, Like, it's
Speaker 1: it's it works to the to their cause for numbers
Speaker 1: to act like every you know, generic usage of the
Speaker 1: word God is referring to the same thing, and so
Speaker 1: we're all talking about God. It must be the same God.
Speaker 10: It's just religious syncretism, just in a different way. Yeah,
Speaker 10: So I think they're just lost, you know, like maybe that's.
Speaker 1: Why they don't that's what that's why. How how could
Speaker 1: Erica Bara imagine spending all these years in Roman Catholicism
Speaker 1: and papal lawyering and you don't even know that Muslims
Speaker 1: and Christians and Jews don't worship the same deity. So
Speaker 1: it's gotten him absolutely nothing. This is why Roman Catholicism
Speaker 1: is a problem, because it leads you into spiritual delusion, contradiction, chaos,
Speaker 1: and idolatry. That's one and all of the madness of
Speaker 1: these people demonstrates that point against it. It's a system
Speaker 1: that will drive you insane and drive you away from Christ.
Speaker 1: It's a religion of dead works because it's all nonsense.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, it's all trying to
Speaker 1: make this stupid papal thing work and the only thing
Speaker 1: that matters in the religion is the papercy at the
Speaker 1: end of the day. Felix, what's up, hija?
Speaker 7: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's actually my first time.
Speaker 11: Also, I just wanted to add some thoughts that you
Speaker 11: like said earlier. And the guy earlier said that the
Speaker 11: thing about this like one monotoism that's like seventy percent correct,
Speaker 11: like fifty percent correct sort of person correct, it's actually
Speaker 11: a Muslim idea.
Speaker 3: It's like Muslim idea absolutely.
Speaker 1: It's because believe Mostlims believe in natural theology, just like running.
Speaker 11: Yeah, and like the way that second two adapted to
Speaker 11: some kind of Jewish doctrines and they actually use some
Speaker 11: kind of rabbis to write second two. Maybe they use
Speaker 11: some kind of Muslim scholars to adapt this thing also,
Speaker 11: And I just want I just wanted to add one
Speaker 11: more thing that Muslims, like modern Muslims or do this
Speaker 11: in some kind of Southeast Asian countries, for example, in Indonesia,
Speaker 11: is actually made some kind of syncretic redision between like
Speaker 11: Islam and Buddhism and the Hinduism where they made all
Speaker 11: the hindu Jitis into one God. And it's like, well,
Speaker 11: technically only one God and all the other like Vish
Speaker 11: New Brass mind other like Ditis, are just like his.
Speaker 3: Advotars, so they are also correct exactly.
Speaker 1: It's like this is a this is a version of perennialism.
Speaker 1: And this is why Roman Catholics like Neoplatonism, because Neoplatonism
Speaker 1: knows the exact same things with God as manifestations of
Speaker 1: the principle of the One the monad. It's the exact
Speaker 1: same move that they all make. And by the way,
Speaker 1: this is the whole reason why they do patro mama.
Speaker 1: All of the people fussing about patcha Mama, what's in
Speaker 1: consisted with patcha Mama and the reasoning of Vatican too.
Speaker 1: If God can be manifested in Hinduism, why can't he
Speaker 1: be manifested as Pacha Mama. Why not just say Pacha
Speaker 1: Mama is Mary. Yeah, it might have been a pagan
Speaker 1: sacrificed human sacrifice goddess. Just say that it's Mary. Though.
Speaker 1: This is how stupid this is and excellent comments Felix.
Speaker 1: That's that perfectly makes the point there, with the same
Speaker 1: move that Muslims make. I've been debating Muslims for six years.
Speaker 1: Many of those debates revolved around their version of natural theology.
Speaker 1: They literally think that if you're on a desert island
Speaker 1: and you just start reasoning, you would come to the
Speaker 1: Muslim god. That's what shaikh az ars, she'd argued, right,
Speaker 1: And so I mean that's literally and where do they
Speaker 1: get that? Well, the Muslims lie. They think they get
Speaker 1: it from the Quran. They get it from Greek Hellenic philosophy,
Speaker 1: they get it from Aristotle, they get it from Christian
Speaker 1: I should say tomistic type theology. Chase, what's up? I'm
Speaker 1: saying there's a symbiotic relationship between the medieval Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: and Muslim theologists and thinkers. What's up cha?
Speaker 12: Yo?
Speaker 4: You know it's funny, is uh? I? Remember?
Speaker 13: You know I message you that thing about how the
Speaker 13: people say, yeah they do. It's like, okay, well yeah
Speaker 13: you how do you have martyrs?
Speaker 1: Then?
Speaker 13: But another funny thing is this is actually already baked
Speaker 13: in the theological.
Speaker 4: Fluidity is already baked into the system.
Speaker 13: The Byzantine Catholics can venerate Saint Palomas and not.
Speaker 4: Recite the Philioque.
Speaker 13: So it's funny because it's actually already baked into their religion.
Speaker 13: That the theology doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: The theology doesn't matter exactly, So theology is always secondary.
Speaker 4: To paper exactly.
Speaker 13: And so and people, you know, if they say no,
Speaker 13: look like we can have these these different things. No,
Speaker 13: you're denying massive stretches of you know, eight hundred years
Speaker 13: of history, even more, you know, twelve hundred years of history.
Speaker 13: We're you're not saying, oh, it's just it's just a uh,
Speaker 13: you know, energetic procession. No, you you're literally having a
Speaker 13: different theology. You're venerating people in a sect of Catholicism
Speaker 13: that were never Roman Catholic, that have a completely different
Speaker 13: theology that you your own people.
Speaker 1: Will call your No. No, they were actually extra communicated
Speaker 1: because if you didn't follow lions in Florence, those councils
Speaker 1: excommunicate you for not following them. So Palamas and all
Speaker 1: these people that Rome now venerates were previously literally excommunicated heretics.
Speaker 13: Yes, so they all worshiped the exact same God though
Speaker 13: they were excommunicated as heretics. So it's actually it's interesting
Speaker 13: because you know, now you can there's so many horns
Speaker 13: of this dilemma for them through Vatican too, that they're
Speaker 13: finally having to be put in the hot seat with
Speaker 13: that they've been ignoring for you know, forever.
Speaker 1: And well, I'm glad that I was able to put
Speaker 1: them in the hot seat. Uh. And you'll know not
Speaker 1: if you pay attention to the routes that he took
Speaker 1: in the debate. Even though it got heated and it
Speaker 1: was loud, he constantly contradicted. At one point, it's like,
Speaker 1: the documents are ambiguous as written by liberals, but it's
Speaker 1: still orthodox if you just give it the right interpretation.
Speaker 1: Oh well, then why is it using the word god
Speaker 1: capital G. Well, I don't know. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's wrong, but it's also not wrong. Like he just
Speaker 1: he literally said it's bad, it's ambiguous, totally flipped like
Speaker 1: ten minutes later it's like, no, there's nothing wrong with it.
Speaker 1: It's fine. Yep.
Speaker 13: And and what's interesting is and and I liked him.
Speaker 13: I think Tim's a cool guy. I know you you
Speaker 13: liked him obviously to Tim's he just seems like a
Speaker 13: likable dude.
Speaker 1: And we went out to eat, We went out to
Speaker 1: eat afterwards.
Speaker 4: For sure.
Speaker 13: Yeah, And but I thought it was funny that he
Speaker 13: kept going, no, you're you're confusing, you know, the signifier
Speaker 13: and the reference. Like, no, it's the document, the documents
Speaker 13: literally saying they have the wrong signifier but.
Speaker 4: The same reference. That's exactly insane.
Speaker 1: That's the point. The document is saying that if we
Speaker 1: if we really get into it, we're all worshiping the
Speaker 1: same thing. It's just the words get in the way,
Speaker 1: exactly shape.
Speaker 13: So then now another another aspect of the same dilemma,
Speaker 13: because there's it's so much fun thinking of how many
Speaker 13: places you can bring this to.
Speaker 4: The funny thing is okay, why does why does Florence matter?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 13: Why does lions matter? Why doesn't I see a matter?
Speaker 13: Why does chalcdon matter? If it's everything is pointing to
Speaker 13: the same reference, why does it matter?
Speaker 1: Like like you, like you said, if this Vatican to
Speaker 1: theology is correct, there would never have been in any
Speaker 1: need for martyrs in the first three centuries, because why
Speaker 1: are you not, like, why can't you sacrifice to the emperor?
Speaker 1: Just read the Emperor as an image of the once
Speaker 1: your God, and there you're sacrificing to God.
Speaker 13: See exactly exactly, And it's yeah, it's just it's so
Speaker 13: it's such an insane game, and I'm i think. You
Speaker 13: know what I'm excited for is I think people are
Speaker 13: finally going to see why you have been saying for
Speaker 13: years and then myself as well when I, you know,
Speaker 13: started getting into doing apologetics and got a blessing to
Speaker 13: do apologetics.
Speaker 4: This is where natural theology leads. This is where it leads.
Speaker 13: And I was reading the uh the ambiguou uh the
Speaker 13: Ambiguum the other day and it's funny because Saint Maximus,
Speaker 13: I gotta I'll find the quote later and I'll send
Speaker 13: it to you. Saint Maximus was talking about these things
Speaker 13: and and explicitly saying that like the human mind, uh
Speaker 13: looking around, can't can't reason up to any of these
Speaker 13: great things because it sees all the finitude of life
Speaker 13: constantly all around it. And they'll venerate him to It's
Speaker 13: just funny. There's so many layers, but uh, I'm gonna
Speaker 13: pop out and listen. Thanks for pulling me up.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: I think the kill shot too is the more I
Speaker 1: thought about it, every Roman Catholic will agree that Arians
Speaker 1: are heretics, and are you know God does not accept
Speaker 1: aryan adoration and worship, and yet Muslims are literally from Arians,
Speaker 1: and yeah, and we're supposed to believe that Vatican too
Speaker 1: is saying right that God still accepts it and and
Speaker 1: they adore the one True God. So I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's why I always ask these people too, like do
Speaker 1: you think Basil thought that the Eunomians had the same
Speaker 1: God as him? And most Roman Catholics who know anything,
Speaker 1: they'll actually ad meant no. And it's like, then you
Speaker 1: just shot your whole Vaticans who document in the foot.
Speaker 13: Yep, and yeah, it's so, it's so funny, it's so funny.
Speaker 13: And and the funny thing is about the about the
Speaker 13: Aryan thing is is that this also ties into it's
Speaker 13: the you know, the whole meme of people saying.
Speaker 4: Like, oh, saying Christ is king is is anti Semitic.
Speaker 13: Say okay, but now when people say Christ is king
Speaker 13: in Christ is Lord and stuff, it's like, you see
Speaker 13: how they can just be a Muslim saying that it's
Speaker 13: exactly Catholics will go, yeah, dude, you got the slogan,
Speaker 13: let's go.
Speaker 1: Well. Actually a lot of the track cass do cheer
Speaker 1: on the Muslims from the Muslims wool agreed and stuff
Speaker 1: like that. Yeah, but it doesn't make any sense because
Speaker 1: the Lord is a title of divinity.
Speaker 4: So yeah, yeah, I'm gonna pop out and listen, have
Speaker 4: a good one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they get Jordan, what's up?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 7: Man?
Speaker 14: Yeah?
Speaker 15: I was discussing with the Roman Catholic about the energies
Speaker 15: the energy distinction, right, and he was saying, like, oh,
Speaker 15: if the so like, if the energies themselves are not
Speaker 15: identical to the essence and they subsist within God, how
Speaker 15: can you say that this isn't lead leading to polytheism
Speaker 15: or like, how why couldn't you just hold to Scotus's
Speaker 15: definition of formal distinction.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean we've addressed this many times because there's
Speaker 1: multiple things going on here. There's modal collapse problem. First
Speaker 1: of all, there's a question of what we participate in.
Speaker 1: If you want to say that it's a formal distinction,
Speaker 1: I mean, do you see the church fathers Basil Cappudians
Speaker 1: letter two thirty four. Do they talk about participating in
Speaker 1: a formal distinction or do they talk about participating in
Speaker 1: the uncreated reality that is divine glory and immortality in life?
Speaker 1: So God's energies have to be really distinct because everyone
Speaker 1: agrees through apithetic theology the via negativa that we don't
Speaker 1: know the divine essence, but what we do know is
Speaker 1: the energies that come down to us, as Letter two
Speaker 1: thirty four says. So really the key way to refute
Speaker 1: the Scotis type angle or whatever, or even the identification
Speaker 1: of the attributes and the operations with the essence in
Speaker 1: a strict identification sense is to look at participation. Because
Speaker 1: there's no creature that can save us. So the grace
Speaker 1: that we participate in cannot inherently be created, because that's
Speaker 1: an aryan form of grace is just another creature. We
Speaker 1: actually need to be saved by the uncreated glory. And
Speaker 1: in John seventeen, Jesus says that his disciples will participate
Speaker 1: in the glory that he shared with his father before
Speaker 1: the foundation of the world. Everyone agrees God's glory is
Speaker 1: not created. That's why the Theophanes also proved this, because
Speaker 1: they're not the divine essence, and yet they are the
Speaker 1: energetic manifestation of the logos in time and space that
Speaker 1: immediately destroys the absolute divine simplicity. Argumentation and scout doesn't
Speaker 1: really doesn't get you anything other than a harder distinction
Speaker 1: between the attributes and the essence. That's all it does.
Speaker 1: It doesn't answer the question of what we participate, what
Speaker 1: we participate in. It doesn't answer any of the questions
Speaker 1: about Theophanes, It doesn't answer the modal collapse. All the
Speaker 1: same problems are still there.
Speaker 15: So okay, oh yeah, that's actually great. I actually even
Speaker 15: in the Bible, Saint Paul talks about it and so
Speaker 15: forth to early Church fathers.
Speaker 7: But also I would.
Speaker 15: Talk what about the the incarnation itself? Because the Roman
Speaker 15: Catholic was like, well, the incarnation itself, the flush is created,
Speaker 15: that's a created effects.
Speaker 3: So how can you say, if that's a creative effect.
Speaker 15: Why can't we why can't we perceive the created effects
Speaker 15: as opposed to uncreated energy? So what's wrong with that?
Speaker 1: Again, We're not saved by being participated by participating in
Speaker 1: something created. It's uncreated glory. In John seventeen John Damascus,
Speaker 1: when he talks about the human nature of Christ, he
Speaker 1: says that Christ transferred his immortality that he possessed by
Speaker 1: his divinity to the human nature. So the human nature
Speaker 1: that he possesses really participates in Jesus's uncreated grace, glory
Speaker 1: and immortality. If you read the two Letters of Serials Sensus,
Speaker 1: he talks about how we all agree that it's not
Speaker 1: the essence of God that is what saves us or
Speaker 1: that we participate in. It's his uncreated grace and immortality
Speaker 1: by which he deified the human flesh that he assumed.
Speaker 1: So that has that requires a necessary Okay, yeah, the
Speaker 1: Eucharist requires an essencerityistinction because everyone agrees we're not eating
Speaker 1: the essence of God exactly.
Speaker 5: And that was the point I brought up to him too.
Speaker 15: It is the uncreated grace that deifies the flesh, which
Speaker 15: makes it like possible for us to partake in grace.
Speaker 15: So concerning that, though, does the energies does it have?
Speaker 15: Does it make humans who partake in it do this?
Speaker 15: Does it make them have a different view than people
Speaker 15: who don't partake in grace?
Speaker 1: Like?
Speaker 15: You know, so if babies unlive for some weird reason,
Speaker 15: right or die, let's say, since they don't get to
Speaker 15: partake in the divine grace, would would they have a
Speaker 15: different view of God? They wouldn't be able to perceive him?
Speaker 1: You talk about like an unbaptized infant or.
Speaker 15: Something even that, or like even like people of other face.
Speaker 15: They perceive God differently because they don't partake in God's
Speaker 15: grace the same.
Speaker 1: Way that Actually, yes, actually I think both things are happening.
Speaker 1: So the unbeliever, as Paul says, the natural man, cannot
Speaker 1: receive the things of the spirit. So that's what the
Speaker 1: reason Roman Calviyus can't see this stuff or understand this stuff.
Speaker 1: It's not an intellectual problem, it's a spiritual problem. It's
Speaker 1: the same with atheists. So you're correct, they can't actually
Speaker 1: see or perceive any of this. They think it's foolishness
Speaker 1: and as polytheism and all the other ad hominem and
Speaker 1: stupid blasphemous things they say about the divine energies, which
Speaker 1: are literally in Paul's epistles. They say it because they're
Speaker 1: stupid and they're blinded. And I don't say that out
Speaker 1: of pride. I say that because I want them to
Speaker 1: be saved. But in the case, so that's the case
Speaker 1: of anyone's perception that you can't even perceive the things
Speaker 1: without having the Holy Spirit, which you get three repentance
Speaker 1: and the orthodox sacraments in church life. But separate from that,
Speaker 1: I would say, yeah, there is a tradition that in
Speaker 1: some of the Church Fathers that the the Cappadocians Uh
Speaker 1: even talk about at times. It's not exactly limbo like
Speaker 1: the Roman Catholic sab but it's a version of hold
Speaker 1: on one second, I'm trying to buy something in me,
Speaker 1: just one second, excuse me. Some of the Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: prayers talk about that we just simply commend infants to
Speaker 1: God who have died baptized. We don't know their exact state,
Speaker 1: and we don't think they're necessarily damned because they don't
Speaker 1: have any actual sin. Because we don't believe in original guilt,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't say that they're automatically damned. That was even
Speaker 1: the Roman Kelly Church doesn't believe that anymore. But so
Speaker 1: there's some speculation, and then some of the liturgical prayers
Speaker 1: talk about how you know, God will take care of
Speaker 1: them and that kind of stuff, so they're not necessarily damned.
Speaker 1: But there's no evidence either that they're necessarily partake of theosis.
Speaker 1: So exactly what happens with unbaptized infants is unclear. There's
Speaker 1: just a little bit of liturgical prayers that discuss it.
Speaker 1: So anyway, so what would it.
Speaker 15: Be like though it would it would they still have
Speaker 15: eternal happiness, they just don't have the vision of God
Speaker 15: with the beatific vision, like they can still have eternal Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think the one statement that I've seen from Nissa
Speaker 1: is that he speculates that they would be put into
Speaker 1: a place of natural felicity, which is kind of close
Speaker 1: to infant limbos of the Roman Catholics have.
Speaker 15: Okay, and like, because why come from like a reform background,
Speaker 15: so I don't want to think of I know, Orthodox
Speaker 15: doesn't think of God as as legalistic, but well, i'd say, like,
Speaker 15: would you say that damning itself just talking about like
Speaker 15: regular humans here is it to satisfy God's wrath since
Speaker 15: you are in opposition to his will?
Speaker 1: Is that the whole basis of hell. No, I think
Speaker 1: that the Orthodox conception of hell is a lot more
Speaker 1: sensible the whole river of fire thesis versus some satisfaction notion.
Speaker 1: First of all, no creature can satisfy God. And this
Speaker 1: is one of the reasons why we don't believe in,
Speaker 1: you know, the penal substitution reformation idea, because that's all
Speaker 1: premised on the father damning the son to satisfy his
Speaker 1: justice and his infinite holiness. But the problem is that
Speaker 1: what's offered in the in the triad cannot be one
Speaker 1: person to another because anything that happens in nity is
Speaker 1: all three persons. So you got to have a triadic
Speaker 1: action in the traditional offering notion is either anti trinitarian
Speaker 1: or can you stop doing that? The background is really loud.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, right, so they so so you you know,
Speaker 1: if you have the traditional reformed idea of like the
Speaker 1: damning of the sun, then that's anti trinitarian. So you can't,
Speaker 1: we can't do that. So the business E Sonos the
Speaker 1: eleventh century points out that what's offered is the humanity
Speaker 1: of Christ to the Father in the spirit. So it's
Speaker 1: a triadic action or this whereby the son is offering
Speaker 1: his humanity to the Father in love in the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: So uh, that's not any like a penal sanctioned imputational model.
Speaker 1: It's a offering of love that restores heels and deifies
Speaker 1: our nature. So is that Oh.
Speaker 15: Yeah, that that answers it. Well, just just one more thing,
Speaker 15: just just like about the litargy about how God can
Speaker 15: do you think that not just in scripture but also
Speaker 15: like through the liturgy. God could speaks obviously through the church,
Speaker 15: and he speaks through liturgies. Is that like, you know,
Speaker 15: when we proclaim the invocation of the saints, you know
Speaker 15: Mother Mary of course.
Speaker 3: Or Buss and Mother. Is that God's speaking through the liturgy?
Speaker 1: Well, actually everything is God speaking, So in a sense, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean everything that's happening in some senses, you know,
Speaker 1: God's providence. Everything that happens in our lives is God's providence.
Speaker 1: The liturgy is yes, God's speaking to us. I mean,
Speaker 1: lives of the saints speak to us, the Bible speaks
Speaker 1: to us. All these things are potentially you could say,
Speaker 1: God speaking.
Speaker 15: Okay, yeah, oh yeah, that's some great answers there. I
Speaker 15: actually learn quite a bit. Well, yeah, thank you for
Speaker 15: answering my questions. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great questions. We got a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: talk some videos on all those topics. So Joshua, Hello, Yeah,
Speaker 1: what's up?
Speaker 3: Hi?
Speaker 4: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I go ahead.
Speaker 16: Yeah, I just had a quick question on Oriental Orthodoxy
Speaker 16: because just within the Orthodox Church right now, I find
Speaker 16: that there's a bit of like an acceptance of the
Speaker 16: Oriental position without I guess I guess I want to
Speaker 16: know more about it. I'm just scurious if you know,
Speaker 16: if you like have any recommendations on books that that
Speaker 16: might just give some insight into the controversy as well as.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one of the best books is joh John mcguckin's
Speaker 1: book Saying Cyril of Alexander in the Christological Controversy, Okay,
Speaker 1: and then I would read say Maximus's Little Book Just
Speaker 1: be Tation with Purists, and then I would read John
Speaker 1: Damascus's book three of on the Orthodox Faith. That's really
Speaker 1: good too. So all those three things will will I
Speaker 1: think helps solidify. But especially at the end of the
Speaker 1: macguckan book is the Two Letters of Serial to six Census,
Speaker 1: which is really important.
Speaker 4: Okay, that's awesome, all right, thank you so much. Ja.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're going through. We're still doing our Oriental series.
Speaker 1: We've all we've only done three, but we're going to continue.
Speaker 1: Joshua other Joshua you there, oh hey, sorry, yeah, sorry,
Speaker 1: go ahead. Yeah.
Speaker 17: So, I was just wondering where is where does Luminingentia
Speaker 17: mentioned Hindus.
Speaker 1: I'm just looking it up right now, let me see,
Speaker 1: I know know Tratte does in three right, So Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: I'm it's we read it earlier, loyell On, let me see.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, it's it's paragraph too. It says in Hinduism,
Speaker 1: men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an
Speaker 1: inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They
Speaker 1: seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition, and
Speaker 1: through esthetic practices or profound meditation, or a flight to
Speaker 1: God with love and trust. Okay, which is not true.
Speaker 1: You don't. You don't have a flight to God in
Speaker 1: love and trust and into it.
Speaker 17: It's pretty much like Romans one, but exact opposite, exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 18: No, I'm just reading, like I'm just trying to find
Speaker 18: on Luminegentia and paragraph sixteen.
Speaker 19: Like what Catholics have to say about that, And.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can't figure out like.
Speaker 18: How they like why it's singing Muslims specifically.
Speaker 1: Well, remember there's two I think because the argument in
Speaker 1: Lumgentium is and in No Ratt is that since Jews
Speaker 1: are not gonna at all have anything good to say
Speaker 1: about Jesus or Mary, if Muslims at least like Jesus
Speaker 1: and Mary, then they're closer to Us than Jews, although
Speaker 1: Jews are actually listed first Intate and limit Gentium, which
Speaker 1: is funny, right yeah, no.
Speaker 18: Yeah, which is also like a shocking page where it
Speaker 18: says God still has like this.
Speaker 3: People remains most dear to God.
Speaker 17: I'm like, that's kind of a misinterpretation of there is.
Speaker 1: No ambiguity there.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 1: In fact, yeah, in fact, the two thousand and three
Speaker 1: document that they put out, the US Conference of Catholic
Speaker 1: Bishops put out, is even worse. It actually says that
Speaker 1: because God still loves them, you shouldn't try to convert Jews.
Speaker 1: So yeah, all that, Yeah, that's worse.
Speaker 18: Yeah, like it's uh that that one's surprising.
Speaker 17: And then just the one look like I don't know,
Speaker 17: like the idea that it even matters that you consider
Speaker 17: Jesus a prophet when Saint John says that where Jesus
Speaker 17: is incarnate, son of God.
Speaker 1: Anti Christ exactly. Yeah, that's exactly my point with the
Speaker 1: whole argument, Like, Okay, so most Catholics are going to
Speaker 1: say that Arians are heretics and God doesn't accept arianism.
Speaker 1: Oh but wait a minute, Muslims are basically arians. They
Speaker 1: come out of arianism, and God accepts Muslim it's just stupid.
Speaker 1: It's like, hey, Yates, what's up? Man? Hey, diy can
Speaker 1: you hear me? Yes, sir, Hey, I'll make this quick.
Speaker 20: With Lemon Gentium sixteen, I sent you a d with
Speaker 20: this information, but I'll try to make it quick as possible.
Speaker 20: The very last sentence says, and together with us, they
Speaker 20: adore the One merciful God. Mankind's judge on the last day.
Speaker 20: Mankind's judge on the last day, according to John five
Speaker 20: twenty two.
Speaker 1: Is Jesus.
Speaker 20: It's explicitly stated. So how on earth could they get
Speaker 20: around that?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Exactly. And also don't Muslims think that Jesus participates
Speaker 1: in the judgment at the last day too? So, I mean,
Speaker 1: is that not even clearer against the argument that Tim
Speaker 1: Gordon was making.
Speaker 20: Right, it's explicitly saying, yeah, we adore the One God
Speaker 20: with Muslims, but also Jesus is God. It's just a
Speaker 20: contradiction in the same sentence.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah, See, you can't there's no such thing as
Speaker 1: like half God. Right, Well, we're on the same page
Speaker 1: because we worship half of God. I mean imagine saying
Speaker 1: I believe in the same God as you, but only
Speaker 1: half of it. It's like, well, there's this thing as
Speaker 1: half God. Oh really there's not. Well then how are
Speaker 1: your works being the same God if it's not the Trinity?
Speaker 19: Right my adults?
Speaker 1: Exactly?
Speaker 20: All right, I'm gonna let somebody else get up here.
Speaker 1: Yeah a good qu a good point. Josh again, got
Speaker 1: a lot Josh's hey, I think I got a delay here.
Speaker 3: So every time I request, like, it's delayed, so my bad.
Speaker 18: Yeah, so I just want to throw Like Also, the
Speaker 18: natural theology move that they make when they go to
Speaker 18: Romans one is totally bogus, Like.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not natural theology, like.
Speaker 18: The idea that Mohammad and Saudi Arabia is sitting there
Speaker 18: reasoning himself to God as opposed to like he was
Speaker 18: taught under the threat of force that this is what
Speaker 18: I believe, Like this is not like, yeah, it's not right.
Speaker 1: So, as we point out, if you read Romans One
Speaker 1: from the Orthodox perspective, Paul is talking about a darkened heart. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's not primarily about intellect and Roman Roman Caltholk read
Speaker 1: the Romans. Catholics read Romans One like if you just
Speaker 1: if a pagan just kind of sat there and reasoned correctly,
Speaker 1: like Aristotle like he was. If he was just doing
Speaker 1: like syllogisms, he would basically he would be aristotl right,
Speaker 1: he would come to the right conclusion about a first cause.
Speaker 1: That's literally what they think Romans one is about is
Speaker 1: like syllogisms. No, No, it's saying that the reason that
Speaker 1: men don't worship the true God is that their hearts
Speaker 1: are darkened and they worship idols. It's the literal opposite
Speaker 1: of the of the problem which that Roman Calolus say,
Speaker 1: which they locate in the intellect. They act like the
Speaker 1: intellect is making a mistake in the way that reasons
Speaker 1: about creatures, and that that's what Paul's talking about if
Speaker 1: they just reason correctly. But the whole point is that
Speaker 1: it's not even the reasoning faculty that is the problem.
Speaker 1: They reason falsely because their hearts are darkened, because Roman
Speaker 1: Romanic caalics don't have a doction of the heart of
Speaker 1: the news. So by wait, I think if I recall
Speaker 1: the actual terminology that's used there by Paul, and the
Speaker 1: Greek corresponds to the terminology uh in the Hebrew text
Speaker 1: that like David uses about the heart the news, and
Speaker 1: the news is not a Greek gnostic doctrine. It's a
Speaker 1: Hebrew doctor the news. The heart is not the same
Speaker 1: thing as the intellect, but in reman Caltholic theology, the
Speaker 1: soul is basically just the intellect, the reasoning faculty spirit
Speaker 1: led what's up?
Speaker 21: Yes, all right, I gotta I got a quick question
Speaker 21: for you, and is it? Is it okay if I
Speaker 21: ask you something kind of outside of the debate title.
Speaker 19: If not, that's cool. We could we could.
Speaker 21: Say no, I don't care, all right, So I just
Speaker 21: I want to get your opinion on like speech, so
Speaker 21: not that you know, not that we have to be
Speaker 21: I guess, like perfect all the time their speech. And
Speaker 21: I'm definitely not advocating for tone policing, but I'm just
Speaker 21: trying to figure out, like what is because when I
Speaker 21: read the Patristic Fathers, it's like they don't they tell
Speaker 21: us to not really like like curse, you use crude
Speaker 21: language stuff like that, And again this is not.
Speaker 1: I disagree because they they curse and say horrible things
Speaker 1: and make mean jokes all the time. Gotcha.
Speaker 21: Yeah, Like I said, I want to get your take
Speaker 21: on like like what I guess it's it kind of
Speaker 21: falls into economy too.
Speaker 1: Like I just let's let's walk all all right, So
Speaker 1: let's walk through a couple of points there, right, So, like,
Speaker 1: you know, the Saint Cyril Jerusalem says hate all here
Speaker 1: at sics and hate the assemblies of the hero at Sis.
Speaker 1: That's actually in the rudder too. Yeah, So does that
Speaker 1: mean that I have to like go out and you know,
Speaker 1: like literally have hatred in my heart? I think he's saying, like,
Speaker 1: you hate the theology, you hate their system. Right, if
Speaker 1: you read the way that Paul talks about, you know,
Speaker 1: people of Creed, he says Cretans are all liars, they're
Speaker 1: basically to comebacks. Okay, So if you read Jerome the
Speaker 1: way that he talks about Helvidius or Vigilantius, I mean
Speaker 1: he just calls him a dog, he calls him a monster,
Speaker 1: he calls him basically a loser. So it's pretty common
Speaker 1: in the Patristic writings that they call people these names
Speaker 1: all the time, especially they're the enemies of the faith.
Speaker 1: They don't typically do that for people inside the church,
Speaker 1: although sometimes they even do that. But aside from that,
Speaker 1: I mean, the scriptures themselves tell us to avoid the fool.
Speaker 1: How can I avoid the fool? If I can't identify
Speaker 1: who a fool is, Yeah, so it just call. If
Speaker 1: I was to say you're a fool, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to waste my time with you. There's nothing wrong with
Speaker 1: that unless the person isn't a fool. And if you remember,
Speaker 1: and when Jesus talks about he says, if anybody calls
Speaker 1: his brother a fool without reason, he is liable to
Speaker 1: the judgment. Well that's yeah, without reason. So if there
Speaker 1: is a reason, then you're not likeable to the judgment.
Speaker 1: And Jesus himself called people names all the time. He
Speaker 1: called Herod of Fox, he called you know, a woman
Speaker 1: who came to him, he called her he said, the
Speaker 1: dogs eat from the eat from the table. So I
Speaker 1: mean Jesus used this kind of demeaning language at times too,
Speaker 1: So I don't see why even that language is a
Speaker 1: universally a problem. Now. Second from that, cursing is a
Speaker 1: different issue where I think I disagree with a lot
Speaker 1: of people on this because people think that what Protestants
Speaker 1: decided that. So you have these Puritans in a few
Speaker 1: centuries ago in America, and they had this moralistic idea
Speaker 1: that cursing wasn't just like literally pronouncing a curse or
Speaker 1: using God's name in vain, which is actually what it
Speaker 1: is to curse, curse somebody with God's name or something,
Speaker 1: you know, to say GD for example, Like that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff is what blaspheming and using the Lord's name
Speaker 1: in vain is. That's cursing. Saying the F word or
Speaker 1: saying the word shit. That's just older English language that
Speaker 1: commoners used. So there's nothing inherently wrong with the word.
Speaker 1: It's like there's nothing that makes the word poop more
Speaker 1: holy than the word shit. They literally are identical. And
Speaker 1: even the King James Bible uses the word piss, right,
Speaker 1: So do I have to say peepie or piss? So
Speaker 1: I don't believe. I don't. I don't believe there is
Speaker 1: such a thing as quote cuss words. I think that
Speaker 1: there are things like propriety and taboos, and so, for example,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be appropriate to walk into a church and say,
Speaker 1: you know, shit and fuck or something like that, because
Speaker 1: it's improper and that would be a vulgar speech. But
Speaker 1: if somebody says, you know, did you have sex with
Speaker 1: her or did you hump her or did you fuck her?
Speaker 1: Between those three words, they all mean essentially the same thing,
Speaker 1: and there's nothing inherently like, there's not It's not like
Speaker 1: one of the words is magically more evil than the
Speaker 1: other word. That's that's just moral. That's just like Protestant
Speaker 1: Puritan superstitioning.
Speaker 21: Yeah, I got you're saying, you're you're not like advocating
Speaker 21: for like vulgar speech.
Speaker 19: But it's just like, who are we kidding?
Speaker 21: Right, Like if you say hump, it means the same thing, right,
Speaker 21: So I get.
Speaker 1: Well, but no, wait a minute, So you understand that
Speaker 1: people talk about like you have to talk about these
Speaker 1: things at times, So I'm not sure what you mean
Speaker 1: by that, Like, so if so, first of all, when
Speaker 1: you talk about vulgar, the term vulgar again meant the
Speaker 1: common language. And so in the West, what we think
Speaker 1: is vulgar terminology or cuss words is just identified with
Speaker 1: what the poor people and the bar people and the
Speaker 1: wench made maids would say, you know, down at the
Speaker 1: pub when they would talk about going to the bathroom
Speaker 1: or having intimate affairs. Right, that's the speech of the
Speaker 1: vulgar people, the commoners. That's why it's called vulgarity. That's
Speaker 1: literally literally the origin of it and so the point
Speaker 1: is that if I is it really any different if
Speaker 1: I say poop is out of shit? Now? Okay? So,
Speaker 1: and is it necessarily wrong to talk about poop if
Speaker 1: I have to have you know, I have to explain
Speaker 1: where are you going? I'm going to poop like like,
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong.
Speaker 19: With that, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: And there's nothing wrong with saying I'm going to take
Speaker 1: a ship like this, There's no it's just silly to
Speaker 1: quibble over this stuff. But again, I do agree that
Speaker 1: there are there is such a thing as propriety, and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, for example, if I'm in a comedy club,
Speaker 1: that's a different setting than if I'm in the church,
Speaker 1: And so it's proper in a comedy club that you're
Speaker 1: gonna hear. And by the way, I'm not for nasty,
Speaker 1: disgusting jokes. There's a lot of raunchy stuff that I
Speaker 1: think is over the line. Yeah, so there there is speech.
Speaker 1: As Paul talks about that is I mean that the
Speaker 1: English translation used the word vulgar. But you know, let
Speaker 1: no unclean speech come out of your mouth. Paul says,
Speaker 1: But even that, you could argue, it's more it's it's
Speaker 1: you know, if you're talking bad about your brother. That's
Speaker 1: worse than saying the word shit. So Paul might even
Speaker 1: mean unclean speech in that way. But anyway, go ahead
Speaker 1: with your points.
Speaker 21: Yeah, No, I I just, you know, wanted to get
Speaker 21: your your take on that, because I've even noticed you
Speaker 21: kind of like tone it down a little bit too.
Speaker 21: Like I hear you a lot of the times, kind
Speaker 21: of like qualifying and telling people like, I'm not trying
Speaker 21: to be mean to you.
Speaker 19: But so I think like you, at least from.
Speaker 21: What I've what I've seen since I've been watching you,
Speaker 21: is that you actually take care to let people know like, hey,
Speaker 21: I'm not trying to be mean to you or whatever,
Speaker 21: but you know, I gotta, I gotta kind of.
Speaker 19: Correct you on this point or whatever.
Speaker 21: And it's really only when people I guess get ridiculous
Speaker 21: where you kind of have to shut them down. Might
Speaker 21: call him an idiot, might use some of the language
Speaker 21: that the Patristic fathers utilize.
Speaker 1: But I don't.
Speaker 21: I don't really see you going out of your way
Speaker 21: to like just randomly insult.
Speaker 19: People because you want to be mean.
Speaker 1: No, I don't.
Speaker 19: I mean, which is what you get, which is what
Speaker 19: you get accused of right, right, Yeah, So I just
Speaker 19: wanted to.
Speaker 21: I just wanted to, like I said, just kind of
Speaker 21: wanted to get your take on that and just kind
Speaker 21: of see where you are coming from on how you
Speaker 21: view some of this language stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, go read your own. I mean, he's pretty vicious
Speaker 1: when it comes to everybody. He had disagrees with King
Speaker 1: what's up?
Speaker 22: Hey, what's up?
Speaker 23: Jay?
Speaker 22: I just wanted to agree with you on your earlier
Speaker 22: ex post when you said that this Vatican two is
Speaker 22: very Masonic. It absolutely is. It's something I wish God
Speaker 22: spoken about more. It's actually it's so new age, which
Speaker 22: you obviously know. It's I'm not trying to be a crass,
Speaker 22: but it sounds like something you know, when I was
Speaker 22: sixteen doing ascid with my buddies, that we would come
Speaker 22: up with this Vatican two. We're all one and so
Speaker 22: to the Catholics, I say, I mean, dude, is your
Speaker 22: theology seriously just we're all one? No, We're not all one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like DMT brow theology exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 22: So this Pope of the Future that your videos are
Speaker 22: so hilarious about it is totally this new age hope
Speaker 22: of the future. So yes, thank you. Jay, I appreciate you, bro, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That's exactly the whole point.
Speaker 7: I mean.
Speaker 1: The problem is not quibbling over words. The problem is
Speaker 1: that believing this theology is delusion and it will lead
Speaker 1: you to spiritual ruin if I believe all the religions
Speaker 1: are passed to God, which is essentially what Francis said,
Speaker 1: echoing Vatican too. That's the dangerous in result of this,
Speaker 1: and it also demonstrates the whole point that we've been
Speaker 1: making for many years that natural theology literally can just
Speaker 1: lead to perennialism. If you read the Garby paper, that's
Speaker 1: one of the points he makes at the beginning, because
Speaker 1: he studied under the famous perennialist John Hick, and he
Speaker 1: said he argues, like, if I'm going to be doing
Speaker 1: natural theology, there's no reason why that has to lead
Speaker 1: me to Tomism or Catholicism. Why can't it lead me
Speaker 1: to perennialism. And the argument I think that's kind of
Speaker 1: being made here indirectly by everybody via this Vatican into
Speaker 1: debate and what's happening with you know, Tim Gordon and stuff,
Speaker 1: is that Vatican too kind of is perennialism, Like why
Speaker 1: is it not? Why why does that have to lead
Speaker 1: me to tonis zone and sure as hell doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: lead to Jesus. And why are we going to use
Speaker 1: the arguments and the philosophy and the metaphysics of Muslims
Speaker 1: and the Neoplatonists and all these people and then try
Speaker 1: to get them into Christianity. It's it just doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense. It's like, yeah, let me show you that
Speaker 1: we all believe in a monad. Oh, but it's not
Speaker 1: the Muslim monad. It's the Jesus monad. Like we all
Speaker 1: believe in the monad, let's just stick Jesus on top
Speaker 1: of it. That's the whole Roman Catholic approach. Here's inquirer.
Speaker 1: What's up? Yeah, what's up? Currit Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, yeah.
Speaker 4: I just want to say I've been seeing you on
Speaker 4: some bigger podcasts.
Speaker 15: That's awesome, man, it's good to see you getting some recognition.
Speaker 3: Cool enjoy your work.
Speaker 4: So I just have a couple of questions, like.
Speaker 24: I am in the process of like starting Catechism, and
Speaker 24: the one thing that kind of stands out to me
Speaker 24: is when they.
Speaker 1: Say you Roman Catholic catechis hold on Orthodox Katechistas or
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic Catechism. Okay, gotcha. Yeah.
Speaker 24: So I'm just wondering, like when they say theotokos like
Speaker 24: most holy, what do they mean by that?
Speaker 4: Like that is the only thing that really sticks out
Speaker 4: to me.
Speaker 1: I clearly they don't mean the most out of all. Right, No,
Speaker 1: we would say she's the queen of Heaven, She's the
Speaker 1: queen of saints, she is the holiest love creatures. We
Speaker 1: would agree with that. No, just I think it's just
Speaker 1: a delay. Can you hear me? Now there? Can you
Speaker 1: guys hear me out there in this? I think there
Speaker 1: was a delay with that guy. Can you guys hear me?
Speaker 1: If you can hear me, do like a thumps up
Speaker 1: or something. Can anybody hear me? He requests to speak? Okay,
Speaker 1: you guys can Yeah? I mean yeah. So Mary is
Speaker 1: called most holy because she's the queen of saints. She
Speaker 1: is the the tokos, she is the godbearer, Mother of God.
Speaker 1: You know, in Psalm forty five, she's pictured as right
Speaker 1: next to the king. It's a Messianic psalm and Mary
Speaker 1: is the queen in that song. So all of the
Speaker 1: accolades that we give to her signify that she is
Speaker 1: the pre eminent of all the creatures. She's the new Israel,
Speaker 1: She's the again Tetoko's Mother of God, Queen of Heaven
Speaker 1: Revelation twelve. So it's just proper to her honor that
Speaker 1: she be called and given that title. Kelly. I'm you, Kelly.
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 2: Hi?
Speaker 25: I just joined the space and so I was reading
Speaker 25: the comments below. So it sounds like people are saying
Speaker 25: that Roman Catholics won't come up. So I'm a Roman Catholic.
Speaker 25: I'm not sure if we're against us or for us.
Speaker 25: So do you want to clarify or does any people?
Speaker 1: Well, the point was that because I just did a
Speaker 1: big Roman Catholic debate. The debate centered around the fact
Speaker 1: that the text of Vatican two say very clearly that Muslims, Christians,
Speaker 1: and Jews all worship the same God, and that's essentially
Speaker 1: what we're taking issue with. It also says that Hindus
Speaker 1: worship God too.
Speaker 9: Oh, I say, I was just gonna.
Speaker 25: I wasn't quite sure if people were saying that, you know,
Speaker 25: our religion, I'm not sure if you're Catholic, but I
Speaker 25: am so, are my really isn't true?
Speaker 9: Or if anyone had any questions about.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm saying that it makes it not true because
Speaker 1: it's a contradiction from the basics of the Bible and
Speaker 1: traditional Christian teaching. Muslims and Christians and Jews don't worship
Speaker 1: the same God. And if Vatican two says that, then
Speaker 1: from Catholicism is not true.
Speaker 9: Correct.
Speaker 25: Yes, I mean they don't see Jesus the same as Catholics.
Speaker 1: To well, then it's not the same reference, it's not
Speaker 1: the same deity. So then Vatican two is false. That's
Speaker 1: the point.
Speaker 25: Oh, I see, Okay, I see what you're saying. Well,
Speaker 25: I mean, that's that's fine. I mean, you know, I
Speaker 25: wasn't quite sure if just anybody was calling Catholics out
Speaker 25: as far as what it is that we believe. So,
Speaker 25: I mean, you know that obviously we're more towards the
Speaker 25: you know, I mean, the Jews kind of stop at
Speaker 25: the first you know, half of the Bible were more
Speaker 25: New Testament.
Speaker 1: So yeah, But this is more specifically an argument about
Speaker 1: the Vatican teaching at the Second Vatican Council, which is
Speaker 1: to basically admit that it's adopting a kind of a
Speaker 1: syncretism or a perennialism, where all the religions in some
Speaker 1: way kind of point to and participate in Christ in
Speaker 1: God and salvation even though they don't know it. It's
Speaker 1: a very problematic thing to say that Muslims, Christians at
Speaker 1: Jews worship the same God when they clearly don't. For example,
Speaker 1: Jesus says in John eight that Abraham believed and worshiped
Speaker 1: him and that Jesus is the creator and God of
Speaker 1: the Old Testament. Well that's the case, then the Jews
Speaker 1: and the Muslims don't worship the same God as Jesus did.
Speaker 9: Right, correct.
Speaker 25: I mean I'm not well read on honestly what the
Speaker 25: Muslims and he Dos.
Speaker 9: Believe in any way, because I.
Speaker 1: Well, Muslims are good on this point, because they're a
Speaker 1: good example in this to make this case, because Muslims
Speaker 1: say that Allah has no sons. But if Allah has
Speaker 1: no sons and Jesus calls God his father, then Allah
Speaker 1: can't be Jesus's God and can't be God the Father.
Speaker 25: Correct, And I mean do they I'm assuming that they
Speaker 25: don't believe that the Blessed Mother is the actual mother
Speaker 25: of Jesus, or they do, and then they just don't
Speaker 25: seem to.
Speaker 4: Care about her.
Speaker 1: No, they think that there is a virgin birth, but
Speaker 1: there's not really any reason why that happened. It's just
Speaker 1: it's because Islam is a copy paste cut from Christianity
Speaker 1: and Judaism, so it's kind of a mix. So they
Speaker 1: do believe in a virgin birth. They believe that Jesus
Speaker 1: was born from Mary, but there's no real reason why
Speaker 1: that's the case. In Islamic theology, there's not really an
Speaker 1: explanation for what the word Messiah even means, even though
Speaker 1: they think Jesus Messiah.
Speaker 9: Interesting. Well maybe some of them will.
Speaker 25: Well, actually, the Muslims and Hindus seem to be pretty
Speaker 25: hard pressed on their religion, so and they can stay there.
Speaker 9: That's fine.
Speaker 25: I'm not here to to kind of grab anybody over
Speaker 25: to the Catholic Church or anything, but I just you know, yes,
Speaker 25: I'm here for the Catholic faith if anybody cares about that,
Speaker 25: but I will drop if if you'd like me to.
Speaker 9: Thanks.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Good questions. Yeah, I'm an Orthodox Catholic,
Speaker 1: so we're the real Catholics. Not trying to be rude,
Speaker 1: but that's that's what Orthodox Christianity is it the Orthodox
Speaker 1: Catholic Church, anybody else, any Roman Catholics. I'm a little
Speaker 1: disappointed that only one Roman Catholic came out of all
Speaker 1: of these yappers, but I'm not surprised. That's usually what
Speaker 1: we get. That we don't usually get anybody who actually
Speaker 1: wants to come to discuss the issues. The one kid
Speaker 1: that came that was it. And then all they have
Speaker 1: is like two quote ways. They're like, well, Carol said
Speaker 1: that he likes Muslims. That's literally what a guy's sending
Speaker 1: me right now.
Speaker 4: It's like, so what.
Speaker 1: Orth of gaul?
Speaker 26: Hey, so I have a question in regards to what
Speaker 26: do you think about I know, the whole system in
Speaker 26: Orthodoxy and Catholicism is different. When they bring up Patriarch
Speaker 26: Crill and the humanist comparing that to you know, Orthodoxy
Speaker 26: and the Pope.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. I mean there's two things to say here.
Speaker 1: First of all, none of the patriarchs are indefectible and infallible.
Speaker 1: That's the teaching of the Roman Church about its Roman bishop.
Speaker 1: And so it's not equivalent. They want it to be equivalent,
Speaker 1: and it's just a two quote way, but they think
Speaker 1: it's a defeater when first of all, let's say for
Speaker 1: the argument that it is a defeater, well, then it's
Speaker 1: a defeater for both positions, and Rome is still false,
Speaker 1: you idiot. So it's like, if you think this is
Speaker 1: a defeater by just turning it and saying that, well,
Speaker 1: Curle says bad things too, well, then that is implying
Speaker 1: that Francis and all these people are also saying bad things,
Speaker 1: so they're all false. So it's first of all, it's
Speaker 1: a stupid ass move to think that a too quoque
Speaker 1: proves anything. But it's also assuming that the Orthodox system
Speaker 1: is the same as the papal system, So they're missing
Speaker 1: the whole point that it's a defeater for your system.
Speaker 1: If you're indefectible bishop defects, I don't I can believe.
Speaker 1: And we already know that every patriarch it has defected
Speaker 1: at some point in the history of the church. All
Speaker 1: the patriarchis have had heritics at some point, So what's
Speaker 1: it's not even the gotcha that they think it is.
Speaker 26: But that doesn't speak for the whole like Russian Church,
Speaker 26: or for the whole orthodomy.
Speaker 1: No, they think that like the it's like that the
Speaker 1: patriarchis are popes. They think it's like little popes. So
Speaker 1: they think that everybody's underneath a patriarchate and the patriarchs
Speaker 1: are little popes, and if the patriarch does something, they
Speaker 1: don't understand that it's all decentralized. A patriarch is just
Speaker 1: a canonical, privileged title. That's it.
Speaker 26: And they would say, well, then why do they have leaders.
Speaker 26: What's the point of having leaders if you're not gonna
Speaker 26: if they're going to be a humanists and not follow.
Speaker 1: Well, the Church has had bad leaders in the first
Speaker 1: thousand years in many cases. So if a Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: wants to make that line of argument and believes that
Speaker 1: the Church of the first thousand years is Roman Catholic,
Speaker 1: then that's a defeater for their own position. So that
Speaker 1: again it's stupid. Yeah, if you think the Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: Church was the Church of the first thousand years, and
Speaker 1: you think the problems that you're laying out with the
Speaker 1: patriarchis are defeaters, guess where the patriarchal the pentarchy system
Speaker 1: comes from. The ecumenical councils of the first years. You
Speaker 1: guphus I was like, they don't understand that every time
Speaker 1: they make this argument, if they think their church is
Speaker 1: the church of over sousand years, is the.
Speaker 26: Defeat for the coy Yeah, I think they're not getting that.
Speaker 26: I think I don't know.
Speaker 1: No, they're not. It doesn't matter how they time you
Speaker 1: explain it, they don't get it.
Speaker 26: I don't know, they don't care to look further, or
Speaker 26: I don't know. But do you think the sacraments and
Speaker 26: the other church, like the Catholic Church are I don't
Speaker 26: want to use the term ballid or invalid, but.
Speaker 1: I think valid invalid is Romancolic terminology that muddies the waters. Uh.
Speaker 1: So they can do the rituals correctly, but we don't
Speaker 1: automatically think that they're efficacious so that they have the
Speaker 1: grace that they signified. The church can determine like whether
Speaker 1: or not the rituals need to be repeated. But what's
Speaker 1: funny is that even in the traditional Roman Catholic Augustinian mindset,
Speaker 1: which is what they think they're all basing their sacramentology on,
Speaker 1: Augustin believes that the sin of heresy and schiz them
Speaker 1: prevents the grace. So even in the Augustinian ext opera
Speaker 1: operatal model, even if the baptisms are quote valid and efficacious,
Speaker 1: if you're baptized in heresy, being in heresy prevents you
Speaker 1: from actually getting the grace even though the grace is
Speaker 1: quote there. So even their own system doesn't work.
Speaker 26: So the pope is probably in I mean you would
Speaker 26: say the pope is in heresy.
Speaker 1: So the whole church, oh, I know, we do not
Speaker 1: believe the Roman Calley Church has the faith. They are heterodox,
Speaker 1: meaning they're outside.
Speaker 26: The completely like no, yes, oh.
Speaker 1: It only takes one heresy to be outside the faith.
Speaker 1: That's the faith is the packaged deal. And ironically, get this,
Speaker 1: before Vatican two, Roman Catholic theologies said the exact same thing.
Speaker 1: You can reset these Cognitium and Mestici Corporus, two famous
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic and cyclicals, one by Leelald thirteenth the other
Speaker 1: by Pious A. Twelfth. They actually already say that if
Speaker 1: you deny one of the dogmas, you're outside the faith. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, I can't be a Roman Catholic in
Speaker 1: terms of traditional Catholic theology and be like, I'm Roman
Speaker 1: Caloch but I don't believe the Imaculate conception, but I
Speaker 1: believe everything else. If you deny. If you deny, I know,
Speaker 1: but that's not consistent with their own theology. If you
Speaker 1: deny one dogma, you're outside the faith. That's their theology.
Speaker 26: They don't even know that, So then there can't be
Speaker 26: healing right in their church.
Speaker 1: That's the whole point of why this is such a
Speaker 1: dangerous thing. Like it's not just quibbling over the words
Speaker 1: of Vatican two. They have lost the healing of the
Speaker 1: sacraments and of the faith by all of these crazy
Speaker 1: heresies and all this nonsense and madness. I mean, it
Speaker 1: should be obvious everybody that the whole like the rampant
Speaker 1: homosexuality must the clergy and the pedophilia, is a clear
Speaker 1: sign of curse, like their curse. Dude, Like, can you
Speaker 1: not see that with spiritual discernment that if this institution
Speaker 1: is a giant money laundering Vatican bank scam.
Speaker 26: Full of do you think that their church produced saints
Speaker 26: like their saints? Are theyy different from our saints?
Speaker 1: No, you can't do saints without the uncreated energies which
Speaker 1: are found in the Orthodox sacraments, in the life of
Speaker 1: the Orthodox.
Speaker 26: Church, even the saints in the past, like all the
Speaker 26: like Padre Perrot and all of them are they like
Speaker 26: were they?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 1: If you know? Again, so the idea of an Orthodox
Speaker 1: saint is vastly different from what Roman Catholics think saints are.
Speaker 1: Contrast the life of you know, Basil Gregory, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Paul Simon, the New Theologian. It's vastly different from the
Speaker 1: histrionics of you know, Francis of a CC and you know, no,
Speaker 1: it's totally different. We don't have all this not blood
Speaker 1: letting and all this crazy stuff.
Speaker 26: Okay, do you recommend any books you can just throw
Speaker 26: out there.
Speaker 1: On what specifically?
Speaker 26: What I like, you know, the Catholic an Orthodox system.
Speaker 1: And well, I mean there's a good critique of the
Speaker 1: papacy by Michael Welton called Two Paths. That's a really
Speaker 1: good readable book. Okay, so I was I would start
Speaker 1: with something like that and then just read my just
Speaker 1: read Pomezansky's Orthodox Dogmatics to get a good basic idea
Speaker 1: of Orthodox sacramentology. I wish what some of these Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics would actually discuss. Why just saying that Kirol said
Speaker 1: something bad, It is not it doesn't work, but they
Speaker 1: won't do it. They just want to have like a gotcha,
Speaker 1: go ahead, and I'm mute.
Speaker 25: Oh okay, sorry, yeah, I think there is a little
Speaker 25: bit of delay. Can we back up to where the
Speaker 25: orthochiic just came up? Are you saying that our Catholic
Speaker 25: saint padre Pio is not a saint or how do
Speaker 25: you look at that?
Speaker 1: No, we do not accept Roman Catholic saints. Correct.
Speaker 25: Interesting, So padre Pios stigmata means what to you?
Speaker 9: Nothing?
Speaker 1: Or I mean, I don't know that he had stigmata
Speaker 1: other than that Roman Catholic claim that he did. Do
Speaker 1: you believe in all the religions and mystical gurus claims
Speaker 1: that they can do magic, mumbo and jembo?
Speaker 19: No?
Speaker 25: But I mean in terms of just taking Padre po
Speaker 25: just as an example, I mean, have you ever done
Speaker 25: research into him?
Speaker 19: Or no?
Speaker 1: I have a fact. I used to be a traditional Romancolic.
Speaker 1: So yes, I know quite a bit about Him've read
Speaker 1: a whole book on him.
Speaker 25: Oh okay, so you used to be a Catholic. Okay,
Speaker 25: I'm not familiar with you, so just I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 1: But that's fine. I'm just telling you. Yeah, I was
Speaker 1: a traditional Galic for about ten, maybe eight or nine.
Speaker 9: Years, okay, and then what made you leave?
Speaker 1: If you don't mind me asking some of the contradictions
Speaker 1: between the pre Vatican two and post Vatican two teaching
Speaker 1: is one of the probably the biggest issue.
Speaker 25: Okay, So can we just talk about is it okay
Speaker 25: if we talk about Padre Pio?
Speaker 1: Is that okay? I don't mind about Padre Pio. But
Speaker 1: what I'm gonna say is what the claims of these
Speaker 1: phenomena can't prove the religion when literally every religion or
Speaker 1: cult out there has similar types of claims. So how
Speaker 1: could that be the thing that proves the religion?
Speaker 25: Well, I mean considering that, I mean if obviously because
Speaker 25: you were Catholic and you've done research on it prior
Speaker 25: hare Po, I mean he literally had this. I mean
Speaker 25: it's been scientifically proven as well as you know, just
Speaker 25: proven anyway, just that he had.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you know, do you know what a Muslim
Speaker 1: says about the Qoran?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 9: I don't care, but go ahead and.
Speaker 1: Scientifically proven that there's miracles to show that the Qoran
Speaker 1: has to come from a law. Like the Muslims use
Speaker 1: this argument for like ten years online, like between two
Speaker 1: thousand and five to twenty fifteen. So the point is
Speaker 1: that that's not a good argument for why the religion
Speaker 1: is true, because it's just there's no way to It's
Speaker 1: a non sequitor from the claims about the person and
Speaker 1: even claims that there's quote scientific proof to therefore the
Speaker 1: religion is true because every group has the same competing claim, right.
Speaker 25: No, I mean I understand that. I think it's just
Speaker 25: when I look at somebody like Padre Pio as a
Speaker 25: as a Catholic, I mean, how do you not even.
Speaker 1: I guess, lets that would just be purely subjective. It
Speaker 1: would be begging the question because the thing in question
Speaker 1: is is it legitimate? And is he a true saint?
Speaker 1: And it just I mean, you're already it's already assuming
Speaker 1: the Catholic idea of what a saint is that a
Speaker 1: saint is somebody who dumps buckets of blood out of
Speaker 1: their body or something, and they don't just literally just
Speaker 1: follow what the teacher of the church fathers are for
Speaker 1: the first thousand years, like that's what a saint is. Right.
Speaker 25: But I mean, as far as if we're going to
Speaker 25: take Padre Pio, I mean he literally was. I mean
Speaker 25: that the Vatican hid him for ten years because of
Speaker 25: his stigmana. So they weren't even quite sure themselves what
Speaker 25: to do with him, and so they were like.
Speaker 1: Let's again, I don't the Vatican has a history of lying,
Speaker 1: so I don't even know if any of that's true.
Speaker 1: How are we supposed to know that all that's true?
Speaker 1: The Vatican's an extremely corrupt organization and entity. I don't
Speaker 1: trust anything about against.
Speaker 9: Those, Okay, I mean that's that. Yeah, I understand that.
Speaker 25: But I mean, if you're you can read ten books
Speaker 25: about Pajepo and his life and they're all the same.
Speaker 25: And yes, I know that that doesn't prove anything to
Speaker 25: you or to anybody else, but I mean as far
Speaker 25: as he I mean.
Speaker 1: And so look, don't you understand that there has to
Speaker 1: be a better way to delineate between competing claims like this,
Speaker 1: Because every religion, every cult that Cybaba has followers in
Speaker 1: India that will swear by his powers in terms of
Speaker 1: his miracles, right, and so there, I'm sure there's Hindu
Speaker 1: theologians that have quote scientific papers and proofs. So if
Speaker 1: there's a million different claims and so called scientific proofs,
Speaker 1: there has to be some other way to delineate between,
Speaker 1: which is the true and which is the false. It
Speaker 1: could never be done through infinite regressions of miracle claims
Speaker 1: and science tipic papers. It just it doesn't get anywhere.
Speaker 1: So there has to be a better way to do it. Well,
Speaker 1: the best, the easiest way to do is to see
Speaker 1: which religion contradiction which one doesn't. I'll talk about contradiction
Speaker 1: an internal critique sense.
Speaker 25: Okay, So in the Orthodox religion, did they recognize the
Speaker 25: blessed Mother as as the same as we do in
Speaker 25: the Catholic faith.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, Mary is the Theotoko, she's the god bearer,
Speaker 1: she's the Mother of God. But we don't believe that
Speaker 1: she was immaculately conceived. She's not some sort of like, uh,
Speaker 1: goddess or something. And I think sometimes Retolism tends in
Speaker 1: that direction.
Speaker 25: Oh no, I mean we don't. We don't think she
Speaker 25: was markedly conceived. I mean she was conceived within with
Speaker 25: she was shared full grace.
Speaker 1: No, no, you believe in the maculate exception she was
Speaker 1: immaculately conceived. That's a dogma in your church.
Speaker 25: Oh yes, I'm sorry, I thought you meant like her,
Speaker 25: but you mean Jesus being no.
Speaker 1: No, her, she is immaculately conceived. Jesus is born of
Speaker 1: a virgin. The immaculate conception is her exemption from original
Speaker 1: sin and Roman Calloy theology.
Speaker 9: Oh I see, so Orthodox doesn't believe that.
Speaker 25: So then you don't hold her in the same as
Speaker 25: the highest esteem is as we do.
Speaker 1: She is the queen of saints, she is the queen
Speaker 1: of Heaven. She's just not immaculately conceived because she died,
Speaker 1: and everyone who dies is a son or a daughter
Speaker 1: of Adam. If she went to sleep, and if the
Speaker 1: Roman Callolic church has the feast of door mission, then
Speaker 1: she died. Why did she die because she's the son
Speaker 1: of Adam. Well, then she's not immaculately conceived and she's
Speaker 1: not accepted from original sin.
Speaker 25: Interesting, okay, so but then oh yeah, okay, I see
Speaker 25: what you're saying.
Speaker 9: Okay, that's that's fine. Thanks, I'll drop from speaker.
Speaker 1: Oh well, those are great questions. It's open for him
Speaker 1: if anybody wants to come up. None of these Roman
Speaker 1: galaxies if I'm not much just uh, it's all all
Speaker 1: the ones that I argue about today, and I'll talk
Speaker 1: about anyone, any any anyone, any of the ones that
Speaker 1: I got intok with today. Uh, if you would like
Speaker 1: to talk about the subject matter. Uh, here's Ash, what's
Speaker 1: up in Here's a couple of people. We'll go to
Speaker 1: Ash the whole stuff the other guys.
Speaker 27: Hey, So I was speaking with my wife today. We
Speaker 27: were just you know, rolling around and uh, going around
Speaker 27: on the buggy around the neighborhood, and we were talking
Speaker 27: about how, uh, when it comes to Protestantism and and
Speaker 27: their their justification for their canon.
Speaker 7: I had an interesting thought.
Speaker 27: I was like, if they're not basing their cannon off
Speaker 27: of tradition, you know a lot of them have to go, oh, well,
Speaker 27: it's just the most accurate cannon.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 27: They like to make kind of like scholarly art arguments
Speaker 27: and kind of post enlightenment have presuppositions. I was like,
Speaker 27: there would be no like moral difference between a Protestant
Speaker 27: who accepts all sixty six books and then this other
Speaker 27: Protestant who's like, yeah, I accept like sixty four. I
Speaker 27: just you know, for example, don't accept Revelation or Hebrews
Speaker 27: because you know, the evidence isn't there.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. We made this point up many times, all right.
Speaker 1: I was just wondering what you thought about that? And
Speaker 1: if it would be a good you know, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: a great argument. In fact, I mean that's essentially what
Speaker 1: Luther did when Lucter started to say that other you know,
Speaker 1: some of these books shouldn't be here. Totally agree. Guess
Speaker 1: a good fellow, what's up?
Speaker 7: Hello?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 7: Hey?
Speaker 14: J glad I can jump on here and chat with you.
Speaker 14: So I've been listening to Refuting Oriental Orthodoxy, the series
Speaker 14: you guys did, and just background. I come from like
Speaker 14: a Pentecostal oneness modalist background, been exploring Orthodoxy for the
Speaker 14: last three years. Uh had a question about, you know,
Speaker 14: the person versus nature distinction, and uh, okay, I know
Speaker 14: you in that Refuting arthor you see, you guys were
Speaker 14: kind of laying out the metaphysics of the Orthodox Church
Speaker 14: and the uh, the fact that so the human nature
Speaker 14: is something that's shared across all human beings. That's it's
Speaker 14: something that's shared. And then individual.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a it's a universal yeah.
Speaker 14: Then and then individual hypostaces is the identities right or persons?
Speaker 1: Yes, it's correct, it's the individual subject, the it's the
Speaker 1: it's the mode in which the nature exists, which is
Speaker 1: in the mode of the individual subject or the person.
Speaker 14: Correct, right, So I mean I have I have issues
Speaker 14: with with modalism. But what I'm trying to kind of
Speaker 14: understand is, how do you get around saying that the
Speaker 14: Father's Time and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons with
Speaker 14: let's share a divine nature. How does that now make
Speaker 14: them three gods the same way that three person human
Speaker 14: persons who share a human nature are not three distinct persons.
Speaker 1: Right. So if you read the Cappadocians, like Besil's letter,
Speaker 1: I think it's thirty eight where he goes into this distinction,
Speaker 1: he just he just makes it as an analogy. So
Speaker 1: humans are just are created, they begin to be, They're
Speaker 1: in time and space, they're discrete, they're separate. So it's
Speaker 1: just an analogy that humans have a singular nature, but
Speaker 1: they're distinct in person. It's an analogy to the trinity,
Speaker 1: and analogy means that not every aspect of it matches
Speaker 1: up one to one, some of it matches up as
Speaker 1: some of a dozen. So if it was unifical predication,
Speaker 1: it would be what you're saying, right. So arians make
Speaker 1: this argument because arians say, well, if God is you
Speaker 1: know cause and the Father causes the son. Then causation
Speaker 1: requires time, because every father who causes a son is
Speaker 1: in time. That's based on what we call unifical reasoning.
Speaker 1: That would mean that it's used in the same sense,
Speaker 1: And we don't believe in unifical reasoning because that would
Speaker 1: be arian, but we would say it's analogical. In other words,
Speaker 1: there's an analogy between the way that a father causes
Speaker 1: a son and that the father is the source of
Speaker 1: the son. But there's other aspects of it which don't
Speaker 1: match up to God, namely the temporal relations. So the
Speaker 1: father didn't start to become a father at some point
Speaker 1: in time. The father was always eternal, generating the sun
Speaker 1: and hence eternal generation. So the usage of person in
Speaker 1: nature amongst human beings is an analogy to the person
Speaker 1: nature distinction in the trinity. And it's not unifical.
Speaker 14: Okay, what would be a good you know, coming from
Speaker 14: a Protestant background, there's always kind of proof texts and
Speaker 14: everything else and involved. I'm just wondering, is there a
Speaker 14: good source I could read that would lay out, like
Speaker 14: you said, first of all, like the claim, which I
Speaker 14: don't have a problem with it, but just to substantiate
Speaker 14: the claim that God was always the Father, Like, how
Speaker 14: do I substantiate that in scripture?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean you could get a good, a good
Speaker 1: easy book to read, like Palmazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Most
Speaker 1: of that is really just going through the scriptural text
Speaker 1: for the Orthodox positions, and you're going to get you know,
Speaker 1: certainly a lot of positions about the eternality of the
Speaker 1: fatherhood of Father, of eternality, fatherhood of God the Father,
Speaker 1: and uh separate though from that. If you're looking for
Speaker 1: somebody that addresses that specific issue, uh, Athanacius is I
Speaker 1: think it's the discourses against the Arians is actually addressing
Speaker 1: that very issue because one of the arguments that his teacher,
Speaker 1: Saint Alexander made against the Arians was that if God
Speaker 1: was eternally the Father, then that requires by necessity he
Speaker 1: eternally has a son, or else the word father makes
Speaker 1: no sense. So this is a pretty strong rhetorical and
Speaker 1: metaphysical argument against the Arians, because you know it, it
Speaker 1: necessitates by by definition almost if God's eternally the father,
Speaker 1: the father of who, right, So there's got to eternally
Speaker 1: be a son. So excuse me. I would also say
Speaker 1: you could read something like Vladimir Lowski's books to Mystical
Speaker 1: Theology or Vision of God excuse me, vision of God. Uh,
Speaker 1: those also cover these topics pretty extensively. Okay, Yeah, good questions,
Speaker 1: So appreciate that.
Speaker 26: Uh, what's up, dude?
Speaker 1: Hello, what's on your mind?
Speaker 7: Did you?
Speaker 5: Did you already bring up the relativity of just making
Speaker 5: the statements in Vatican two? So that anybody who the
Speaker 5: Holy Spirit was just making words themselves be by themselves objective.
Speaker 1: Uh? I think Chase, when Chase was on here earlier,
Speaker 1: or maybe the guy before Chase said that, his conclusion
Speaker 1: would be that the documents are thus relativized and the
Speaker 1: theology of God is relativized if no stretate is correct.
Speaker 1: And I think that's true. Now you're probably being a
Speaker 1: little more specific with linguistic philosophy, but yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, because if you just say, you know, God is
Speaker 5: the Muslim God is the same as you know Christian God,
Speaker 5: but it takes either a good or a bad pope,
Speaker 5: or a good or a bad magisterium to interpret the words,
Speaker 5: then the intention of what the way it was written
Speaker 5: is irrelevant.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah, I think so. Temp. The last text ten
Speaker 1: sent me was kind of going in that direction where
Speaker 1: he was trying to make a distinction between authorial intent
Speaker 1: and the exact words that are used. And he was
Speaker 1: trying to argue that I don't even have to like
Speaker 1: he thinks the intent of the authors was nefarious and
Speaker 1: malicious and ambiguous, but that the words can be just
Speaker 1: simply re read and revised in an interpretive scheme to
Speaker 1: make the orthodox, which I think is just silly.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that is that would never work in any other
Speaker 5: I mean that would would would that even work in law.
Speaker 1: Only in a only in a in a sophistical legal system.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, like that would be. And then this idea
Speaker 5: of debating over whether there was a the before a
Speaker 5: god or an ad in the sentence, like we've talked
Speaker 5: about before. That's like, you know, a teenager child debating
Speaker 5: will Actually, I didn't say I was coming directly home
Speaker 5: after I was.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I said I was coming home, but I didn't
Speaker 1: say when I was coming home.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just wanted to see.
Speaker 1: No, that's a great that's a great point, John. In fact, yeah,
Speaker 1: and no other disciplines would this count except for vaticate
Speaker 1: to theology and RBIC. But also it also speaks to uh,
Speaker 1: like the again the relativizing of this, because if that's
Speaker 1: the case here, then well then what's wrong with what
Speaker 1: all the modernists did in the Roman Catholic Church in
Speaker 1: the twentieth century by rewording all the other stuff? Like
Speaker 1: why does it have to only be reworded or reread
Speaker 1: in a conservative sense? Like what stops it from being
Speaker 1: read in some other liberal sense? And that's and that's
Speaker 1: exactly the point that I think you made this point too, John,
Speaker 1: which is that that's why it does matter how the
Speaker 1: popes act after Vatican Two, because if they act on
Speaker 1: the basis of these documents in the way that I'm saying,
Speaker 1: which is that they go pray in mosques towards Mecca,
Speaker 1: then that is relevant to how the documents are worded.
Speaker 1: It's not it's not irrelevant to the documents, which is
Speaker 1: what they have to try to say.
Speaker 5: Well, also, that means that the religion see and this
Speaker 5: is unfortunately I don't I don't say this like like oh,
Speaker 5: and I know you're the same way too. It's not
Speaker 5: like we're it's we're gloating like, oh, we're gonna school
Speaker 5: these RCAs, and it's it's not a mean thing. It's
Speaker 5: like you unfortunately have to say, hey, guess what.
Speaker 7: I know.
Speaker 5: You think that you're going to your TLM and you're
Speaker 5: you know, getting the Mass with the most grace because
Speaker 5: it was, you know, so reverent. But actually the church
Speaker 5: that you believe in is that church is the Novus
Speaker 5: Orto Church. That church is the Skittles Church. That church
Speaker 5: is the Vatican Bank Church. The TLM is like a
Speaker 5: is like a delusion.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, well they're shutting down TLM, so exactly.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but some somedays, some trad pope's gonna come along
Speaker 5: and he's gonna interpret Vatican two in the correct way,
Speaker 5: and then once he does that, then we'll be able
Speaker 5: to have the TLM.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I heard all of that in two thousand and
Speaker 1: six or whatever it was seven, when Rat Singer was coming.
Speaker 1: Oh he's going to bring to TLM and he did
Speaker 1: a moto proprio. I've been there, done that.
Speaker 5: All right, we'll see if anybody else wants to talk
Speaker 5: about those. Yeah, the TLM or trads who are waking
Speaker 5: up to this unfortunate you know, you're gonna have to
Speaker 5: go through a rough period where you're gonna have to
Speaker 5: realize all that stuff. I just know that this is
Speaker 5: done in with you know, with good intentions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that's what I was saying earlier, is like,
Speaker 1: if you buy into this perennialist stuff like, it would
Speaker 1: lead you right into perennialism. So and some of the
Speaker 1: Romancalloic tradcats just go actually do go in that direction.
Speaker 1: I've done several over the years that they went from
Speaker 1: Vatican to those trataate perennialism into the straight up perennialisms.
Speaker 1: And I don't see why it wouldn't lead you that
Speaker 1: way if you go that route, Patriot, Yeah, I got
Speaker 1: on mute.
Speaker 23: Man, uh jay may I may I respond to your
Speaker 23: Vatican two critiques. Sure, okay, Uh Lifeline Catholic here, Uh
Speaker 23: sense baptism and appreciate nice meeting you. So I'm gonna
Speaker 23: give you the very basics of Vatican two, and I'm
Speaker 23: gonna use an anecdote to kind of push this forward.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 23: So I've heard the orthodoxy debate between the the TLM
Speaker 23: and Vatican two sucks, and mattig into is liberalism whatever.
Speaker 4: Blah blah blah whatever.
Speaker 23: Well, you're gonna penalize the novisorder and so on. And
Speaker 23: so forth and modernity and whatever. Then you're gonna have
Speaker 23: to penalize me for a similar situation because the the
Speaker 23: TLM bros Are going to be very mad at me
Speaker 23: because I attended a Mass and Chinese. Okay, Vatican two
Speaker 23: is not some uh liberalization of the faith. It is
Speaker 23: a moving forward to the church. It is putting the
Speaker 23: Church in the English language of Americans.
Speaker 1: Okay, hold on, that's that's only that's only one thing. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean that's that's.
Speaker 4: A very important thing. Though very important.
Speaker 1: The Orthodox Church has always done it in the vernacular,
Speaker 1: so we would agree with that.
Speaker 23: Well now, but because there there's a faction and the
Speaker 23: and and the cat and the Catholic body the church,
Speaker 23: that's all t l.
Speaker 5: M taling no disorder.
Speaker 1: Mm.
Speaker 4: But I'm arguing, wait, what are you arguing?
Speaker 1: I'm Orthodox. I'm arguing that Vaticans who has theological contradictions,
Speaker 1: I don't care about the.
Speaker 4: Vernocular like what like what the Hindu thing?
Speaker 27: Uh?
Speaker 1: Well, among many, one would be that it encourages interfaith
Speaker 1: prayer and gathering, and that's a direct contradiction from Mortalium
Speaker 1: animals in nineteen twenty nine.
Speaker 23: Well, the ecumenical councils are not infallible.
Speaker 1: Clarification, Are you serious? Okay, yes, correct, No, Ecumenical councils
Speaker 1: are magisterium and they are infallible in the Roman Gallic Church.
Speaker 1: So you have no idea what you're talking about. No, yes, literally,
Speaker 1: no idea what you're talking about. Nine nine nine. I
Speaker 1: want people to take note of that that the people
Speaker 1: that we're dealing with, that we're debating with, don't even
Speaker 1: know if Roman Catholic theology believes that cumenical councils are
Speaker 1: infallible in the Roman system. That's Tilly says, thank you, brother.
Speaker 28: You know, I just wanted to share one thing on
Speaker 28: on the Buddhist side, just because it relates to Hinduism.
Speaker 28: So the practice of Buddhism is is actually one part
Speaker 28: of Christianity, and that is thou shalt not want It's
Speaker 28: a it's a very big it's very big in Christianity.
Speaker 28: It's actually underrated. How important that is. Thou shalt not
Speaker 28: want anything but a relationship with the Father.
Speaker 1: And and I'm not I'm not trying to rude, but
Speaker 1: that I don't really have anything to do with what
Speaker 1: we're talking about today, Jacob, what's up. Hello, can you
Speaker 1: hear me? Yeah?
Speaker 29: Okay, yeah, So I've been dealing with Mormons, right. I
Speaker 29: don't know if we can get into about like the
Speaker 29: one of the many, but I've been running it on them, right,
Speaker 29: and the most coherent answer I've got in is that
Speaker 29: the three share like a relational unity, and that that
Speaker 29: somehow accounts for the one.
Speaker 1: You wouldn't say that's correct, right, that's still by definition polytheism.
Speaker 29: And to solve the one of the many has to
Speaker 29: be ontological unity, because if it's not ontological united, it
Speaker 29: wouldn't be one.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah, I would say they're not ultimately one because
Speaker 1: you know, human beings are separate beings, but they're not
Speaker 1: ontologically one. I mean, their nature is one, but they're
Speaker 1: still separate beings. So I would say a better argument
Speaker 1: might be about grounding the one and the many in
Speaker 1: a single mind. And that's why we believe that God
Speaker 1: has a one mind, even though there's three hypostases that
Speaker 1: one divine mind exists in the mode of the three
Speaker 1: persons that possess it. So the the mind of God
Speaker 1: is a better means of grounding than I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't even see how three separate beings could ground something
Speaker 1: in a units of way when they don't have the
Speaker 1: same mind.
Speaker 29: Yeah, because another thing I've noticed too is that they
Speaker 29: also say that they're divine in some way, but divinity
Speaker 29: doesn't equal uncreated because when I ask.
Speaker 1: Them, they believe that God evolves. There's an infinite regress
Speaker 1: of evolving gods that are creatures, so it makes no sense.
Speaker 1: So they literally just redefine the word God to mean
Speaker 1: an evolving man. So it's like they don't actually believe
Speaker 1: in anything uncreated except for matter. So basically what so
Speaker 1: God isn't actually uncreated? Matters uncreated, but God is a
Speaker 1: man that evolves to become God. It's just total nonsense.
Speaker 1: I mean, anybody who tries to get into Mormonism and
Speaker 1: doesn't see how stupid it is. Within like a little while,
Speaker 1: I don't know what to say any other Roman Catholics.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be at my hotel pretty soon, so
Speaker 1: I want to give another chance for any remaining Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics to pop up. He requests to speak. We only
Speaker 1: had one Roman Catholic who actually came to a dress
Speaker 1: Vatican two, and which is pretty telling, and I gave
Speaker 1: him a chance to speak. He was not honest with
Speaker 1: what he put on Twitter. It didn't go well for him.
Speaker 1: He said he didn't know what Vatican two meant. He
Speaker 1: doesn't know why No Strett says what it says, and
Speaker 1: he would not go into the issue of the Muslims.
Speaker 1: And what does that tell you? Max? What's up? I mean?
Speaker 7: See, I just wanted to act to Jay. Why don't
Speaker 7: you debate Eric again? Hello? Eric Yaborrow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's basically said he won't have anything to do
Speaker 1: with me.
Speaker 7: So oh yeah, so we gotta we gotta push him
Speaker 7: to debate you. I guess right.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's well, he's not gonna debate. He just
Speaker 1: wants to quote mine. He's not going to debate. Like
Speaker 1: so when we had our so called debate, I said
Speaker 1: I wanted to debate pre Vatican through post Vatican three contradictions,
Speaker 1: and he said we can debate that some other time.
Speaker 1: So if he wants to debate that, yeah, I'm not
Speaker 1: for it. But he says not too mean to interact with.
Speaker 7: So understand if I want to, like look into a
Speaker 7: book of understanding orthodoxy more I'm a Roman Catholic, one
Speaker 7: book you would recommend in layman terms, not liking a
Speaker 7: very theater.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 1: The easiest readable book is Two Paths by Michael Welton.
Speaker 1: Two Paths.
Speaker 7: All right, thank you, Jaed, I appreciate you.
Speaker 1: Yeah man uh noah, non none yet? Biz? What's up nine?
Speaker 1: Youa biz?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 1: Anybody else? Any Roman Catholics who disagree? Anybody want to
Speaker 1: bring hup an issue of contention. You want to make
Speaker 1: an argument, I'll give you sixty seconds. I won't talk.
Speaker 1: That's a good idea that Jim Jotras had was to
Speaker 1: introduce the sixty seconds rule that if people want to
Speaker 1: come on and make an argument, I will agree to
Speaker 1: not talk for sixty seconds. And then the Roman Catholics
Speaker 1: can't say that I'm mean, I talk over them. Paul.
Speaker 12: Just make a little argument and run it by you,
Speaker 12: kind of vet it with you. The woman who called
Speaker 12: in earlier and was talking about the miracles performed by
Speaker 12: these Catholic saints. You know, I have a lot of
Speaker 12: family members who are, you know, kind of charismatic, and
Speaker 12: they make similar arguments like, oh yeah, but the miracles.
Speaker 12: And I just wanted to say, if we're if we're
Speaker 12: relying on supernatural proof for things, it's it's not a
Speaker 12: very good argument, and I my very simple, small little
Speaker 12: argument against it is that that would assume it like
Speaker 12: if if we if we're if we're claiming to be
Speaker 12: able to identify that which is supernatural, we would have
Speaker 12: to claim that we completely understand what is natural, you know,
Speaker 12: we would be able to have a knowledge that circumscribes
Speaker 12: the natural world.
Speaker 1: And no one is going to make that claim seriously.
Speaker 1: And so.
Speaker 12: Since we don't know what's what's possible in nature, how
Speaker 12: can we say that something that is that we that
Speaker 12: appears to us as a miracle is indeed some you
Speaker 12: know proof that you know, Oh God is God is
Speaker 12: with me and loves me and supports them.
Speaker 1: Well, this is actually some of the atheists and naturalists
Speaker 1: will actually make this line of argument against evidentialists that
Speaker 1: try to use miracle claims as truth. And I think
Speaker 1: this is actually a good point. Like like I'm being
Speaker 1: I'm not an atheist when I say this, but it's
Speaker 1: like if if an atheist says, how do we know
Speaker 1: that this so called event wasn't just some natural phenomenon
Speaker 1: and we just don't know? I mean, is significant enough
Speaker 1: doubt because it's very possible, it is not a significant
Speaker 1: enough doubt to raise to raise doubt, I should say,
Speaker 1: and thus it doesn't become a very good proof. I
Speaker 1: just don't understand why people think these things are good truths.
Speaker 1: When I mean you just talked about charismatics. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you talk to the charismatics, he's going to tell you, oh,
Speaker 1: I've seen miracles of my holiness Pentecostal Church. I've seen
Speaker 1: God grow legs back. And it's like, I don't believe that, dude.
Speaker 1: And it's like, well, I don't care what you believe.
Speaker 1: I've seen it and that's proof. That's all proof I need.
Speaker 1: And it's like, well, Ron mcalleys do the exact same thing.
Speaker 1: It's like, how is that proof.
Speaker 12: It's it's a very dangerous form of proof and a
Speaker 12: not a very good thing to rely upon obviously, and
Speaker 12: could really lead us, you know, lead us astray.
Speaker 1: They can't can lead it to a delusion. And that's
Speaker 1: why Jesus says, a wicked and adulterous generation seeks signs
Speaker 1: exactly because they say stuff to Jesus like, if you
Speaker 1: are the Messiah, do this miracle, give us some proof,
Speaker 1: do something, do some neat trick, And he says a
Speaker 1: wicked adulter's generation seeks these things last one. Moroki, I'm you, hey,
Speaker 1: j Yeah.
Speaker 7: Quick question about icons. Are icons of God the Father allowed?
Speaker 1: Uh no, typically no, it's the only exception as the
Speaker 1: Ancient of days. But that's a that's Christ as the Father. Okay, thanks,
Speaker 1: that was it. All right, thank you, everybody, have a
Speaker 1: good night.