Speaker 1: I think that's kind of goes against like it's not attractive,
it's not going to help bring people into your ideology.
Speaker 2: That's about optics. I didn't ask you about optics. I
said specifically, do you do you reject all collective groupings
or identities?
Speaker 1: I think within every group there is definitely not cohesiveness.
So from top to bottom people do not cohesively.
Speaker 3: Agree on everythingation.
Speaker 2: So all collective identity site for example, being a man,
is that a collective identity that you that you have.
Speaker 1: No, because that's just like a foundational reality, Like you
don't have.
Speaker 2: To say so a collective identity can't be a collective identity,
can't include a foundational reality like biologically a male.
Speaker 3: No, it doesn't like you're a male. It doesn't matter
where you.
Speaker 2: Are, So that's not part of your identity being a male.
Speaker 1: Well, you're you're looking at as a postmodernist ideology of identifying.
Speaker 2: So nothing to do with has nothing to do with postmodernism.
I'm asking you from an ancient and medieval perspective in
terms of metaphysics, is that a collective ontological reality?
Speaker 3: It's a reality because that's the.
Speaker 2: Way you are, and it doesn't it's not your identity.
You're not You're not either a male or female.
Speaker 1: Referring to identity, it's referring to say, this is my identity.
Speaker 2: You don't think that part of your identity is being
a male. I am a man, and it's not part
of your identity.
Speaker 4: I think.
Speaker 2: Do you think that postmodernists invented the concept of identity?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 3: So when people refer to identity in maternity.
Speaker 2: About ancient philosophy, so I don't. I don't know what
you're talking about. You're saying that biological being a male
biologically has nothing to do with your identity. That's how
stupid libertarianism is.
Speaker 3: No, first of all, not a libertarian.
Speaker 2: Okay, whatever atomized individual you said that you believe in
totally individual rights versus any collective right.
Speaker 1: I I don't think being collectivist is going to end
up in a good way, and it can end up.
Speaker 2: I asked you a metaphysical idea about being part of
a group, an ontological reality, masculine male identity. You don't
think that that's a real thing.
Speaker 1: I already said that it's a real thing. I already
can see the point that being a man.
Speaker 2: You said, it's not your identity. And now you're saying
it is, which one is it?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Which one is it?
Speaker 1: We're talking we're talking past each other because I thought
you were coming from a postmodernist perspective, and that's my fault.
You're coming from an anthem you're coming from an anthological perspective.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not coming from a classical philosophy perspective that
being a male is part of what marks you out
like Aristotle.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that that's anthological.
Speaker 2: No, it's a metaphysical question about whether or not there
are collective identities that are real, Like being a male.
Speaker 1: Metaphysical is going to like supernatural, that's that's going beyond
just reality.
Speaker 3: It does you're talking about. You're talking about on the
philosophical level. A man is a man. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: You have no idea what you're talking about. You have
no idea what you're talking about. We're moving on, So
all right, goodbye, exactly whatever, eveng G whatever it is.
This is what you get with these sort of like
atomized individual agnostic libertarian types. They have no idea what
they're talking about, and you start talking about like they
don't realize the implications of saying that they don't accept
any collective groupings or identities. Oh like male, like being
a biological male. That's a metaphysical reality that is part
of your identity obviously.
Speaker 6: Well I don't believe in identity politics. Yeah, okay, good job,
then you're not a male even ge Bill of unmute.
Speaker 5: Oh hey, Jay, I'm altos as well. So it's not debate.
Speaker 7: But I just wanted to ask you like a question,
you know, like who's the thing going on.
Speaker 5: With the Greek and the most copage shock. Can you
like explain like what's actually.
Speaker 8: Happening from your perspective and what should people do on
like opposing sides of like the spectrum.
Speaker 2: Already done multiple podcasts on this five six years ago.
You can go back and watch those podcasts. Do you
want to come back and have the discussion or did
you want to just act like there's no such thing
as collective identities? Get on mute you have to unmute Patrick, Yeah, no.
Speaker 3: Like I said, just look at it up real quick.
Speaker 1: Now, the physical is the full phil study of fundamental reality.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it doesn't it's not necessarily supernat so it's
not necessarily supernatural.
Speaker 1: Male or female is fundamental reality period.
Speaker 9: There's no fun.
Speaker 2: You have no idea what you're talking about. No, it's
not you don't have no idea what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Once you start getting to the philosophy of male and female,
you lost the court.
Speaker 2: I've lost the court. You don't think I can ask
the question about the ontological status of what male is,
what a female? I'm asking the metaphysical ontological status of
what a male is. That's a metaphysical question.
Speaker 3: You're saying the identity of a male or a female.
You're not talking about what they are.
Speaker 2: You're talking about how I'm saying that. Obviously part of
your identity that picks you out and makes you up
is what species are you? And are you male or female?
It's that simple.
Speaker 3: That's not a philosophical question.
Speaker 2: Yes it is.
Speaker 4: It is scientific. It's not philosophical.
Speaker 2: You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even
understand that the science assumes philosophy. You're giggling. You have
no idea what you're talking about. Let me show my
fifty IQ. Sam literally just looked it up on Google,
and he's gonna argue with me. I haven't had a
philosophy one on one class. I looked it up on Google.
I'm ready to debate you on philosophy. Sam, I'm mute, Sam,
I'm mute. Okay, don't ASDGF, so it's open for him.
I'm tired of the same people always calling in, so
please let's get some new callers. Does no one else disagree?
They don't have any legitimate arguments, and don't try to
argue with me. If you've never had a philosophy class,
you're just gonna embarrass yourself with this arrogance. Call in
right there, the ben guy in the chat, if he
doesn't come to debate, then boot this guy. Hello, what's up?
Speaker 4: Hey?
Speaker 10: I just first off, I just want to say thank
you for these live streams that you do.
Speaker 4: Helps a lot just trying to learn.
Speaker 10: And my main question was if I was looking into Orthodoxy,
how do I know which church? Because I just look
on my Google maps and I see a whole bunch
of different Like let me, for example, politic.
Speaker 2: You want to look for a canonical Orthodox church, so
that would mean like churches that are part of mainline
jurisdictions like ro Corps, Serbs, Romanians, Antiochians. I would look
at those first. Jonathan nothing happened to the X space
is literally right there. What do you mean we're on
the X space right now? Call in if you disagree.
What's up?
Speaker 3: It was Jay?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, yes, flying pyramids.
Speaker 4: It's got a quick question regarding some pool.
Speaker 11: I haven't researched it much, but why did he make
an animal sacrifice?
Speaker 2: Are you talking about when he went to the temple
with Timothy? What are you talking about?
Speaker 4: Yeah? I think that's what happened.
Speaker 2: That's a transition period when Paul in that specific case,
saw that the results of not following the temple specifications
would have been worse than had he done it. And
the end of the Old Testament Temple administration is not
absolutely official until seventy eight. So if you read the
Book of Hebrews, when it talks about the Old administration
being like a scroll being rolled up and being done away,
that's referring to what happens in seventy eight when Titus
Vespasian came in and destroyed the temple. That's what Jesus
predicted in Luke twenty one, in Matthew twenty four, and
the all of it course, and so seventy eighty is
very crucial. This is part of partial preterism, but that's
the official end of the Old Testament. Everything happening in
the Book of Acts until seventy eighty is what we
call the transition period. So there's going to be some
flexibility and some anomalies that occur during that period, like
circumcising of Timothy and so forth, until the definitive removal
of the Temple, which is the sign that the temple
administration is completely done, and Jesus predicted that very clearly
in Luke twenty one.
Speaker 11: Okay, cool, and then I've got one more question. I
was raised in sort of Pentecostal and Baptist churches, but
I'm inquiring into Orthodoxy the moment just because of the
sort of apostolic status. For me, there's nothing that really
ties Protestantism to the Early Church.
Speaker 4: So that's what I'm searching at a moment. What reading
do you recommend I do? There any books I can
start with.
Speaker 2: I would start with something like John Mayandorf's book Orthodox Church.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 2: Then I would move on to something like you know,
on the Incarnation by sant Anthonas just to give you
an introduction to the Church fathers, and then I would
read something like my indorse Byzantine theology and then move
on to something like Lasky's mystical theology Eastern Church. Nick,
what's up, Nick? It's been a wild day. This has
been a an atypical day. We got a boom or neocon,
we got a agnostic libertarian, we got a Mormon. I mean,
this has been a wild day. This was exactly what
needed to happen today. What's up? I mute?
Speaker 5: Nick.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I guess I'm gonna try and have a debate
in favor of atheism. So, first of all, what do
you agree with like the parsimon principles.
Speaker 4: That's unless your worldview.
Speaker 2: Go down, I agree with you. I didn't hear principle,
but what Parsimoni principle go ahead?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 12: So, basically, the way I understand it is if unless
your set of beliefs explains the world around you, and
you know the variability around responses and the world around
you better than another model, then it is you know,
logical to it is rational to just reduce to the
simple model that explains explains the world. So so basically
it's like, okay, what comes razor? Like what like as
an atheist is like a religious person. What what exactly
does your world view does your set of beliefs explain
that I, as a as an atheist, wouldn't be able
to well.
Speaker 2: The the theists worldview explains how knowledge is possible at all,
and the atheists worldview makes knowledge impossible at all.
Speaker 4: Could you elaborate on that?
Speaker 2: Yes, the theistic worldview provides the possibility of grounding knowledge. Universals,
mathematical entities, logical categories, et cetera, the preconditions of knowledge.
All of those are grounded in a theistic worldview, where
there's the metaphysics that those things are possible and knowledge
is therefore possible, Whereas an atheistic worldview, due to the
infinitude of the human mind, the inexplicability of the human mind,
the irrationality of the external world, et cetera, make the
possibility of justifying grounding knowledge impossible.
Speaker 12: So you're saying that's basically a theistic person he can
grow on his kind of knowledge, whereas an aphist cannons.
But don't you see the case that maybe an aphist
is just like just you know, has the humility to
kind of accept him being not.
Speaker 2: Able to claiming that you have the ability as not
has nothing to do with justifying your knowledge claims.
Speaker 12: M hm, well all right, no justifications like them.
Speaker 4: The way I see is if we have.
Speaker 12: Like any given state and it is justified if it
is true, and it's just like a question.
Speaker 4: Again, knowledge can only exist if.
Speaker 12: You have like a definition, like some kind of a
metaphysics here, you have like a definition of truth for right,
so you can assign truth to any given statement. And
I don't think that it is necessary to be to
be to believe in the God or you know, to
be seistic to co a a definition of truth for example,
like you could.
Speaker 2: Know you're missing the point. So you can say that
God isn't necessary to have a quote definition of truth.
But how do we know that that's the case. What's
the justification for that assertion?
Speaker 12: Well, because like humans like we can have a conversation
here and obviously we understand each other and it's not
any coincidence, right, so there are certain laws.
Speaker 2: Okay, but what yeah, I agree, but what's the justu Okay,
what's the explanation of the justification for those laws of
thought and meaning that make conversations possible. That's the precisely
the question what's the account for that?
Speaker 12: Well, maybe he's grounded in in I.
Speaker 4: Mean, I don't know ground I don't know.
Speaker 2: How would evolution a process of constantly moving flux and
change ground something immaterial and invariant.
Speaker 12: Well, because the immaterial in the invariant And I guess
by that do you mean logic and like other?
Speaker 2: Well, the principles are meaning what can the kind.
Speaker 4: Of just like finish my sentences place? It's like intertwined
view the material.
Speaker 2: So that you're just asserting metaphysics. How do you know that?
What's the justification? But you're just asserting things? Justify these claims?
Speaker 4: Well, that's that's that's just an observation. So the way
I see it.
Speaker 2: However, so I it's an assertion. So you said maybe
the immaterial is bound up with an entangled with the material.
How okay, So God does it all? Are you going
to accept that?
Speaker 5: All right?
Speaker 2: So what's the justification for that?
Speaker 12: So if you define God, if you define define God.
Speaker 2: As like, don't change the subject, tell me the justification
for your assertion functional stop changing the subject? What's a
justification for your assertion?
Speaker 12: My assertion that immaterial things emerge from materials?
Speaker 4: Yes? Yeah, well, imagine an observation. So for example, we.
Speaker 2: Are like, it's an assertion, it's not even it's not
even an observation. You don't observe that, you're just asserting things.
Speaker 4: Well, just let me finish.
Speaker 3: So I can't.
Speaker 12: I can give you an example and you can't say
what's wrong about it?
Speaker 2: Well, how is giving an example going to justify the assertion?
Speaker 4: Can you repeat us, I didn't hear it.
Speaker 2: Even if you give me an example, how will that
justify the assertion being true? How do you know that
that's true, that immaterial emerges from the matter from the material.
Speaker 4: Because I observe, observe is constant.
Speaker 2: Oh so that's a circle. No, No, you don't. You
think you see things happening, But how do you know
that that's the meaning of what's happening?
Speaker 12: Because the world it's either I'm a thing or I
am not always prefer the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's a fallacy that has nothing to do
with whether it's true or false.
Speaker 13: Sorry, we're moving on. This is ridiculous.
Speaker 2: That one guy, what's up? So we're never going to
get an answer to the question. I just I don't
have the time or the patience today to deal with
the constant assert assert assert never answering the question of
justifying the assertions. What's up, I'm mute that one guy,
I'm mute that one guy. I'm mute, I'm mute. What's up?
You have to turn your mic on men dead earth theory?
What's up? Man? We got we still got a thousand live.
Welcome everybody, if you want to call in. What's up?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 14: I think you moved down to Yeah, yeah, it looks
like I got it. So, Hi, Jay, I really just
sort of had a question. I'm not necessarily personally in
the position to debate, but it's sort of along I
don't know, gnostic lines, but just to get to the point,
I was talking to my brother and he came. He
brought up just the idea that, like the term he says,
he makes the case that that the Christian God in
like entirely is based on like two like Samerian deities
or something like that.
Speaker 15: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I'm just kind of like wondering in my head.
Speaker 14: It seems like it should be easy, like I used
to actually believe kind of like that to refute it.
Speaker 2: Well, the first question is like why should we think
that there is this on what basis because something is
supposedly older, well, just because something is older, let's say,
for the sake of argument, the Canaanite Pantheon, the recordings
of the Canaanite Pantheon are, let's say, for the sake
of argument, older than the you know, the Torah. That
wouldn't prove that it's that it's true, nor that the
Torah borrowed from that. That's just that's simply a non sequitor.
But beyond that, I mean, there are very noticeable differences
between the God presented in Genesis and what we see
in the Canaanite pantheon or in the you know, Babylonian Marduke,
you know what Tima, all that kind of stuff, Like,
there's very For example, if you read I'm not a
huge fan of William Craig, but Willam Lane Craig has
actually a really good book on this topic, which is
called Creation x Nilo, And in that book he actually
contrasts the surrounding Near Middle Eastern pagan religions to the
type of God revealed in the Torah, and it's vastly different.
So what a lot of these groups or arguments do
The Gnostics, the Zeitgeist type people. They will take superficial
similarities and then leap to the conclusion that the Bible
ripped it off, or the Bible has a real secret
religion which is this gnostic thing, none of which is trip.
It's all just non sequitors.
Speaker 14: Right oh yeah, And I'm it's like there's some that
are easier for me when people try to equate, like
Christ to the horrors.
Speaker 5: Myth and stiff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly right, But yeah.
Speaker 3: I definitely appreciate.
Speaker 14: Did you say the book was Creation x Nilo.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's William Lane Craig, who I would typically not recommend,
except this is really a good book, and he argues
precisely this point that you can't really equate the deity
in the Torah to the god surrounding the nation state
of Israel.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 14: Oh yeah, And that totally makes sense when you say it.
And so if I just at the time, I couldn't,
I didn't know what to say.
Speaker 5: I did say.
Speaker 14: That that doesn't prove that they're even necessarily talking about
the same.
Speaker 4: Thing, just because they were using similar languages or whatever.
Speaker 3: But I'll let you get to it.
Speaker 2: No, it's okay. But again, and beyond that, the superficial
similarity stuff. Craig makes multiple arguments here about the ways
in which there are fundamental, significant, metaphysical theological differences in
the type of deity that's presented in the Bible versus
the surrounding cultures of Israel.
Speaker 15: They're they're there.
Speaker 2: It's kind of like the way that that like evolutionary
theory proponent. Evolution theory proponents will say something like, oh, well, look,
how you know it's ninety plus percent similarity between a
human and a lizard. Therefore we all have the same
uh you know, wherefore were almost pretty much the same.
We're basically just big lizards. Well, that few percentile difference
is enough of a difference to have the difference between
a human and a lizard, you see. So just because
there's overlap does not necessarily mean that the difference is
not massive. You see. And by that line of argumentation,
all deities are the same deity because they all share
something in common. Well, how do we know what the
lowest common denominator of things in common is? Whereby we
then have the same reference, we don't. It's a not
It doesn't follow because if I have the same reference
and the same even the same intention. Right. You can
demonstrate this. It's demonstrated in the Garabee paper theistic fallacies.
For example, even if I have the same rapt and
intention and terms and names, we can have totally different reference.
For example, I say there's a million dollars worth of
goal buried in the basement, in a basement in the
Promised Land. And I tell you this, and we both
understand the meaning of the word promised land. We both
understand the golds in the basement. We're We're both intending
to mean the same thing. The reference are the same,
the context is the same. And so you say, I'm
on it, Jay, I'm flying over to Israel right now.
I'm digging around wherever I think it might be. I'm God,
I want to go. I want to know where to
go at. I'm an uproot that tree, I want that goal.
Speaker 3: Give me to go.
Speaker 2: You like a leprechaun in the ghetto. Oh but wait
a minute. You see when I said the goal is
in a basement of the Promised Land. I the Christian
bookstore down the road called Promised Land, and I buried
my million dollars of gold in their basement. This is
illustrating the silliness of the whole premise and argumentation of
natural theology, which operates on these word concept fallacies and
ambiguities of intentional contexts and epistemic settings. And it demonstrates
that even if we have the same intended reference, that
doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to get to it
because we're using the same terms, the same words, but
we have totally different reference. And what that shows is
that you can have this ambiguity of the real reference
even if the intention is to have the same reference.
My buddy over there, he intended to actually get gold
in the promise Land, and I intended for him to
understand gold is in the promise Land. But the ambiguity
of terminology in various contexts demonstrates this problem when it
comes to both natural theology and the mistake that people
do the Zeitgeist shit, like all that Zeitgei's they're doing
the exact same thing. They are saying. All of the
theologies of the world, all the comparative religion texts tell
us that there is this deity and it's outside of
time and space, or maybe it's even in time. There's
this deity and it's called God. Therefore it's all referring
to the same thing. I mean, the dollar bill is
literally like natural theology. It's Masonic natural thing. I'm not joking.
When you get the dollar bill out, that stupid ass
fake fiat dollar bill, it says in God we trust
what God? Oh well, we all know that God refers
to the same God, does it? What do you mean
how makes sense of that? So I'm illustrating the point
that the Zeitgei's gnostic worldview the perennialist worldview, which is
actually addressed at the very beginning of the Garibie paper.
He says to the Thomist, Wait a minute, why should
we assume that the lowest common denominator supposedly obvious, self
evident attributes of the monad? Why should we assume that
that takes us in the Tomaist and then Roman Catholic direction.
Why wouldn't it lead us to perennialism. And so he
actually presents an argument I think from Mark Sedgwick, one
of the famous perennialists, and he says, to uh, who's
the Boomer Thomas guy that's used in that paper. I
forget his name, the famous Thomas that supposedly is orthodox.
FDA's met him anyway. He says, wait a minute, Bloomer
Thomas Man, why wouldn't we choose perennialism If the lowest
common denominator is this list of eight ten attributes? Why
wouldn't we then conclude that perennialism versus and not tomism
and all that. Why isn't it a perennialist world view?
They can never answer that, And in fact, Vatican two
garbage theology odd to lead to perennialism. It pretty much
is or to Masonic gibber jabber deism might as well
be all.
Speaker 15: Those Greg, Hello, can you hear me?
Speaker 2: What's up? Greg?
Speaker 1: Hi? Jay?
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 9: So I wanted to go back to the atheist guy
because I have a question.
Speaker 5: Is it right that you said that.
Speaker 9: From the atheist perspective, you can't know anything?
Speaker 4: Is that right?
Speaker 2: Said? You can't justify the knowledge.
Speaker 5: You can't justify any knowledge.
Speaker 9: So what do you think about the idea that you
can justify knowledge just based on the idea that you
know that material things exist, and then you can.
Speaker 2: Make you already you already begged the question based on
the already the questions. You already begged the question because
the question is about how is knowledge possible? And then
your answer was, well, we know blah blah blah. The
question is how do you know at all?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 9: So what I would say is that knowledge is possible
because the existence of material things.
Speaker 2: That's a knowledge claim. That's a knowledge claim. That's a
knowledge claim. Okay, how do you justify knowledge claims? Knowledge claim?
Speaker 10: Ye?
Speaker 9: So you justified the existence of material things.
Speaker 2: No knowledge. I didn't ask you how you justify material things.
I asked you how you justify the possibility of knowledge
at all? What is the criterion for knowledge?
Speaker 16: Yeah?
Speaker 9: The criterion for knowledge is the basis of being able
to justify that knowledge in some way.
Speaker 3: Let me give you an example.
Speaker 2: Now, so now you're deflecting. That's not answering. Do are
you familiar with the criterion problem?
Speaker 5: Somewhat?
Speaker 4: I mean, okay, would you explain it?
Speaker 2: Right? So the criterion problem is if I claim to
have knowledge at all, the problem is that that relies
on some criteria of knowledge. But if I go towards
trying to show a criterion of knowledge first before I
have knowledge claims, that is also a knowledge claim. So
there's a problem here in this atheistic approach to epistemology,
known as the criterion problem, where there's no real way
out of this box, you see.
Speaker 9: Okay, Well, so, okay, just to give you an example
what I was thinking. Right, So we have like knowledge
of genetics, for example, and you could say, well, how
do you come to that knowledge of gen x? Well,
you do experiments with plants, like what greg Or Mendel
did with.
Speaker 2: Missing the whole point. None of that has anything to
do with justification of knowledge and epistemology. Just asserting that
you have observation and facts and data from scientific observation
has nothing to do with epistemic questions of how knowledge
is possible. It just begs the question a million times over.
But I do thank you for your questions. So yeah,
thank you, Alex. What's up?
Speaker 4: Hey?
Speaker 1: What so?
Speaker 4: Ja?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 8: I have a question concerning the transcendental argument. I've already
watched a lot of your stuff. I love what you do.
I'm an orthodox Christian by the way. Okay, but I
just have a question concerning the problem of induction, and
I also want to ask a question afterwards.
Speaker 4: About your Meta Narratives book.
Speaker 8: Okay, So the problem of induction concerning creation x Nilo miracles,
you know, God intervening in reality. How would Orthodox go
about answering something concerning that, Like, for example, whenever Nebukinezer
went to put in the three friends of Daniel in
the furnace and they survived by all means of like
naturalist induction, you'd say they would have died. But from
a north Duck's point of view, I'm assuming it would
be something along the lines of you have to just
take God into account as a variable when inducing something.
Speaker 2: Well, like the principle of induction is just the sort
of normal programming and functioning of the world. It doesn't
have anything to do with like whether God can do
what he wants in a miraculous way, because God is
the one that's set up the logic and the structure
of induction. So there's nothing that limits God because God
is the one who created the structure of the world
as it is, so he can do anything he wants.
Speaker 8: Okay, okay, And his unchanging nature is why we have
the ability to have you know, constancy in the world.
Speaker 2: Well, not only that, but also like you know, the
Covenant with Noah. He says that day and night will continue.
The seasons will continue until the end of the world. Right,
So I mean beyond just the character of God, we
also have the promise in the covenants that would then
be by extension a basis for the principle the regularity
of nature.
Speaker 4: Okay, I appreciate it.
Speaker 8: And concerning your metanarratives book, I know you go into
depth on like the logoi and everything, because I've watched
a lot of your debts.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, actually I don't in that book. I
don't argue so much about the theology of the Logi.
It's more so like trying to utilize some of those
arguments for apologetic purposes in that book. So it's not
strictly speaking, like trying to explain to you Maximus's theology
of the Trinity. I'm just pulling into kind of apologetic
discourse or metaphysics discourses, principles of the Logi.
Speaker 4: Okay, okay.
Speaker 8: So I understand a lot of like the epistemic, you know,
reasoning and everything in the apologetics, but I would like
to know all of the Orthodox perspectives on like how
we explain all the different transcendentals. Is there like a
localized place or book that you would recommend for them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you'd have to start reading Saint Maximus himself.
I mean the ambiguoa. Those are unfortunately pretty expensive. You know,
there's two volumes that cover that. But if you want
a cheaper approach, the Little Saint Ladimir Seminary Press. That's
the Little Blue Saint Maximus book. It has the whole
translation of Ambiguous seven, which is one of the direct
most extensive ambigua about the Logi. So I would say
read that one and then also it's like Ambiguous twenty
two goes into a lot of depth about this, but
that's the shortcut version. Also, Florofsky has a really good
paper on the Logi. It's let me see if I
can pull it up. So the Saint Vladimir's Seminy Seminary
book is called I always forget the name because this
the name of this one is very similar to a
Larsternbird book that I always getting mixed up. It's called
On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus. That's the SVS book
that has I don't even I think it's abridged, but
it's a large portion of Ambiguous seven. Isn't that book
and then the Fluorovsky paper on the Logi is called
creation and creaturehood.
Speaker 4: Okay, I appreciate it.
Speaker 5: So Saint Maximus and I suppose.
Speaker 8: With Saint Jonathan Mascus also be some of the go
to people for the main transcendental and metaphysical Orthodox perspective.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean fount of knowledge would be Saint John
Damascus says, usage of and kind of introductory textbook to
define all of the philosophical terms. But they in the
Middle Ages, in the ancient like, they weren't thinking in
terms of transcental categories. That's more of a post and
that's more of a post Enlightenment way of thinking and talking.
So it would be relevant to read a fount of
knowledge to get the basic terminological stuff. Maybe the next
book I would read after that would be something like
Arslaw Pelicon's book on the Cappa doceans and their philosophy,
that would also relate to this, because he goes into
the one of the many, He goes into universals logie
and how the Cappa dotionans all utilize these ideas and
these tools, and that is called the metamorphosis of natural
theology in Cappu doceans. I think by Yaroslav Pelicon b Elik.
Speaker 4: Gotcha.
Speaker 2: I appreciate it, man, yep, really good questions, Taylor, but
it's a dude. T t A y l e R.
Taylor with a T A y Go ahead, what's up? Man?
Ad aaki all the people haters in the chat? If
you don't call in, we've eventually boot you because we
don't really tolerate people just spamming and gibber jabbering in
the chat all day long. This is not a platform
in a place for you to spam the chat with
whatever your dumb cult is. Taylor, what's up? Gotta unmute man,
last chance? T A y l e R Taylor, unmute
or not all right? Moving on, joe Ed, joe Ed
starting to get a headache. Don't have to what's up?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 16: Sou uh uh?
Speaker 2: Oriental Orthodox I can barely hear you.
Speaker 16: May I'll try again a little later.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, ask your question, what's up?
Speaker 16: Eastern Oriental Orthodox?
Speaker 5: I'm sorry?
Speaker 16: Oriental Orthodox Christians. They notice things can get pretty heated
pretty quick when they call in, or even when I'm
part of a discord where things gonna be heated a
lot there. I'm just curious oh, agreed, yes, for one
hundred percent.
Speaker 17: But I was able to squeeze in the exchange where
it didn't get crazy for like three minutes, and they
were going back and forth, and I was just curious,
what is Things get pretty deep when I see that here,
those exchanges, and I can't really follow all the time.
Speaker 2: But what's so really in terms of we're doing we're
doing a multiple lecture series on my channel. I can't
hear you, man, it's just way too loud, like we're
doing multiple lecture series on the channel. You guys. Look,
I'm not faulting the guy for calling and asked a question,
is fine, but this is why we're doing the lecture series.
So you'll have to go and just watch the series. Guys.
We've done two of these so far right Part two
Refuting Oriental Orthodoxy Part two right here. So it's going
to be basically a college lecture course on this. So
if you have those questions, watch the course. Ferg what's
up man, Fergie fur Delicious, what's up? I'm mute. No
one has used X before. No one understands how this works.
After how many years you have to turn your permissions on?
Man Layton Jensen, what's up Mandu was driving in a
dang hurricane?
Speaker 4: Do the Church Fathers teach tag.
Speaker 2: Yes and no, yes and no. So for example, in
the introduction page of On a Fount of Knowledge by
John Damascus, he makes a transcendental type of argument, which
we find in Aristotle, I think Metaphysics book four or five,
which is an indirect transcendental argument. That's the first version
of that. You could say that in against heresies or
even an adgentees affinaceous makes presuppositional critiques of the other
world views. But we don't see a full on presentation
of the transcendental argument for God until much later. But
what does that have to do with whether the argument
is sound or not. It's a version of a genetic fallacy.
Do the Church Fathers talk about calculus?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I understand.
Speaker 18: So what if someone says knowledge, I mean, logic is
purely material.
Speaker 4: What happens?
Speaker 5: Then?
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a its face absurd statement. How could
logic be matter? It's fool, It's stupid on its face.
Speaker 18: If they define it to all we know of logic
is the chemical reactions happening in our brains.
Speaker 2: Okay, how would that explain something in material and invariant.
Speaker 4: So what makes it immaterial and invariant?
Speaker 2: Why does it happening the nature of something? Because it
because matter is always in flux. For logic to be
to be lawlike means that it does not influx. So
how would equating it to something that is constantly changing
or in motion? How would that make it lawlike? It's
no longer lawlike if it's matter.
Speaker 18: So we can't follow logic as a rule unless it
is completely stationary.
Speaker 2: No, I'm just saying, but that, by definition of what
it is, if it's to be, for example, universal, it
cannot be equated to anything localized, like matter or a
specific collection of atoms or molecule. Furthermore, how do you
know that or how would you prove or demonstrate that
logic is equated to this or that molecule. It's it's
foolish on his face.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm.
Speaker 7: Okay, well that's that's where I end.
Speaker 2: Sure you know that was a great questions. Appreciate it.
Thank you, Laton Golden. You want to try again?
Speaker 5: Any how's it going?
Speaker 3: Sorry?
Speaker 4: So I think just a.
Speaker 19: Note here when you when you with me as a speaker,
I didn't hear you anything, so I think there and
sometimes when I when people join, I don't hear anything
for like the first few seconds of the conversation.
Speaker 5: So I don't know if that's how people are mistaken.
Speaker 15: When they don't unimmute, Okay, just not I.
Speaker 19: I uh so, I wanted to ask you about perennialism,
and you brought it, brought it up a little bit earlier.
Speaker 5: Is that relevant to the to the topics?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 19: So, I'm kind of interested in perennialism. I think there's
some interesting, like you know, notions to it, particularly if
you first approach it from a like a religious standpoint.
You know, if you approach it from Christianity as like
the framework for your perennialist view, and then what you
would do is look at other things that happen throughout
other religions and see if there's anything that's that's comparable.
Speaker 2: Why would you approach perennialism from a Christian vantage point?
I mean, in other words, you're already utilizing unjustified presuppositions
and assumptions that and by the way, Christianity is not
compatible with perennialism, so it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 15: To go that route.
Speaker 2: How do you know what the skeletal true religion.
Speaker 5: Is anyway, Yeah, you wouldn't. It would have to be
like something based.
Speaker 19: So I've always used like Christianity as the example, which
is what I would go with. I would say that
the evidence that's been presented so far for the religion
makes it a fairly strong candidate for being the true religion.
And then you'd look at something else and say, well, Okay,
this event happened.
Speaker 5: If this event happened, then.
Speaker 19: It was likely because God caused it to happen. But
I wouldn't say that other gods are equivalent. But you know,
if a miracle is described in another culture, another history,
or another religion, then you could attribute that to God.
Speaker 2: Well, but that wouldn't mean that perennialism is true because
perennialism is premised on the idea that there is a
higher metaphysical superstructure, which is the skeletal original religion of
which all the other religions are kind of like versions
or denominations. And so that's empathetical to the claims of Christianity.
So how what you just described that could be described
by just Christian theology, That wouldn't assessitate perennialism, gotcha.
Speaker 5: So okay, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 19: So it wouldn't necessarily be that, Like if you were
to assert something like other religions when they perceive miracles
done by what they attribute to a deity, they're like
taking that claim and attributing it to God in the Christian.
Speaker 5: Sense, would not be perennialism. That would be Christian theology.
Speaker 2: Basically, Yeah, that's compatible even within a traditional Christian framework.
But again the basic premise of perennialism is that metaphysics
as a discipline can demonstrate and show to us that
there is an ancient, primal, superstructor structure skeletal religion of
which all of today's religions are essentially denominations, and that's
not compatible with Christian Well, I.
Speaker 19: Guess see what that would entail is that like other
gods are somehow valid or or parts of.
Speaker 2: This superstructured Well, it's again just it's got a lot
of assumptions going on, one of which is, how do
you know or what is this supposed science of metaphysics
that's going to tell us what the superstructural religion is. Secondly,
it's not going to make sense with religions like say Christianity,
which make exclusive as claims to not be one denomination
amongst many world religions.
Speaker 5: You see, yeah, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 2: Okay, So then it becomes very it becomes very ad
hoc and arbitrary as to what the perennialists pick and
choose as the high brow, sophisticated elements of the religions.
That's the very So it's like I remember, always bring
this up with the perennialists. I'm like, okay, So I
go and I read Julius Evla in the Metaphysics of Sex,
and Eblis says that, oh, Crowley's butt sex is part
of the ancient traditional religion. Why oh, well, because it's
like esoteric and it's like high brow, what real is it?
Or is it just degenerous that you see? So it's
to like arbitrary. But but you see, but you see,
Ebl is not of true p and the true perennalists
are over here in this cult with it just becomes
all this arbitrary nonsense just exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 19: Yeah, awesome, we thanks man, I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Absolutely great questions. Yeah, I appreciate that, and we haven't
had anybody really asking perennialism, ques is it a long time?
So I appreciate that unmute dude, what's up? That's a
good name. It's just unmute, but so unmute.
Speaker 3: I have some.
Speaker 5: Questions about Calvinism. I wanting to know what your response.
Speaker 20: Would be to like the person that say, all that
the Father has given to me, none will fall.
Speaker 2: Away, well included amongst the collective group. Let me rephrase
that in the in the ultimate sense, in terms of
God's foreknowledge, God knows everybody who will be saved, and
those ultimately in the aschaeological sense, are in Christ and
will not be lost. But we also have many, many
texts that tell us that there are those who are
have tasted the heavenly gift, have been washed in the
waters of regeneration, you know, who have a new life
has sprung up from in them, and yet they withered
and died due to the of the world. We have
all of this terminology in the New Testament also about
being part of the Covenant and then being cut out.
And so this is what led the Calvinist position to
eventually formulate the visible invisible Church. Doctrine. So in other words,
you then go through all the passages of the New
Testament the Bible to pick out Oh, well, this one's
Jesus talking to the elect when he says, all those
you know, the none that the Father's given me will
be lost. Oh but these other pastors over here. This
is on the visible Church, which is all full of heresies,
and it's falling apart, and it's a big mess. But
the problem is that when you read, for example, Ephesians,
and this is I think one of the strongest defeaters
of Calvinism. When Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians,
he specifically addresses it to the visible church at Ephesus,
where Timothy is the bishop that he appointed. He says,
I laid hands on you, Timothy, and Ephesus, you are
the bishop of Ephesus. Paul does not write that letter
to the elect or to the invisible church. It is
written to the visible bishopric church at Ephesus, whom he
calls the predestined. So even predestination from Paul's epistles is
in Christ or is crystological. And so what Calvinists do
is that they reverse all of this everything in theology
begins with the divine decree. They don't even start with
trinity tynany theology. It begins with soteriology and the Divine decree.
And that's all backwards from orthodox Christology, the Christology I
think of the New Testament and the Church Fathers, which
begins with the Trinity and Christology. And so for us,
predestination is seen through the lens of Christology. It is
not seen first and foremost as the divine decree.
Speaker 20: So would you say everyone's elect, but just those who
like don't follow God they fall away.
Speaker 2: Basically, I don't think we have to say everyone is elect.
I think that the again, to use Paul's Christological imagery
and Ephesians, the church is the and he actually he
actually calls the visits.
Speaker 5: The church itself, not the people or no.
Speaker 2: The visible church at Ephesus. All of those baptized into
Christ in water baptism, not some mystical unknown baptism in
water baptism, are called the elect the predestinate.
Speaker 20: Okay, And so so God gives people to the Father
like so like you said, like everything's from the Father
of the Son and through the Spirit.
Speaker 2: So you said, God gives everything to the Father you
mean the Father gives everything to the son.
Speaker 20: Yes, so does that, and so then that would just
include the people coming to God too.
Speaker 2: Well, the Father gives the entire universe to the son everything, okay,
but specifically his body is the visible institutional church, which
is all of the collective elect people. But in the
eschatological sense, ultimately only those who persevere are are ultimately
the elect.
Speaker 20: Okay, And have another question, So about the about you
saying Christ would have to be predetermined, a predetermined person.
Speaker 2: Right, So Augustin Augustine, for example, when he speaks of predestination,
because he has that more you know, decree minded approach
to predestination, more of a he's not a Calvinist, but
he has more of a predestinarian, unconditionally elect type of view.
He has to then say that Christ in time and
space is a predestined, predetermined man. And the problem with
that is that very closely can be an historian.
Speaker 5: Are you cut out for a second.
Speaker 16: I didn't hear that other part.
Speaker 2: To call Christ a predestined man, as if the divine
decree is what is motivating and moving the actions of
Christ in time and space implies, I'm not saying Augustine
is an historian, but it can imply an historian type
of Christology because it is no longer the second person
in time and space, moving and acting in synergy with
his human nature, human will, and human energy. It is
a divine decree which predestines and predetermines what a human
man a human subject. I mean that's stories.
Speaker 20: Don't tell them to say that Jesus had free will too,
but is human will. He couldn't assume a human will.
Speaker 3: If he like.
Speaker 2: I'm not taking issue with what Calvinists claim in terms
of trying to maintain a semblance of free will and
two wills in Christ or any of that. But part
of the two wills in Christ doctrine is the teaching
of the six Econmenical Council that Christ also possesses two energies,
and that means that there is at all times in
Christ a synergy between the human will and the divine will.
Calvinists do not believe in synergy at all times because
they are mono energists monarchists. They believe in salvation, there
is a supplanting of the human human will buy the
divine will to make you a convert to regenerate you
in that spiritual mystical sense. So no, Calvinists do not
affirm that is proper to human nature to always have
a free will and a free human energy that synergizes
with the divine will. They reject synergism at all times,
and they believe in monogism, which by extension would be
the monothelite position that Maximus disputes with at the six
second Medical Council.
Speaker 15: Okay, thanks, yes, great questions, appreciate those.
Speaker 2: We are going to continue. I'm having a lot of fun.
I am going to Jamie unfortunately has the flu, so
you guys can pray for her. She's got sick, so
she's not able to be on coffee duty for me,
so I have to make my own copies, which is fine,
but that means I need to tell you about a
support excuse me, our patrons, ours, and I'll read a
couple super chats and then we'll talk about that, and
then we'll come back to we got still quite a
few people in line here in the chat. We've still
got ten people in line. Well, so don't go anywhere
if you've been waiting in line. I'm going to be
right back. But I got to make some coffee because
I'm start to get a headache. Jony h ten dollars
fifty seven cents. Jay, would you teach somebody to address
how would you teach somebody's dress? Moral critiques in the Bible,
for example, there was slavery. God commanded the wiping out
of Amalakites Canaanites. This comes up in all of the
big atheist debates. Can you expand on God doing this?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: So we just addressed this in a two hour livestream
with Kotel if you want to go watch our Deconstructing
Christianity talks. We dealt extensively with most of those objections.
And I'm not trying to deflect. It's just that it's
like one of those things that's been addressed probably one
hundred times, and so I'm not trying to be rude.
It's just we literally just did a two hour live
stream on that, and so it's right here.
Speaker 13: Let's see where do we do that? Am I scrolling
past it?
Speaker 2: We did one on my channel and one on his channel.
Where's it up?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 2: Here it is right Deconstructing My Christianity Jay Dyer in
Church of the Eternal Logos I think we did the
part two on his channel addressing these specific type of argument,
so you might watch that one and then go watch it.
I forget which one we did what, but that addresses
that issue there, Joni, Big Boss ten dollars? Have you
seen people hyped up to fight the cartels and they're
using clips from the movie to ignoring the part of
the movie where it shows that the only fight that
happens is under we only fight the ones that are
not under us control. That's funny. Socario is, of course
a great movie classic when it comes to this kind
of stuff. If you don't know, it's Benicio del Toro
and Emily Blunt, I think. And the whole idea is
that CIA has certain deals with certain cartels, and so
the cartels that they quote go after are the ones
that are not in league with CIA. So that's funny
that people are using that clips. Well, that's missing the
entire point of the movie, but it is interesting to see.
I don't know if you guys saw the Trump statements
the last couple of days, and it's like, you know.
Speaker 21: We're gonna start a committee, we're gonna have going after
all the cartels. We're gonna go after them all big time,
going after cartels. I'm gonna get rid of the Department
of Education wholesale. It's gonna go back to the States
the way really should.
Speaker 2: Have been the whole time.
Speaker 21: Really, if you're thinking about it, have you ever heard
of this scotched?
Speaker 2: I mean, every day is Trump's like putting out all
of these great sounding things. Let's pray that it really
does come to fruition. Oh, I got to go to
the bathroom, excuse me, and I got to make coffee.
I'm peeing. Don't worry, it's not going to be three hours,
so I will not be sitting on the toilet for
the next forty five minutes. All of that illness has passed,
if you were wondering. I was extremely sick for about
probably about twelve days, and thankfully that left. I don't
know what the heck that was. They said it was
a viral infection, and as you can see, I think
I did lose about maybe eight ten pounds. But the
good news is that that's not what Jamie has. So
Jamie just has like normal kind of flu. She has
nothing to do with the stomach. Whatever I had was
all stomach related, and it was legit insane. It was
the most sick I've ever been. I would not wish
that on anybody, and mainly because it was like, imagine,
for maybe three days you literally have to every hour
go to the bathroom, like all throughout the night. It
felt like some kind of get MO Guantanamo Bay torture
where they're like making me go to the bathroom every hour,
and it's just like, can I not catch like three
hours of sleep without getting up? It's just it was awful.
It was the It was the worst. And that's why
I didn't do the Brohemian Grove event. I was looking
forward to that. We're gonna have a lot of fun
doing that. It wasn't gonna be just cringe corps. We
were gonna do like pot live podcasts and you know,
joking around, and I mean this all kicked in when
I got there. It was crazy, like we went drove
over to Tampa or no around Orlando, excuse me, and
we went to this barbecue place. I had like two
bites of bar I was like, uh, I was already sick,
so it wasn't the barbecue. But man, I mean there's
some kind of stomach thing going around. If you if
you get this, you will know it was the worst.
But maybe because I have like weak, weak gut issues,
Like maybe maybe it was ten times worse for me
because I have you know, weak gut or something. But
man or man, it was just it was insane. The
worst thing was just not being able to get like
more than like a couple hours of sleep. That was
the worst part. Anyway, nobody wants to hear about that.
I guess it kind of is relevant though, because it's like,
what the heck was this? You know what I mean?
Like if it's a viral infection supposedly was what the
doctor said, like, then that must be going around and
if man, if that was like if a lot of
people got what I got, and I would shut the
country down. I mean I'm not literally saying that there's
a conspiracy to do a new you know, coof part two,
but good grief, dude, Like if you got this damn
gut AIDS or like you know, bubble guts it bobbla
that I had, I could see that shutting the country
down because like nobody can run anything, and all of
the sewage plants would be like bursting over exploding with diarrhea.
It'd be crazy. The country was shut down from damn diarrhea, dude,
bubble guts would be it would be the bubble gut
apocalypse of the country. We wouldn't be able to function.
All the water sewage plants were shut down right.
Speaker 22: Away, and then the the Russians and the Chinese whuld
come in and just like that Boomer neocon they called
in a minute ago, right, he would be vindicated because
he'd be like, yes, finally.
Speaker 2: Proof the Russians are going to take over the world.
KGB is going to the KGB is given us bubble
guts to bring in koof Part two Quasi Monkey two
dollars twenty two cents. In Washington, d C. There really
is full is a really full on Masonic architecture. Yeah,
like you didn't know this. Not trying to be mean,
I'm just saying, like, bro, you didn't know that Washington.
This is like conspiracy one on one dog Jamie has done.
She actually just recently did a talk on her rockfin
not from a conspiracy book, from a mainline history book, Okay,
on the Masonic architecture of Washington.
Speaker 5: D C.
Speaker 2: So this isn't even it's not even like a conspiracy theory.
Now there's a bunch of idiot conspiracy people who read
all kinds of gibberish nonsense into this. But no, this
is absolutely legit. And that's because they have like giant
Masonic monuments everywhere. If you've been to DC, I mean
there's Masonic stuff everywhere, like Masonic Temple, you know, the
the giant Masonic memorial right there to George Washington. This
is it. So here's the book Jamie read, Secret Architecture
of the Nation's Capital. It's not a conspiracy book. She's
a mainline history architecture book. So she just did a
talk on this book. By the way, I was proud
of her. She read like a five hundred page book
on this architecture. It's crazy. So when Jamie takes her chalk,
she becomes a machine, a reading machine. Very proud of her.
So yeah, absolutely, you bet it's Masonic. Raphael one Dollar,
could you explain your idea of ether? How does it
work as a connection to mind and matter? Yeah, I
mean I wrote about I wrote stuff on that like
ten years ago, when I was a lot more speculative
in my views. I'm definitely open to the possibility of ether.
As an element or some you know, subtle matter or
or the makeup of the noetic realm. I guess that's possible,
but I don't really have any arguments as to, you know,
like to like strictly prove that or whatever. I just
think it's very plausible, and so some of the essays,
like in the Metainaritius book, I think I talked about
ether and a couple of those. I caught him out
five dollars. I had a Protestant comment on one of
my videos about megachurches. They say, I'm dumb because he
studied church history and he wants to know why Orthodox
don't believe in laying on of hands. Excuse me, Like,
of course we do. What are you talking about? Like literally,
the laying on of hands occurs to ordain anyone in
the Orthodox clergy, so we do. Now, we don't believe
in it like he does, because he probably has some
goofy prozes an idea that like everybody has the power
to do charismatic gibb or jibb or whatever he thinks
Orthodox churches. As an Orthodox priest do believe in exorcism.
I thought you would find that funny. Yes, I do.
By the way, I mean, Orthodox churches do anointing for
the sick. So I remember hearing a remember when time
was as I was hearing a charismatic talk. I had
a brief phase for like a year of being a
charismatic when I was like nineteen, right, I was at
some charismatic church one time, maybe Assemblies of God. I
forget what, and I remember the preacher was talking about
how you know, the Book of James, the New Testament
talks about an anointing with oil, and no churches do
this except certain charismatic churches. And I remember, I think
that's pretty interesting. Yeah, the Baptist I go to the
Baptist church. Nobody gets annointed with oil. I'm trying to
think about. I mean, I guess Catholics kind of do
this with Christmation or confirmation, but I don't. Again, I
may just be misremembering my trad novus or days, so
you can correct me if I'm wrong about this. It's
been many years, but I don't think Roman Catholics do
anointing of the sick. Maybe I'm wrong, Maybe they do,
and I just don't remember. But I remember thinking as
a charismatic, like, oh yeah, that's a good argument. How
come nobody else does this? But then, of course orthodox
you fall D five dollars. Thank you so much, Lambda
three five. If you lived in Europe, would you move
away somewhere safe because of a Third World War? Bro
I've only been to Italy once and the UK once,
so I don't really know what it's like living in Europe.
I know FDA lived in Europe for a while, lived
in Ireland. Falcons have no issue with the Third World War.
I don't know what that means. Falcons to my football teams.
If you're in America here the Falcons, it's like a
football team or something. I don't know. I loved your
interview that you did with Britney Selner. Oh, thank you
appreciate that. Yeah, she's you should ask them because her
husband Martin and her you know, they are active in
conservative politics in Austria and they would be a much
better person to ask about, like whether it's worth staying
in Europe or not. But you know, I don't know.
I can say friend ninety nine two to one, whatever
happened to Ruche? I hope he's good. Yeah, I haven't
heard from Rush in probably a couple of years. I
think I texted him maybe two two and a half
years ago, and I'm assuming that he probably just chose to,
you know, live a quiet parish life, which is totally cool.
He probably felt like, uh, you know, social media stuff.
Maybe it was too much of a temptation or you
know whatever, it could be anything like that. I imagine I
haven't heard anything bad, but I don't know what's what
he's been up to. He kind of seemed to want
to be off the grid. But of course, you know,
if he if he wanted to reach out, he coul
always reach out to me. If he don't know if
he sees any of these podcasts, probably doesn't. He probably
just stays off the internet. But that would be my guess.
But I'm sure I haven't heard anything bad, so I
assume he's still just living quiet parishal life. Matthew fifty dollars,
Thank you, Jay. Two quick questions. Can you explain the
merit of the saints and why we as Orthodox rejected? Yeah,
actually we uh, we had a conversation about this the
other night with a bunch of our Orthodox buds after
the Icon conference FDA. Was there a lot of Roman
Catholics don't know that this is actually part of their dogma. Right,
it's not really stressed or emphasized nowadays by you know,
the Vatican superstructure. Trads are still kind of into it
because they're interested in plenary indulgences and obtaining indulgences by
this or that devotion or whatever. But so so, strictly speaking,
indulgences has to do with the temporal debts that are
accrued from our sins. So in the Roman Catholic system,
they're they're going to argue that, well, in the early Church,
there were these canonical penalties that if you committed this
with that sin, you would be banned from coming to
the Eucharist. So, for example, you cheated on your wife.
In the fourth century, it was pretty common that a
bishop would say you're not going to commune for five years,
seven years, something like this. Right, so serious sin, you're
banned from the chalice for X amount of years. At
that time, what would happen is that if people showed
visible signs of repentance, maybe they're on their knees outside
the church for the entire liturgy for a couple of
years or something like this. Pretty intense stuff. The bishop
could commute the sentence of you being banned from the chalice.
So you have a temporal debt you see of say
seven years that you can't come to the chalice. The bishop,
because he has the office of the keys, has the
ability to remit the temporal debt. So in the Roman
Catholic system, remember that every in a cruise both a
temporal and an eternal punishment. Mortal sends a crew an
eternal damnation punishment. So for example, you cheat on your wife,
you go to confession. In the Roman Catholic system, the
priest absolves you of the eternal debt. However, the priest
will prescribe for you a penance, and the penance is
intended to pay the temporal debt that you've accrued. Right,
and the Roman Catholics will say, well, look, in the
case of David, David cheated with Bathsheba, had his friend
Uriah essentially killed, and when David repented, God forgave him,
but the child would die, and so there was still
an outstanding temporal debt. Now, I think there as Orthodox
we could agree that there's temporal chastisements or something like this,
but we don't really obsess over this bizarre Ledger system
of debts, and it's like really weird tum Woodick type stuff.
And Rome totally went with this right. So eventually, by
the Middle Ages you get very elaborate systems of the debts,
and the pope has the authority to grant various indulgences
which pay the temporal debt should you complete these devotions. So,
for example, if you go to Rome, you will see
pretty much still in a lot of holy sites and places.
If you pray on your knees the Via dolrosa or
whatever at the Pious eleventh chapel, you get a plenary indulgence.
And so some pope, I don't know, Pious the twelfth
granted a plenary indulgence of praying the entire Via dolerosa
on your knees. Other devotions, however, you'll notice in track
Catholicism usually have some specific days, right the pope has
granted if you pray this litany you get a five
hundred day indulgence. And what that means is that if
you've sent a bunch and you've accrued ten thousand days
in purgatory as a temporal debt on top of your
eternal debts.
Speaker 4: If you go to.
Speaker 2: Confession and you confess and the eternal debts are forgiven you,
so you're not damned. If you were to die at
that moment, you would have a ten thousand day debt
to pay in purgatory. You see, this is how insane
the stupid system. Literally, this is how they think. And
you wonder why they're insane spurgs, Well, this is why
this is their system. Now it gets even more ridiculous
because in the Roman Galley system, the saints, in many
of them, didn't just live exemplary lives to where they
made the cut to get into heaven. They went above
and beyond the call of duty such that they contribute
to the merits of the saints. Now, the Roman Catholicist
will say, oh, but it's still all by grace, you see.
So they're gonna still say, oh, the caveat is it's gray. Still,
that's the merits of the saints. But the saints can
go above and beyond the duties such that there is
this vast treasury of the merits of the saints, the
works of super irrigation, it's called, and those can be
applied to you out of the treasury of the merits,
and the Pope, because he has office of the Keys,
has the ability to apply the treasury of the merits.
Now again, this is really only pretty much applying to
the temporal debts, So you can't like use the treasury
of the merits of the saints to like tap into that.
Oh if I give, you know, if I write a
check to Francis for five thousand dollars, this is going
to get me out of my eternal damnation in my
ten thousand days of purgatory. Right, it doesn't work like that,
and every Roman Catholic will be a very snarky know
it all to correct you if you think that. But
the absurdity of this is still there because it's like,
so wait a minute, So I go to confession and
I'm forgiven of the eternal damnation debts that I owe,
but there is this tabulation of fourteen teen thousand, four
hundred and thirty two days. Literally, I mean, we don't know.
This is the other absurdity that you don't actually know
what you owe, sort of like the Monty Python skit
of the Spanish inquisition, Right, they don't know what you're
being charged with and inquisited about but you are a criminal, right,
so you don't know how many days. It could be
one hundred and forty two thousand days in purgatory. It
could be seven hundred and thirty three thousand days in purgatory.
It could be four hundred and forty four days of
you being you know, frozen and burned for that. I mean,
it's just so preposterous. God is paid by you burning
in a spiritual created fire for the temporal debts. I mean,
no wonder people in this would leave this and become
ath if this is like atheism factory one ozer. This
is like early this is like ancient Megachurch atheism right here.
It's just so preposterous. And this is traditional Catholicism now
Today's Vatican and being very liberalized and Protestantized, they don't
talk about a lot of this because they know it's stupid.
It's preposterous. It's clown church to think this way. It's
the most absurd spurgatism five thousand Talmudic bean counting. I mean,
the tradcats who do this stuff, they go beyond the rabbis.
They're worse than the rabbis that they're always fussing about
this is how bad the tradcats are. This is so
stupid it is. Are you there? Do you want to
say something?
Speaker 4: What was the term?
Speaker 15: Came up with?
Speaker 7: Super abundant papist bitcoin for sale? You guys need to
invest right now?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's funny. I did a song about that, like
bitcoin in Heaven and how do I tap into the
bitcoin treasury in heaven? Like the do the Saints have
a bitcoin treasury of merits and heaven? Exactly?
Speaker 7: We've got Jeremy Bentham Hedonic bigcoin for you. We have
qu on Coin, we have papus ethereal super abundant bitcoin. Yeah,
we got it all, all all heretical bitcoin for sale right.
Speaker 2: Exactly. Now you think I'm joking, I'm not. You can
go look up in Roman Catholic theology what they mean
by works of super irrigation and this is the going
above and beyond the treasury or the call of duty.
And uh, this becomes a basis for the idea of
the treasury of merits of the Saints. And then because
the Pope has the keys, he can, as we said,
apply this to anybody who does these this. This is
so stupid. I can't believe people buy into this.
Speaker 15: It's so proposed how it's all formula.
Speaker 2: It's all mechanical formulaic.
Speaker 15: It's like balance the equation.
Speaker 7: And because when I was asking the Roman Catholic bishop
up here about I think the students were but it
was interesting your response that, oh, well, you know your
sins are forgiven, but the equation.
Speaker 15: Has to be balanced out in purgatory.
Speaker 5: I'm like, this is great.
Speaker 7: I think the analogy was your neighbor forgives you for
breaking the window, but now you've got to pay for
it and make it right. So there's like some type
of cosmic formula that you have to enter in the
right numbers and everything has to be balanced out.
Speaker 15: Odd, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was just trying to look for in the
Catholic encyclopedia with their discussion of now note you'll see
that they do not various sections of Denzinger. So this
is part of Catholic dogma. This is not like I
don't have to believe it. I don't have to believe
that I'm a Catholic, and I don't have to believe it.
Yes you do. Now maybe if you're a Novisorio Catholic,
you believe whatever you want. But if you're a traditional Catholic,
you do have to believe in the works of super irrigation,
the merits of the same. In other words, if you
deny this, you'll be denying the idea of the merits
of the saints, basically the teachings of Trent, because the
Reformers objected to these things. You see, this is I'm
not saying that Martin Luther's right about everything, but Martin
Luther is objecting to this idea, and so his answer
running to the opposite extreme of you know, solo fid
a justification by faith alone is an opposite extreme. But
what he's objecting to is itself just completely stupid. This
is crazy, and I think everybody can kind of sense this.
I mean, just look at the way Jesus talks about
how the Pharisees treat religion. Is this not exactly what
the Roman Catholics are doing with this stupid treasury of
merits and works of I mean, as obvious it is anyway.
So Orthodoxy does not see the relationship between the believer
and Christ as this talmudic being being counting type of thing.
We see it as a relationship, as a relationship of
love and what relationship of love between God and man
or between man and spouse, right, the analogy of the
church and Christ as a bride would would imagine treating
your wife like this, and we would. There's a lot
a lot of spergs out there that would actually do this,
like keep a ledger of what my wife owes me
four hundred and thirty two thousand good works and actions
of service this week, because I have tabulated it all
and uh she it's like just crazy crazy, But that's
how these people think, like they actually think, like I'm
going to keep a tabulation of like wife duties that
she owes me four hundred and thirty two service actions.
I mean you see how you see how for a relationship,
How dumb that is, how just it's just not it's
it's unnatural and it's inhuman. It's like the way robots think.
And this is why Spurgs love track Catholicism because it's
a perfect religion for like robot kids, little roboboys who
think that the world is a giant algorithm or something. Anyway,
do we consider code, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 15: Do we consider flow chart?
Speaker 2: Yeah, with a flow chart. There's that great meme that
somebody made a long time ago about making fun of
track Catholicism, like it's a Dungeons and Dungeons role playing
game with all these like crazy, like a giant chart.
It was a great meme. I can never find it.
But do we consider that those are non orthodox to
have faith? Well, we don't judge individuals, but we do
speak of their confessions in general as being heterodox. Right,
so we would say, oh, that charismatic churches or beliefs
systems are not even properly speaking, churches, their parachurches, their sects.
They may have some things right, and we certainly can't
say that the Holy Spirit has no relationship or no
work in those people, but we can't say that they
are part of the church or that they have the faith.
If God has the means, and he does. God has
the means by which he can unite people in non
normal ways to the Body of Christ, which is the
Orthodox Church. He can do that, but we're not told
how he does that or when he does that, and
we can't de facto say, which would be the accumunous mistake. Oh, well,
they're all Christians too, and they're all part of the church.
That would be a violation of orthodox ecclesiology. Mom's world
should have been e Mom's world. Five dollars? Here's bitcoin?
Should I buy bitcoin or Funko pops? Hmm, tough investment
decision making their sit I'm gonna go ahead and say
that the currency of the future number one garbage pail kids,
number two Funko pops. So bitcoin going to zero, Funko
Pops taking over the world. That's a joke, by the way,
for somebody believes me, Joseph, five dollars. Is it true
that bitcoin is a bad investment because there's a finite
amount of it? No, that's precisely what you want in
terms of an asset. Every monetary system requires it to
be in some way rare, because if something is ever
present everywhere, it has no value. Right, So sand sand
is not a very good money system because there anybody
can go get sand. Gold worked for a very long
time because gold is fairly rare. What about quantum computing
breaking the encryption? This is all in the realm of
theoretical stuff. And you can go watch many videos by
bitcoin experts responding to the quantum computing objection. This is
all sci fi stuff. We don't even know if this
can really ever occur, and presumably also the encryption can
evolve and get better as computing gets better. So no,
I don't necessarily think that that would happen. By the way,
if quantum computing breaks bitcoin encryption, we got much much
bigger problems than Bitcoin. I mean, that's essentially going to
mean that, like all the ICBMs or I mean, the
whole world is going to collapse if that happens. It's
not going to be just a monetary problem. Why do
people say this, Well, people say this because it's called fud.
Fud is fear and certainty and doubt. And if you've
been into crypto for many years or even to the
earlier days of bitcoin, you'll notice that the same fud
has recycled since the beginning of bitcoin. And what are
the fuds that we always hear? The government will ban it,
it uses too much energy and it's bad for the environment.
Quantum computing will crack it and will be destroyed. Bitcoin's
going to zero because of the Ponzi scheme and a scam.
It's not best on anything real. China is going to
destroy and take over bitcoin. What else is the fud?
There's some secret thing that the n sake and CI
created it. They really want bitcoin because it's a phase
before the CBDC. All of these are really stupid arguments,
and I've heard almost all of them since I first
so in twenty fifteen, when I was first exposed to bitcoin,
I heard these dumb arguments and fell for them, I thought,
and I even wrote an article back in twenty fifteen
against bitcoin because I just assumed, with my default conspiracy setting,
oh this has to be blah blah blah blah blah,
and I utilize a lot of these dumb arguments. That
is just the normy fud going around now. Strictly speaking, yes,
this is a genetic fallacy. But just for the sake
of practicality, who has been saying all of this this fud?
Oh the establishment? Bill Gates pushes all this stuff. Hillary
pushes all this We just saw no Yevol Harari like
a month ago.
Speaker 23: Bitcoin is a currency based on distrust. We don't need
we need a currency based around trust and control.
Speaker 2: Literally, you've got no Yevol Harari saying hates bitcoin. Literally,
Bill Gates is, I don't really wish be a cooin.
Hotn't be an invented at all. I wish you would
go back and get a coin. I mean, it's not
rocket science. Not everything is six hundred and sixty six
dimensional chess. Guys. The biggest mistake a lot of people
in our sphere make is overthinking and over analyzing and
over conspiracy theorizing. Yes there's conspiracies, Yes there's geopolitical machinations,
and foreign countries do espionage. Yeah, of course, But for
so long I've seen people in the conspiracy fere sphere
make dumb mistakes over and over and over. Because everything
is now a conspiracy. Everything is part of the over
It's a game within a game within a game. With again,
they're all everything's a conspiracy. They're trying to trick you.
And this is just simply not true. It's not reality.
Not everything is planned and gained by a super cabal.
Not everything is faking gray. It's just dumb. It's also
two forms of fallacies the way, which we've covered many times.
It is the gambler's fallacy in the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Those two fallacies are omnipresent in the conspiracy sphere. Just
because something happened in the past does not mean that
this new event is part of that. It may be,
but you understand that that's a fallacy to assume that
because event occurred after other events and there's similar patterns,
therefore necessarily this new event is those other events. It
may be or it may not be. Just because Michael
Saylor is involved in crafting some paper in the nineties
at MIT about a digital dollar, it does not follow
from that that Bitcoin is that and is a creation
of the CIA, because guess what, Bitcoin is not a
digital dollar. And I'm not dissing my friend who is.
I don't at all fault him because we all have
heard and I fell for a lot of these flood
arguments years ago. But then when I figured out that's
a false equivalence. Bitcoin is not a digital dollar. It
has some similarities as an electronic currency, but it is
not a digital dollar. The dollar is fiat, and Bitcoin
is not a fiat digital dollar. It is a hard
asset based in mathematics and the value of the network.
And if you don't think networks have value, then why
do you think Facebook is valued at its value? I mean,
what is Facebook worth? Like some outrageous create I'm not
saying Facebook's good. I'm just saying you don't think networks
have value. This is so stupid. Even Peter Schiff still
still says this bitcoin is not worth anything because it's
not grounded in anything. It's abstract. You don't think a
global network of foul of computer nodes is valuable? Is
Twitter valuable? Is Facebook valuable? Is Facebook physical? This is
how boomers think.
Speaker 23: It ain't physical, It ain't got no value.
Speaker 2: Do you have Apple stock? Well, Apple got computers, Yeah,
but what about Facebook? Oh and it's so weird too,
because even dollars like people have apps that they have
their bank on, they have their boomers have their bank app,
and they're fine with doing banking apping on their phone.
There's no exchange of physical dollars. And they're over here
saying it ain't physical, it ain't tied to nothing. Look, yeah,
but your bank app is not even physical anymore and
tied to anything. I just somebody ask for money on
Zel the other day and I sent them. It was like,
there's no actual physical transference. It's from one app bank
to another app bank whatever. Now there might have been
some actual eventual transference, like electronically through the Swift system
or whatever. I understand that, but I'm saying that for
all intents and purposes, in our phone to phone interactions,
there's no physical transition of anything. I mean, the phone
is physical. But you know what I'm saying. So this
is very bizarre that like these really low tier arguments,
as literally bitcoin hits almost one hundred thousand dollars and
people are still recycling, parroting, and chirping the mainstream media
arguments from ten years ago. Guess what the mainstream media
lied to you about everything else, and they're lying to
you about bitcoin two, because haven't they told you? Yeah, exactly,
how about how they told you? For the mainstream media
have told you since the beginning, the bitcoin is a
scam going to zero. And every one of these horrible
boomer economic experts, whether it's Warren Buffett or the worst
of all is that Dan Paygna Dude or Cramer, all
of those people are like the worst and everything they've
said is wrong, and people still believe these people even
though they've been immaculately wrong for ten years. Anyway, go ahead,
if you had something.
Speaker 7: Well, I thought it was funny that so if you
were a materialist and critiquing bitcoin because it's not tangible.
Speaker 15: Wouldn't that be self defeating because everything's material?
Speaker 2: That's an interesting Could we make a mathematical argument from
bitcoin against atheism? Maybe you could. It's just that would
be an interesting Joe's I actually did a podcast a
few years ago where I said bitcoin is like neoplatonic money.
I was making an argument that it's like that. Joe's
the five dollars? Is it? Excuse me? The rest of
his question was, I don't invest in bitcoin because people
say all these bad things about it. Well, if you're
going to go with what all the people and the
normies say, do they have a very good track record
in the past ten years? What's the normy track record?
Just we don't forget logic and all of the abstract
philosophical arguments. Do Normies have been wrong on everything? So
why are you going to listen to normies on economic advice?
Speaker 1: Ah?
Speaker 2: By the way, I'm not I am not an economic advisor.
Johann Vanderschut, John Vandershoot five dollars? What were Roman Catholics
taught that made them believe that it was all the
other patriarchs that left the church and it wasn't Rome
leaving the church. Why would they say that, Well, that's
a great question, and I think the answer is that
precisely when we get to the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries,
as even the Roman Catholic scholars have pretty much admitted now,
the Unionate scholars and even Kongar Dvornik Sasinski was Roman
Catholic before becoming Orthodox, they've all pretty much said, Look,
those centuries are the key pivot centuries, because that's where
we get the growing reforms, That's where we get it's
almost a century of German nepotism, state installed popes. Did
you hear me? All you Roman Catholics who think that
orthodoxy of csero papism, were you not aware of the
entire century where German kings installed popes? Hello? Is that
cesero or papalocerism? No, they just ignore all that. They
don't even know about that. So in those key centuries
is when you have the rise and prominence of certain
forgeries about the papacy. You have right around that time
the Dictatus pape. A couple of centuries later you get
unimsanktem all of which are premised on this idea that
everything is centered around the Bishop of Rome. So even
though ironically, as Sashensky's book admits, by I think, I
want to say, what is it? Maybe the eight eight hundreds.
Eventually Rome at the seventh that Geminical Council and later
Rome for a while accepts pentharchy. Did you know that
they had no problem with the ecumenical councils talking about
pentarchy and that although the Bishop of Rome might have
a primary place amongst that pentarchy, he still must operate
together in a sonoda way with the pentarchy and by extension,
with the other bishops. But by the time we get
two centuries nine, ten to eleven, that idea is gone.
You get Schizm ten fifty four. Then you get the
Gregorian reforms, and this is unanimously admitted to be even
in the Alexandria Document of the Vatican. This is the
shift period when the Franco Latin papal Church develops down
its own line of the papal autocracy, and that just
further evolves until you get to Vatican One. But even
in the West, it's still not manifesting as the Vatican
One view yet, because you have at the Council of
Constance three rival and what decides this I counsel, Hello,
Roman Catholics, that's not Vatican one. And I've talked to
this I can't tell him that. Traads, I've talked to them.
They just brushed that. They just handwave this. Oh well yeah,
but uh that's what they had to do, what they
had to do. I thought Vatican one is the case,
and then they'll just shift up the They'll just move
the goalpost and say, oh well, but it evolved. Okay,
So it evolved or was it always the case? It
was the Vatican one view true at the time of constance.
When an ecumenical council decides who the fake popes are
and who the real pope is, this is like, this
should be so obvious to these people that this is
a ridiculous system. Anyway, Noah of Art one dollar, rather
than comparing Christ to Joseph Smith, why didn't you just
bring up Luke sixteen sixteen Bro? I was about to,
but I don't know that guy did not give me
the impression that that was going to go anywhere. And
if you saw the previous debate, what I had, what
I had with another Mormon, the whole debate was over
Luke sixteen sixteen. I think that would have been more effective. Well,
I thank you for your one dollar super chat to
tell me what is the most effective way to debate.
But I sensed that it wasn't even worth going there.
But as you could if you remember, if you were watching,
I had Luke sixteen sixteen pulled up on the screen
when that guy came back. But I don't think that
that guy was even listening to anything I said. And
so at a certain point, if you've done enough debates,
you get a sense for the spirit of the person
that you're talking to. That guy wouldn't shut up. He
kept talking and yapping every time I try to say something.
He was not listening to what I was saying, and
he actually shifted, he actually changed his position. So rather
than going into the texts, I think it was actually
a pretty devastating point. I'm not sure it's trying too
my horn, but I'm saying, look, if he started the
debate by saying, Joseph Smith is not mandating that you
believe the extra sections of Genesis fifty that he added.
It's just kind of him being creative with saying, hey,
maybe I'm predicted in Genesis and then by the later
stage of the debate he says, well, maybe Genesis is
predicting Joseph Smith. That's changing your argument and changing the
goalpost once you've been nailed down on the critique of
the first position. You can't do that in a debate
like that's obviously a violation of the rules. You can't
just change your position in the middle of the debate,
and he obviously did that, and everybody in the chat,
I think could see that. Jrd on ten dollars. I
attended Oca Perish in a state that's very liberal. The
first liturgy I attended, the bishop spent an hour spoken
about sympathy. Excuse me, spent an Hour's wait, the bishop
spent an hour speaking against sympathy for modernism or humanism.
So it really depends on the actual local clergy. Yeah,
then that's what I told that guy. So it's good
to hear that perhaps at least some of the clergy
are vocally at least anti Ecumenists. But you have to
keep in mind too that unfortunately we're in an era
where even if a cleric is vocally saying the right things,
we have a lot of naive people who don't know
what bureaucracy does and how bureaucracy operates. And I'm not
accusing anybody specifically. I'm just saying that you will learn this,
which is it's called double speak. A lot of bureaucrats
and people in positions of power, shocker, will say one
thing and do another. I know that that sounds crazy,
but even clerics can vocally say good things while they
do something else. You're going to learn that if you're
new to all this mean gene five dollars, chef them up, bro,
cook these cults. Okay, this is back when we're talking
the Mormon dude, no of our one dollar. When you
were talking to that guy or the talks guy about circumcision,
could you not say that the reason for circumcision was
to distinguish Israel from other nations. Well, again, circumcision begins
with Abraham. So it's a tribal national covenant, and yes,
that's obviously part of it. The other reason that it's
now baptism is that it is not other than what
is required of knowing, there's no need for that distinction. Yeah,
so it's the covenant is expanded beyond the nation state,
which is the very point I made to that guy
me and Gene five dollars Boomer core. This is when
the Neokon boomer called in anonymous ten dollars jay, I said,
someone said that God suffers. Wait, God, I heard someone
say God suffers the most, being that he has to
watch his creation see all cruelty killing and rejecting him.
But God can't suffer. Does sperience need desire? Can you
help me understand?
Speaker 20: Well?
Speaker 2: The Bible is written in what we call anthropomorphic language,
so it utilizes human terms and concepts that are created
to tell us about the uncreated. So it is true
and correct to say that God does not experience the passions.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Scripture says God is not like a man, that he
changes or fluctuates or whatever. We know this in Christology too,
that the six Secum Medical Council teaches that Christ doesn't
possess a gnomic will, and he doesn't possess a will
because he's not a created hypostasis. He's a divine hypostasis
with human nature. And so the mystery, though of the
incarnation is precisely that the divine person of the word
really did become incarnate and really did undergo human things
in a human way as a divine subject. So while
the divine nature is impassable, the son of God really
did step into human nature, and he really does love us.
There really is a divine energy of love, and it
really does interact with us. But we don't say that
God in his nature is changeable, or that in the
incarnation that the divinity died, right, the divine nature didn't die.
The death was experienced by the divine subject of the
word undergoing the severance of his human soul from his
human body. And so that protects the impassability of God.
And at the same time, in the Orthodox way also
it is really and truly one of the Holy Trinity
undergoing a crucifixion. But that refused Monophicites, by the way,
because if the Monophysite conclusion is true and Christ is
at terti and quid, then you do have to say
that the Divinity underwent, the Divinity itself died, and that
would actually, like Muslims, would actually have a good argument
against like the Monophysites. MKG fifty dollars. I'm sorry that
I couldn't be more prepared to discuss the topic. Well,
I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings. It's just that
in order to cover this issue of what has been
fulfilled in the Old Testament, like circumcision and elements of
the ceremonial law, it's very necessary and fundamental that you
read books like Hebrew Hebrews. My main concern is how
the Church discriminates between what continues and what doesn't. Well. Again,
the principle of typology and fulfillment can only be ascertained
when you are grounded in the whole texts. So if
you haven't read Hebrews, you're not going to be able
to know some of the key arguments about our hermeneutic
of the Old Testament. And that's precisely what's presented in
the Book of Hebrews. So that's why I directed you
to that. I would like to continue discussion in the future. Yeah, absolutely, MKG.
And again anything I said to you is not to
hurt you, but literally to tell you absolutely on this topic,
must read the Book of Hebrews. Thirty four JDN ten dollars.
I need more screaming street vendors. Actually, when FDA was here,
we were walking downtown and there was a Protestant evangelical megaphone.
You're all going to help kind of dude out there.
We just did not have the energy to go.
Speaker 5: We didn't.
Speaker 3: It was it was tempting, wasn't it were like should.
Speaker 15: We go over Yeah?
Speaker 2: We talked about like filming it, you know, like walking
over there and trying to but I just I didn't
have the energy for it.
Speaker 24: And did you see the lady behind us was like
she was like totally for us doing that that And
she was like, can you imagine like trying to convert
people like that guy? She said, and made some funny
comment behind us.
Speaker 2: Antonio's five dollars. Okay, thank you so much, he says,
a private message there. Appreciate that. Hang your Head Tom
Dilly one hundred and fifty dollars. Whoa, But we got
the biggest fat of super Chat tonight from Hang your Head,
Tom Dilly, he wins.
Speaker 15: That's a great song, by the way.
Speaker 2: He says, I've been listening since twenty twenty one. I
was a Protestant pastor with degrees and biblical studies. This
led me, i think he's saying, to become a progressive
lib Your work with others was instrumental in helping me
find my ability into thinking about orthodoxy and philosophy and beyond.
Keep going, my man. Thanks, Well, hey, that's great. I
don't think it seems probably I would say that's probably
pretty rare, and of course God that's God's grace absolutely,
but probably pretty rare for somebody to be a liberal
Christian progressivist pastor who would become Orthodox, father, he can.
Have you heard of this very much?
Speaker 15: Sorry?
Speaker 2: Say, somebody who like had biblical studies degrees and became
like a liberal progressive Protestant pastor to become Orthodox. What
have you heard of that very much?
Speaker 4: Oh? That's interesting.
Speaker 16: I don't know.
Speaker 2: If I have like you, I would just beg you,
Tom Dooley, please don't bring the liberal progressivism and orthodoxy
like yeah, that's the worst thing that I'm not accusing you,
but like the worst thing that converts to quantum carbon dating.
There we go. Three dollars. Did you see the Dan
Belsarian interview with Heere's Morgan? Yes, well I saw the clip,
so that is, obviously I think going viral. I think
most people by now are probably pretty maybe not in
the normy world, which I'm sure that clip is reaching
the normy world where they're discussing Obviously, what the Talmud
says about Jesus and Mary. I learned about that in
two thousand and six, so I've known since two thousand
and six what things the Talmut speculates and basically what
it is. It's like, you know, the way the Talmut is,
it's like all these rabbis in the commentaries debating this
or that text, and so you'll have some statement and
then you get like fifty rabbis in their various debates
and opinions. So if you bring this up to like
rabinical Jew, they're going to say, oh, this is just
the rabbis debating. Okay, well, but still like, obviously we're
not supposed to say what the Talmud says about Jesus
and Mary because that's not very appropriate applicable to today's
normy speak. Right, So I guess it's good to see, uh,
this stuff being discussed and to see that kind of
thing being out there, because more and more more the
Norman world doesn't know any of this stuff obviously, right.
The problem is that Dan Bazarian is there with Tate's
and all these other people pushing Islam. So I don't
want to see people seeing all of that stuff being
talked about and then them thinking and that's just happening,
especially many young people. Then they're like funneled into Islam
because they think Islam is based and it's not. It's
just and and one of these young podcaster guys is
like twenty, you know, he called into Sam schmun the
other night, right. He's like, oh, I've been watching Tate
and Bazari and all these dudes, and like Islam's bay
bays and trad dude, and then like you have to
like work through all this bull crap. No, it's not. Yeah,
Islam is not tried and base. It's a crazy cult
ed faith. Before fortune five dollars. I tried to call in.
It would not let me on your space seemingly your
space alone.
Speaker 23: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I wasn't banned. I didn't ban anybody. I did boot
the Mormon dude. The only person I booted today was
a Mormon dude. I want to ask you about the
kingdom Keys kingdom, Keys kingdom. I don't know what that means.
You mean just that in the In our view, the
idea is that the Christ promised to the apostles the power,
ability and authority to govern the Church through what we
call the office of the Keys, or the exercising of
the bishopric, the episcopate. So that includes things like the sacraments,
you know, having a jurisdiction over which a bishop has authority,
you know, being involved in make church rules and laws,
canlaw in the synods, and so forth, preaching the Gospel.
These are all elements of the exercise of the Keys.
So that's the Orthodox view. Jesus doesn't just give that
to Peter. He first says it to Peter, and then
in Matthew eighteen he says it to the entire college
of the apostles of the exact same thing that he
says to Peter. So in the Orthodox view, we don't
see that as like just given to Peter and only
had by bishops in commune with Peter in Rome. We
see that as a collegial reality. And so I'm not
sure what you mean about that the keys supersede, Paul.
I don't know what that means. Nick, twenty five dollars.
I'm here for your theology and not twenty eighteen level
bitcoin platitudes. Well you don't have to be here, so
thank you for the superchat. But I see this as
a massive vindication of all of the hate and opposition
that I've gotten from people like yourself who don't like
bitcoin or or butt hurt that they missed out. So
you don't have to be here on this channel if
you don't want bitcoin platitudes. Ben one dollar. Hey, can
you let me talk about the LDS Church. I'm a member, Ben.
Let's see, so let me see if there's a Bin.
Is there a Ben in the chat? Yeah? Yes, okay, Ben,
we will go to you. I'm gonna let you hear
a brief message from the sponsor. I'm going to go
T T in the little girls room and I'm going
to make a coffee, so we will be right back.
I think I've gotten to all the super chats, so
say we've got one more super chat. Lavid Dinch sad
of David Lynch one dollar fifty three. How do people
who are very young invest in bitcoin since they missed
the train? Well, I believe, and I can't tell you
what to do, but again, just to make this really quick, like,
I believe that bitcoin will really be kind of the
reserve currency of the future. We've already seen, you know,
being megapro Bitcoin now RFK Junior helping Trump to go
in that direction. Microsoft is now having their board members
and they give me their shareholders vote on whether Microsoft
wants to hold bitcoin on the balance sheet. You've got
other corporations moving into it. The big hedge funds are
already buying into it. So we're already in the phase
now where all that era of the government's going to
ban bitcoin. We're past that. It's already achieved institutional acceptance
and adoption, so it's not going to work to ban
it that. We're past that phase that was the danger
of like five years ago. So that being the case,
this is why as nation states, and we're already at
the phase where nation states are adopting it. We've got
three nation states now openly discussing and adopting it. That
will only continue most likely in my view. So the
question isn't am I too late for bitcoin? The question is,
I mean, will we see a the next if we
have a crash, if the crashes fall, the next one
will have another crash. But if the crash, the next
crash whenever that is maybe June July August, when if
it follows the previous cycles, the crash will be to
the sixty K level, because most crashes are the peak
of the previous cycle. And if you don't know this stuff,
you need to learn about the bitcoin four your cycle. Uh,
you need to learn about the holvings. And a lot
of this is like actually just basic market stuff, right.
The stock market has a cycle to it. Markets have cycles.
Crypto bitcoin also has cycles, So you need to go
learn that stuff. If if you're at the level of
working class guy, young guy wanting to get into it.
The best thing that people do. I can't tell you
what to do. It's called dollar cost averaging. Look up
DCA and figure out for you what the best way
to DCA is. If you do choose to do that,
I can't tell you what to do. I'm not a
roaster financial advisor. But I believe that we will only
continue to see large scale adoption of more corporations. It's
only a matter of time before Apple and the other
big Amazon, other big corporations are openly into bitcoin. Other
nation states will begin to have reserves. You understand, Trump
and Senator Loomis are talking about having a strategic national
reserve a bitcoin. Now, whether you think that's good or bad,
that's going to blow up the price. Okay, so we're
going to one hundred, one hundred and fifty two hundred
maybe even the cycle. In other words, we could see
two hundred k bitcoin this cycle. Now that's gonna be
probably the top, and so it will come back down
the crash if it has a mega crash, which it
usually does. We usually do see a big crash after
the blowoff top as it's called. It may crash down
to sixteen to ninety. I will say this, I don't
think we'll ever see fifty thousand dollars bitcoin again. I
really don't, because we're past all those phases. That means,
in my view, if you look up, if you're not
familiar with this, you need to be familiar with Plan B.
You need to be familiar with the stock to flow chart.
This is all bitcoin basics. Everybody should be If you
followed me for a long time, you should be familiar
with these things. Plan B Stock to flow. Stock to
flow gives you Plan b's model based around the previous
cycles and the previous halvings. Every bitcoin cycle is based
around the four year halving cycle. If you're not familiar
with that, you need to go learn all these things
and as you can see going back to the inception
of bitcoin in twenty ten, it has followed the metrics
of Plan b's model pretty close. Right, it's a little
behind