Speaker 1: All right, what's up? We're live now. This is an
odd time. I don't know. Maybe it's too early. People
don't have their debate testicles dropping yet too early in
the morning. They're too childlike they just came out of
the womb at the dawn of the morning. I don't
know what that means, but welcome everybody. It's an open debate,
and as you guys know, that means that nobody will
ever ask questions on the topic or stick to the topic.
Speaker 2: They will talk about.
Speaker 1: The dumbest stuff you've ever heard of, and they will
not know how to unmute themselves because that's always what happens.
So there's no point in even talking about it. We
got one person already. The topics, as you guys can see,
are Catholics, Muslims, Protestant, Atheist, Arian, Hebrew Roots, Joe's Witnesses, Mormons,
cult sex, black, Hebrew Israelites, whatever we can get our
hands on today. It's all on the table.
Speaker 3: I have.
Speaker 1: There's a black man, atheist, black science atheist man who's
talking smack. Hopefully he'll come. Usually when I put sneak
O and Tate in the title, it brings Muslims, but
I don't know. I don't know what we're gonna get today.
We've got row row dig.
Speaker 4: What's up, dude, gotta I'm mute, man, Come on, I'm mute.
Speaker 1: Roe dig Do you want to all? You have to
unmute yourself? Okay, whatever, better than you. Here's the guy
talking smack. Here we go. What's up? He's gonna set
it straight?
Speaker 3: Man? You just you just predict that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what's up? What's up?
Speaker 3: Doll? You doing?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 3: Yeah? What how's it going?
Speaker 2: God?
Speaker 1: You're gonna set as straight to disprove the existence of God?
Speaker 3: Is that?
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 6: I'm I'm I'm from the Church of Letter the Saints,
So I'm a Mormon.
Speaker 2: Are you trolling? You're joking?
Speaker 3: No, I'm like, I'm dead ass, I'm like a Mormon.
Speaker 1: So like you sound like a black dude though they
don't really like black dudes and Mormonism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but like you know, I just try to be different.
I'm just trying to be Like.
Speaker 1: You're trolling. You said that, you said follow the you
know what I mean? Uh huh, Yeah, you're troulling. You
said that you didn't believe in gods, and now you're
a Mormon.
Speaker 2: You're joking.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, So how can you prove God's.
Speaker 1: Existence the transcendental argument?
Speaker 3: Okay, so can you elaborate on it?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Without God's existence, it would be impossible to give a
philosophical justification for one's worldview. That's how tag goes.
Speaker 3: Aren't worldview subjective?
Speaker 1: No, I mean that would be a self defeating position
if you believe that worldviews were all subjective.
Speaker 3: So you don't think we would have different worlds.
Speaker 1: Having different worldview doesn't. That doesn't entail that they're all subjective.
That's a non secutor.
Speaker 3: So do you think all world views are the same?
Speaker 1: No, at route, everybody has a worldview, but not everybody
has the same worldview. But that doesn't mean that everybody's
worldviews are the same.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so they're not the same.
Speaker 1: Right, But that doesn't entail relativism. So you understand that
relativism will be a false conclusion from the fact that
we have our own world views because there are things
that we all share in common. Right, So, for example,
you've got to have you got to have some account
of knowledge or ethics in your worldview. So the question is, well,
who has a consistent, coherent account of knowledge and ethics.
Let me give another example of why would be impossible
to say that worldviews are all subjective. If worldviews were
all subjective, you couldn't say all worldviews are subjective because
that would be a non subjective truth claim. That would
be an objective truth claim. Okay, so it would be
self defeating.
Speaker 3: But how does that link to God?
Speaker 1: Well, because if we're going to I have to give
an account for our worldview, and that what I believe
a worldview is is some basic commitments within the domains
of epistemology, which is the doctrine of knowledge, ethics are
right and wrong, and metaphysics what exists and what doesn't.
So those three things make up a worldview, and we
either have an account for that worldview or we don't.
If God exists in the Christian worldview, then there's a
reason and a basis for believing in the basic principles
of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. If there's no God, there
is no basis for having knowledge at all. You could
justify your knowledge claims.
Speaker 6: Okay, but well, I could go into all of that,
But how do you link it to God? You could
link it to anything. How do you specifically just link.
Speaker 3: It to God.
Speaker 1: Well, not anything can give a justification. So there's all
kinds of things I could say therefore potato chips, right,
But potato chips doesn't provide any justification for the principles
that I'm utilizing, like logic, like reasoning, like mathematical principles,
et cetera. All those things that are necessary to have
a coherent worldview. They're not justified by me just saying anything.
There's some kind of being that gives an account for
them and grounds them, and that's precisely what God does.
God is the type of being who would ground and
give an account for those types of things.
Speaker 6: But again, you're just assuming that there's a being that's
accounting for that.
Speaker 1: I'm not just assuming it. I'm making the argument. It's
a transcendental argument, has an actual form to the argument.
Speaker 3: It's a circular argument, because how do.
Speaker 2: You prove that that's circular?
Speaker 1: The circular the argument is proven by the impossibility of
the of the contrary. That's a reductio argument.
Speaker 6: No, it's not, because there could be other possibilities. You
just don't know of any and you just assume it's God.
There could be other possibilities could there.
Speaker 1: Be there can't be other possibilities because it's set up
in a disjunct of it in an either or you.
Speaker 3: Said they can't or can't there.
Speaker 1: Cannot be because the argument that because because there's a
limited number of options whereas to where you can go
in terms of a worldview, for example, No, there's not that.
Speaker 3: So you wouldn't be able to tell me if.
Speaker 1: You It doesn't require omniscience to make that statement. I
can make that statement because there's a limited number of
places that you can go to begin any worldview. Any
there's not an infinite number of.
Speaker 6: Story There is not an infinite to what you could
link it to. And that's what I'm I'm saying. There's
not not a limit to where you could link it to.
You could link it, but there is being a god.
You could link it to being anything else, but.
Speaker 1: Then linked to anything else will not do the work
of justification, because you need a certain type of being
to ground the things that we're talking about.
Speaker 3: What's that justificating?
Speaker 1: What justification is a principle in epistemology. It's giving an
account justified true belief for the knowledge you know.
Speaker 6: Nothing else could justify justify what you just said.
Speaker 1: Because there's a limited number of starting points for any
possible worldview. There's not an infinite number of worldviews in
terms of starting points.
Speaker 3: What define worldview already did?
Speaker 1: It's the basic commitments to the principles that we have
in terms of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.
Speaker 2: That's a worldview.
Speaker 1: So for example, let me let me give you an example.
Let me give you an example. Let's say, let's take ethics.
Since you mentioned that there's not an infinite number of
possibilities between knowledge, for example, ethics either being objective or subjective. Right, Okay,
so there's not an infinite that's in either or that's
a disjunctive. So there's not an infinite number of possibilities
in that question. So therefore, the way you answer that
question will determine a large portion of your worldview after that.
That's why I don't have to refute every single worldview.
Speaker 6: But you can justify your worldview by not defuting the
other ones, because you're you're just assuming your.
Speaker 3: Worlds view is right without knowing all of the other
world views.
Speaker 1: Again, I don't have to refute every single worldview because
there's a limited number of worldviews from the vantage point
of starting points.
Speaker 3: So how do you know your worldview is correct.
Speaker 1: Because that's the only one that gives an account for
the basic principles that are listed.
Speaker 3: Of pistemology, what else, metaphysics and ethics?
Speaker 1: Right, So you need all three of those things to
have a worldview. They're all they all kind of go together.
So if I can argue that, for example, that universal concepts,
mathematical principles, et cetera, those things can't be reduced to matter,
and if God exists, then it makes sense why there
would be those things, why the would be immaterial things
like laws or laws of logic, laws of nature, et cetera. So,
in other words, it's two different peeding world views. And
the worldview where God exists those things make sense. The
worldview where God doesn't exist. Ultimately, knowledge doesn't even make sense.
It's not coherent at all. There is no possibility of knowledge.
Speaker 6: There couldn't be any other possibilities where this could still be.
Speaker 1: I think, well, I mean, you're welcome to argue something
to what's your position agnosticism? You're not a Mormon.
Speaker 2: I knew you were judged.
Speaker 3: No, But how do you prove that it's a personal being.
Speaker 1: Right. So, for example, this was the other question I
was going to ask, if you were to talk about metaphysics, like,
there's only a certain number of options that you could
choose for say, the universe being intentional or non intentional,
or to use the philosophy terms teleological or disteleological. If
it's disteleological, then the universe has no purpose, it's purpose less.
If God exists and God is personal, then the universe
has purposiveness, It has an intentionality because the God who
created it and is directing it to some end is personal.
So that's another example of how if you choose a
non personal absolute metaphysical principle or if you choose a
personal one, that will have a huge impact on the
kind of worldview that you have and whether knowledge is possible.
Speaker 6: So what you just said was there should be a purpose,
otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: I would frame it this way. If there's no purpose
in the purpose, right, So if God is not personal,
then there's no intentionality and purpose in the universe. And
if there's no intentionality purpose in the universe, then knowledge
is not possible.
Speaker 3: Right. How is knowledge not possible if there's no.
Speaker 1: Purpose because everything would be a purpose less and so
what you think has meaning or has directed doesn't really
have that.
Speaker 2: It's all just purely subjective.
Speaker 3: Well that that works fine with my worldview.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, if everything is subjective, then knowledge is not
possible and you can't even say that all knowledge is subjective,
as we talked about earlier.
Speaker 6: Well, we can look at subjective's truths in the community.
We don't have to look at it as drastically as
you're looking at it in the whole universe.
Speaker 1: Well, but again, it doesn't matter whether it's the universe
or whether it's the community. Like, there's nothing that makes
something true because the community says so or think so.
That doesn't make things true. Can't the community be wrong
about stuff?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I would because he see that truth is subjective.
Speaker 1: But no, but I'm arguing it's not subjective. It's impossible
to actually believe the truth is subjective because do you
understand that if you say truth is subjective, that proposition
itself is self refuting.
Speaker 3: No, it's not fine.
Speaker 1: It is because you're saying you're making a universal truth
claim that all truth is subjective. You can't make a
universal claim if everything is subjective.
Speaker 6: But but you can't make But if I'm saying everything
is subjective, it's still subjective.
Speaker 1: Every you're not justified in making the claim because you're
limited as a finite being. That's a what in logic,
it's called a universal quantifier when you say.
Speaker 6: Everything, Well, we can make claims without.
Speaker 1: Well, you can make claims all day long, but they're
not justified claims. They're contradictory claims just.
Speaker 6: Because we're not certain about something.
Speaker 1: It has nothing to do with certain it's not about certitude.
It's about a flat out contradiction. You can't say everything
is subjective because everything is a universal quantifier about all
states of affairs at all times. It's a universal claim,
and that's not possible if everything is subjective.
Speaker 3: Okay, well you're right, you're one.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, Well see I'll see you at the
Mormon temple ceremony next week. Good job, dude, light World,
what's up, man? We'll get married in space and have
some space babies. Light World, what's up? Gotta unmute dude?
Speaker 5: Hey Jay, how's it going. I'm in I'm in the
car right now, So I apologize. If there's a little
bit of background noise, but I wanted to hop up
here and just comment on a few things I don't
want you guys were talking about. I found it pretty interesting.
Little disclaimer. I'm a Roman Catholic, I'm cradle Catholic, was
born and raised in the faith, and so I have
my idea about God and what I believe. And there
were a few things that you mentioned that I kind
of want to want to just you know, I touch
on a little bit extra right. So you mentioned that
if God has like a personal opinion as to whether
or not the direction of which, you know, the way
the universe is going.
Speaker 1: I didn't say personal opinion, I said intentionality. Sure, God
doesn't have a God doesn't have opinion.
Speaker 5: Sure, yeah, I agree exactly. So my point is is
really where we seem to like anthromorphosized in God quite
a bit by giving him human characteristics, saying that he
needs this or he needs that in order for some
there to be relevancy. My God, the Roman Catholic God,
he deviates from all of that. He is not a thing.
He's not part of this world at all. So to
try to comprehend him or wrap him around in a box, uh,
with that reason is you know.
Speaker 2: Just I mean, your your own worldview.
Speaker 1: Your own worldview believes in anthropomorphic terminology.
Speaker 5: So what do you mean, what do you mean my
own worldview believes.
Speaker 1: In Roman Catholicism teaches anthropomorphic terminology can be used for God.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, so we have the Son of God and
we have different.
Speaker 1: Ways for us to understand that's not an anthropomorphic term.
That's a person. The Son of God's not an anthropomorphic term.
Speaker 5: I appreciate that. So let me let me, let me
try to say this because I'm I'm really not trying to,
I guess, debate on as much things to just kind
of share my ideas. You know, if you disagree with
my ideas, that's fine. I'm not really here to debate,
just kind of.
Speaker 1: But I mean, do you actually know the Roman Catholic
position or you just stating what you think is the case?
Speaker 7: No, I do, I do, and so I.
Speaker 1: Don't think you do. I mean you think you do,
but I don't think you do.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, I think I do, and you might think
that I don't. That's fine.
Speaker 1: I mean I can already tell you don't by the
missu incorrect terminology you're using. So what's your what's your point.
Speaker 7: Go ahead, I'm gonna say.
Speaker 5: You just speak very eloquently, you know, and and and
you know you use a vocabulary very very well. So
I'll give you that much. But I don't know if
that means I know anything less about the Catholic Church.
So God is not of this world, like I was saying,
and Jesus Christ, you know we we we as the
son of God. He came down to earth, you know,
his representation, his physical body. Nonetheless, he was still God.
That's the only physical manifestation we've ever had of God
here on earth. You're in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's not even truer, that's not right.
Speaker 5: Well, and I believe that to be true.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, have you read the Old Testament?
Speaker 5: Sure?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 1: Did God ever appear in the Old test Did God
ever appear in the Old Testament prior to Christ becoming incarnate?
Speaker 5: Fair enough? Okay, fair enough. I give you that he
walked with he spoke to Moses, Noah, multiple people.
Speaker 2: I'll give you that, okay.
Speaker 1: So it's not true that He only appeared in the
person of Christ at the incarnation.
Speaker 5: Right, none in these physical forms as a burning bush,
maybe anything you know, camp morphosized in in which way
that he communicated with Noah.
Speaker 1: I don't think that did he wrestle with did he
wrestle with Jacob?
Speaker 5: So a lot of these questions, So.
Speaker 1: I mean, did he wrestle with Genesis thirty?
Speaker 2: Have you read this?
Speaker 5: I can't literally, I can't tell you yes or no. Historically,
I can't tell you yes or no.
Speaker 2: I have I have my I mean, what does Jenesis say?
What do you mean?
Speaker 8: I want?
Speaker 5: I want to give you I want you can I
want to answer something. I want to answer something if
I can, because you're you're You're asking me a lot
of questions and I don't feel like I've been able
to answer or finish any thoughts yet, and it's really
making it hard for me to gather my thoughts.
Speaker 1: Uh huh, Yeah, it's my fault. I'm sure.
Speaker 5: No, it's not your fault at all.
Speaker 3: Man.
Speaker 5: Like I said, I've already given you, you know, credit
for being a very good speaker and all those things.
So I'm trying to keep up with you. So in
the Bible, Jesus see, I I'm getting sidetracked. I apologize,
But in the Bible, uh, you know it says how
Jesus spoke, and he he preached, and then he brought
the disciples back, and then he explained differently to the disciples.
So a lot of the Bible is written in allegory.
It's written, there's a lot of historical accuracies, there's lots
of literal accuracies.
Speaker 1: Those thoughts of Okay, does Jesus take the wrestling with
Jacob to be an allegory or does he identify himself
as the one that was wrestling?
Speaker 5: So all of it's through God. All power is through God.
Anything that's done is through God. All of it that's
all through God.
Speaker 3: There is no man.
Speaker 1: Do you hear anything that I said?
Speaker 5: You asked me, who's through Jesus? I said, yes, through God? Correct?
Speaker 2: Can you not even hear the questions?
Speaker 1: Or like, does it not registering in your head what
I said? Does Jesus identify himself as the one wrestling
with Jacob in Genesis thirty two?
Speaker 5: I don't overbaate him with it, but I can tell you.
Speaker 1: That, okay, But you don't know what You wanted to
get on and dispout a bunch of stuff. But I'm
not trying to me. I'm not trying to mean to you,
but you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Okay,
So in John two, Jesus identifies himself as the one
who was wrestling with Jacob in genals.
Speaker 2: So you're just gonna talk over me.
Speaker 1: So yeah, this is the problem with Roman Catholics is
that you guys don't have any clue what you're talking about,
and you think you know what you're talking about.
Speaker 5: Power comes from God. I don't need to know.
Speaker 1: That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2: What does that have to do with what I'm talking about?
Speaker 5: All power comes from God. You cannot wrestle any adversary
without God. Period.
Speaker 1: You don't even understand it's Jacob isn't an adversary when
he with Jesus.
Speaker 2: Okay, what are you talking about?
Speaker 7: So what is symbol?
Speaker 1: Because I this is idiotic, man. I'm sorry, you have
no idea what you're talking about. I don't understand why
you guys love to get on as if you are
these super intelligent, know it all people and you have
no clue what you're talking about. Ads exactly. Roman Catholics
are insane, That's what I mean. It's like the only
people left in Romanism are people that are literally just
nuts except for except for tim what's up?
Speaker 9: I have a question what arguments that can use against
the being modern day profets, because I remember those. What
arguments can I like I can bring forth for the
moderns being a falsed thing.
Speaker 1: Well, Zachariah prophesies. I think it's Zakaria thirteen or fourteen
that in the last which means the time of the
coming of the Messiah, there won't be prophets anymore. If
you claim that you're a prophet, you will be stoned
because there's no such thing as people continue to prophesy
after the last prophet. So Jesus says, for example, that
John was the last of the prophets. So this idea
of Old Testament prophets is no longer necessary, because, as
Hebrew says in Hebrews One, we have the fullness of
revelation in the person of the Messiah, so there's no
need for continuing revelation. Secondly, the Canada Scripture itself is closed,
so there's no need to have ongoing revelations. When, as
Jude says, the deposit of the faith was once for
all delivered to the saints and Jude three. So if
that's the case, then there's no need to have these things,
and that immediately cuts off anything like Mormonism, Islam. They're
automatically cut off by the fact that the revelation has
a finality to it, public revelation.
Speaker 3: Okay, thank you. I also have a question.
Speaker 9: I've like, I've read on some saints, but and like,
what's with the saints being given like information like or
revelation by good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's true.
Speaker 1: There's clairvoyance, but that's not public divine revelation. That's part
of the apostolic deposit right. That's why Jude says that
the faith was once we're all delivered to the saints.
That's the dog the dogmas and the fullness of the
of the faith.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: But that that doesn't mean that you can't go see
an elder and he, you know, has a clairvoyance about
you know, what your issues are, what your problems are,
He knows something about about you. But we don't take
those things and say, oh, that's part of the you know,
the dogmas of divine revelation.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 9: So essentially what you're saying is the like the way
that we distinguished this is because we've already been given
the fullness of like information. However, a clayfuloice is different
because it's information that we've has already been revealed to us.
Speaker 1: Right, It's not part of the deposit of the faith.
I mean, it could be a miraculous thing, like an
elder knows miraculously that you know something about you or
something like that, or he knows the future about what's
going to happen to you, or something like that, but
that's not part of the dogmas and the apostolic deposit
the full Like Jude says, the faith, as in the
doctrines and the teachings, were once for all delivered. So
how could it be once for all delivered if it's
an ongoing, endless thing.
Speaker 9: Okay, yeah, I do, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1: So it's if you look at zachari At thirteen when
it describes the Messianic era, it describes it as one
where there's not really a need for the office of
an Old Testament prophet. In that day, every prophet will
be ashamed of his vision. If he prophesies, they will
not wear a robe of coarse hair to deceive. He
will say, I'm not a prophet. I am a farmer,
and it's talking about specifically I'm a Messianic prophecy because
it talks about I was wounded in the House of
my friends, which is a reference to Christ being pierced
and crucified. So in the Messianic era, there's not a
need for that that office of Old Testament prophet. That's
why Jesus says John was the last of the prophets.
That doesn't mean there can't be like you know, Clava
Wayans or something like that. Thank you guys for the
couple super chestess. I want to support the stream.
Speaker 2: You can leave with.
Speaker 1: Super chat through stream labs. There is the link to
stream labs right there, and thank you guys so much.
Orthodox Mario, Do Do Do do?
Speaker 2: Dude?
Speaker 3: Hello, what's up? Oh right, sorry, I didn't know my life.
I have a question. I'm a Greek Orthodox. I got
by the Greek Orthodox Church and I yeah, I saw
one of your videos.
Speaker 10: I think you posted it a few years ago and
you were talking about how the Greek Orthodox has something.
Speaker 5: To do with I forgot what it's called.
Speaker 10: You basically were telling people to attend to the Russian
Orthodox because of what's happening in the Greek a sort
of church.
Speaker 2: Yeah, go arc.
Speaker 1: So not every Greek church, not churches in Greece, but
the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is what I meant.
Speaker 3: Oh you're talking about American.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not in Greece, dude.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, you was talking what was it called?
Speaker 2: It was?
Speaker 5: Sorry I forgot man talk about?
Speaker 3: Do you know what I was talking about?
Speaker 1: I mean you're maybe talking about the ecumenical patriarchy and
the CIA and all that. That's like a six year
old podcast.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 10: Also that's nothing to do with the the because I.
Speaker 3: Mean England in England and the Greek Orthodose Church in England.
Speaker 2: I don't know who.
Speaker 1: I mean. I imagine you're under your own bishop in England,
so I don't know who the Greeks in England are under.
Speaker 7: Oh you were just talking about the ones in America.
Speaker 1: Is an American American jurisdiction, correct.
Speaker 3: Because I think we're all under bottle and you want me.
Speaker 1: Maybe, I don't. I don't know how that all works.
And alongst the Greek because I've never been amongst Greek Orthodox.
I've always been either Antiochian or ro Corps.
Speaker 10: So would you would you say that whole CIA thing
would be in the Greek Orthodox, where I am as well?
Speaker 1: Is it just in the American Well, I mean the
intelligence services have an interest in infiltrating and spying on
and influencing every church everywhere, So I'm sure that that
goes on in the UK. I mean it's probably British
intelligence is probably not the CIA. But I don't know
anything about Greeks in the UK honestly.
Speaker 10: Okay, yeah, because I've been watching you for a few
months now.
Speaker 3: You actually I'm Greek myself, and.
Speaker 5: I ended up going to a Baptist church and then.
Speaker 2: Well, how did I help you if you went to
a Baudi church?
Speaker 10: No, no, no, no, I was attended about Yeah.
Speaker 3: I didn't know about Christianity.
Speaker 1: And then I started I got you. Well, I think
I think I think Bartholomew is very sus and I
would avoid Bartholomew. But that doesn't mean that every Greek
church or person is bad.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that at all.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I heard what he said about I don't want
to look bad why the patriarch, But he said that
we worship the same God to Muslims and Jewish people
and we're all into the same god or something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he teaches all the same stuff that Francis and
Vatican too teaches. So yeah, he's pretty pretty sketchy for sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 10: Yeah, So you're the Russian or Phodos are not on
the hidden So what you're.
Speaker 1: Saying now, Russians are under uh uh the.
Speaker 3: MP Okay, thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good questions man. Glad you're back out of Baptist world. Uh, Marty,
Marty the juice man. What's up? The super super chats
are pinned if you guys want to leave the super
chat there, appreciate that. Gott I'm mute, dude.
Speaker 11: Hello, what's up?
Speaker 2: Hey, what's on your mind?
Speaker 11: Thank you? I want to hear more about that. Your
metaphysical kind of view. Uh you said something about the
transcendental argument.
Speaker 3: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 11: I honestly like don't truly see the merit, but probably
you know, I can just don't understand. So are you
saying that you need that? What is knowledge like in
your definition?
Speaker 1: Well, I would say there's different types of knowledge, you know,
the Greeks even had a lot of different Greek terms
for different types of knowledge. But if you mean justified,
I think justified true belief and gettier problem and all
that in terms of modern philosophy, is a valid question
to ask any worldview can they give an account for
knowledge claims? And you know, why ought we to believe
something rather than you know just what knowledge claims are?
So I think there's an element of aught involved in
all this. That's that's a big part of the argumentation
that I make ought we believe what is true, and
so you can't really divorce point there is just that
you can't divorce epistemology from ethics.
Speaker 11: Question. Okay, sorry, do you think that like a thought
can capture reality? Fully? Can any thought be like one?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that because we're made in the
image of God, we have the ability to reason about
the world and accurately understand the world. But that doesn't
mean that we have exhaustive knowledge or omniscience. That's why
God functions in the worldview to do that for us.
Speaker 11: Yes, So what is it that you can know if
any thought is like no thought actually describes the world
as it is?
Speaker 1: I didn't say that.
Speaker 2: I didn't say that said.
Speaker 1: How do you know that no thought doesn't describe the
world as it is?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 11: Because I can deconstruct like any thought and see that
it's partial.
Speaker 1: Well, how but just because something is partial doesn't mean
that it has no relation to the world.
Speaker 11: I'm not saying no relation.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that you said, you said, you said
it bears no similarity to the world.
Speaker 11: I don't think that there's like no similarity, but I don't.
I don't think it describes the world. Actually, it's like
it is. I think it does describe partially.
Speaker 2: How do you know it does that partially?
Speaker 3: Then let me.
Speaker 11: Let me just one second, Like, how do I know
they describe it partially? I think it's like a deduction thing. Like, honestly,
I don't believe that we actually know.
Speaker 1: How would deduction tell you about inductive's knowledge?
Speaker 11: Maybe I'm confused in the terms.
Speaker 3: But like.
Speaker 1: Deduction is reasoning from the general to the particular.
Speaker 11: From the past to the future. Like, like you know,
I know that let the ball.
Speaker 1: Drop, that's inductive reason.
Speaker 11: Inductive However, yeah, sorry, so I'm saying, like, you know,
from uh, let's say, partial worldview, I call it conventional worldview.
I know that the ball will fall like a million times,
it will probably fall a million and one time. If
I you know, pick it up.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, how do you know that? So you think it? Well,
but how do you know that?
Speaker 11: I'm saying it's like inductive or whatever.
Speaker 2: It's like okay, but.
Speaker 1: David Hume, well, I'm making the human argument. That human said,
you can't demonstrate or prove induction, so.
Speaker 11: I can't prove it. That's I think that's part of
my I can't prove it.
Speaker 2: You can't.
Speaker 1: So you're a human skeptic.
Speaker 11: I would say that I don't know. I'm not in
I'm more likey into Buddhism, like I understand it more,
I don't follow like completely Western.
Speaker 1: Okay, right, So if you're a skeptic and you don't
know that there's the you know, the future will be
like the past, then there's no basis or justification for knowledge.
Speaker 3: So your your.
Speaker 1: Position is self defeating. Why because there's no justification for knowledge?
Speaker 11: Claims there's no justification for knowledge? What does justification mean?
Speaker 1: Justify true belief and the gettier problem?
Speaker 11: Justify true beliefs, and what.
Speaker 1: The get to your problem?
Speaker 11: Get here?
Speaker 1: Get to your problem?
Speaker 11: Can you say?
Speaker 5: What is that?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: It's an addition to the classic notion of JTB. Which
is justified true belief, the traditional idea of what it
means to justify or ground your knowledge claims. Somebody pointed
out that you could actually also get something right accidentally,
but you wouldn't be just to fighting your knowledge. This
is why it's called the Ghettier problem. So it's just
an additional fourth criteria.
Speaker 11: Okay. So basically, okay, so basically just you know, in
Layman's terms, why would you say that your self defeating.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, if you if well, you said you
haven't read human, but I mean you're making a human argument,
and human skepticism is premised on the idea that knowledge
is not ultimately justifiable. You can't justify it. That's the point.
Speaker 11: Yeah I can't.
Speaker 1: Okay, then you don't have it then okay, then then
debate is not possible, thank you exactly?
Speaker 11: Okay, so we can agree.
Speaker 1: No, that's a reputation of your position. It's not an
agreement of yours. All right, So this is like low
tiered day O. L W, what's up man? Yeah, argumentation
is not possible. How is that a reputation of my
poss I was like argue against you?
Speaker 2: Ol W? What's up?
Speaker 12: Can you hear me, man, So can ask a question
about the essence energ.
Speaker 3: Distinction within God with what so?
Speaker 12: So if you consider God in and of himself, that
means that he's deficient with all the energies.
Speaker 3: So the energy is not deficient.
Speaker 1: He's not deficient. He never lacked energy.
Speaker 12: So that's ridiculous, right, just because the energies are if
you're considering gods in and of himself, he's still deficient
with all the energy.
Speaker 1: It's not deficient. There's no deficiency in God. That's that's
you have a presupposition about perfection, which is a medieval
metaphysical assumption which you can't justify. So this argument hinges
on stupid medieval arguments about perfection.
Speaker 11: So, like, consider the energy of knowledge.
Speaker 2: Let me show you how stupid this.
Speaker 1: Let me show you how about dumbest argument is, Uh,
God only created one universe and that's less perfect than
if he created two, three, four, ten universes. So this
is a dumb medieval argument based on metaphysical assumptions about
what perfection is. So I'm going to ask you to
justify the assumption of the argument. How do you know
that that's what perfection is? And a divine being.
Speaker 12: Right, So for being to be perfect, he has to
be omniscient, which which is that is?
Speaker 1: So what about all the other attributes? So is he
is he not perfect until he creates a world because
he hasn't become a creator.
Speaker 12: No, because he is transiently eternally created.
Speaker 3: He just hasn't actually done it yet.
Speaker 1: No, that's not an If he hasn't actualized it, then
he didn't eternally create it.
Speaker 12: That doesn't make any sense, right, But transiently created it?
Speaker 2: What is that? That is?
Speaker 1: And there's no such thing as transiently created it?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: So you're making up terms exactly.
Speaker 12: So I can will to build a house, but I
don't actually build the house now, I build it two
years for now that trans yet metaphysics book.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's we're not Aristotelian. That's why the aessence
introducing which comes from Arisa, Well, good for you.
Speaker 2: But are you are you Catholic?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I'm Roman exactly, So I'm not asking.
Speaker 2: Are you really are you really inquiring?
Speaker 1: You're not inquiring into orthodoxy. You're playing you're playing word games.
Speaker 2: Well I don't know, I yeah exactly, So.
Speaker 1: You're a liar.
Speaker 13: Goodbye.
Speaker 1: Next up, I'm your dude, Greek name. I can't pronounce
your Greek name. I'm mute.
Speaker 2: What's up? Okay? Don't low quality?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 3: You able to hear me? Killer?
Speaker 11: Okay?
Speaker 14: Quick question raised Roman Catholic I think goes on here
a while ago. I appreciate you answering the last question,
which was about, Hey, I can't really impact change on
a wild scale.
Speaker 3: But anyway, back to the question, Uh, the.
Speaker 14: Catholic position on the death penalty seemed.
Speaker 3: To have been inconsistent.
Speaker 14: Yeah, following kind of the trajectory of every other Catholic position.
Seems like a lot of the current writings appeal to
either the un position or some sort of I don't know,
some some modern secular considerations. But just trying to get
an idea of what the Orthodox position on the death
penalty is, I'm not able to find anything specific.
Speaker 1: Read the ro Corps statement at the ro Corps website
on war and you'll find also that the Russian Orthodox Church,
the MP still upholds the death penalty mospat dot ru.
Their website has a teacher the social teaching, So we
still uphold the death penalty, at least in the Russian
Church and probably the Serbs and others, but you will
find some liberalized Greeks and Oca that do not believe
in the death penalty, which is dumb.
Speaker 2: What's up, dude? You got.
Speaker 1: Dude, I don't know why you keep coming on here
if you don't want to talk. That's no nonsense day today, Matthew.
Speaker 11: Yeah, a jay.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to get your opinion on Sam Simon
and God Logic.
Speaker 11: I mean, I like him, but they put I know
San Simon, he's he's him, but Sam Stramone.
Speaker 3: I just want to know if they're well.
Speaker 5: I know Sam Sermon is very knowledgeable and he's I
believe he is Eastern Orthodox, right at one.
Speaker 2: Time he would know he's not Orthodox?
Speaker 3: What what?
Speaker 5: What is he?
Speaker 1: Because I feel like he's attending a Catholic church. He
is a Syrian, He's of Syrian origin, so he was
a Syrian Church of the East, and now he favors
Catholicism as I understand.
Speaker 3: Okay, And what about I don't know if you know
God Logic, I know of him.
Speaker 5: Him Jilly, what what what are his bully?
Speaker 3: Because I really can't know.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I see, I don't.
Speaker 1: I mean somebody said he wanted to do a podcast together,
and I said I was down for that, but I
don't know what his uh what what church he attends
or what his views are. Hm, it's your last chance
to do.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 1: I'm mute?
Speaker 2: Okay, well uh huh.
Speaker 8: Hear me y uh from Greeks, from Greece. I just
came back from Mount Athos. Uh so I have a
message for the Europeans may be listening. Mounts was very clear.
I wish I didn't take the new digital ladies, the European ladies.
Speaker 3: Uh. I spoke to spiritual children. No thin patios.
Speaker 8: Uh Oh, there are famous is the one and a
there are sinis and both of them.
Speaker 3: We're very clear about.
Speaker 8: It because from September selling from September, there will be
one one serio number for everything, so for example, the idea,
the bank accounts, everything will be in one number. And
that is essentially the last states before the markets the beast.
Speaker 1: That's what I want to say, all right, appreciate that,
so avoid the US tracking tracing crap that they want
to push. Ricardo, what's up? Appreciate that? Hello, hell you,
what's up?
Speaker 3: What's up? Jay? There's like a huge delay on my Twitter.
Speaker 15: But I just want to ask you two questions regarding
the transcendal argument. I was into the debate with Trent Horne,
and he was claiming that the form that you the
way that you elaborate on the transcendental argument is a
form of natural theology.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, because in the course of that debate, Trent
mistakenly used about three different ideas for what he thinks
natural theology is. So he thinks doing apologetics is natural theology.
He thinks using reason and logic is natural theology. But
when I send him the terms of debate, I defined
it according to his own church. Natural theology is defined
and not just by John Paul and his few does
at ratio and cyclical. It's defined in everybody's theology as
reasoning about God apart from divine revelation. That's it. That's
the definition of what natural theology is in his own system.
So using reasoning is not natural theology. So that was
really a stupid mistake on his point.
Speaker 3: Okay, I understand that now.
Speaker 15: But also the second thing, how do you jump from
the transcendental argument, which I agree with, to a Abrahamic
Orthodox God.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've done that a lot of podcasts on that,
So you can find the one that I did critiquing
doctor Ed Faser on universals. You can find another two
podcasts I did on answering objections to the transcendent argument,
and I show in those videos how you get to
Trinity from tag. So it's too much to rehearse right now,
but you can go watch those videos how Martello no
wa it will.
Speaker 3: Did all right?
Speaker 16: So I I grew up like a pre standard Vatican
two Roman Catholic, and obviously I didn't take it seriously. Recently,
I've been flirting with set of a contism. However, I
have been kind of ping pong back and forth East
and West, and I've come to the conclusion that Eastern
Orthodoxy is better in theory Roman Catholicism is better in practice.
I say that because, like maybe it's just geographically. I
am like, I'm probably like the best place, like where
I live on the best place to like be said
of a contest in like the worst place to be Orthodox.
I just feel like most Orthodox churches are pretty liberal.
Speaker 1: As I mean, I don't know where you're going to
where where like not in my experience, but I don't
I mean I only typically end up in uh, you know,
Russian Orthodox Serbian churches.
Speaker 16: So well, it seems like even in those churches, like
the priests still seem like pretty like pro birth control.
And like that's the thing about Roman Catholicism is like
with like Copley with the thirteenth, we have like a
magisterium of moral theology we cannot kind of lean back on.
Speaker 1: You don't like orthodoxy, No, you don't have that in
Rome Falsism either, So you understand. I mean, I'm I'm
surprised you haven't realized that. You know, state of a
contism is a totally dead end position, right, because you
love that it's a dead end position.
Speaker 16: No, No, I love it because it's very simple and
it's very fun.
Speaker 1: A set of a contism is fun.
Speaker 16: Yeah, Like the idea of like you're like a small
group of people and like the like is like apostased.
Speaker 1: So it's a false elitism, is what that is?
Speaker 16: Well, I mean it's like when you read scripture, like
this is like the pattern, like the vast majority will
fall away and it's kind of like this small remnant
will kind.
Speaker 1: Of okay, but let's cut to the chase here, because
if you read Vatican one, it's very clear that the
Roman Sea will not apostatize and fall away. So that's
why Vatican that's why I said acusism is impossible, and
it's really it's really a sact. So you're in a
cult basically, no, because the.
Speaker 16: Argument set of a concism is essentially like Vatican two
was not the.
Speaker 1: Roman See And you didn't hear what I said? Did
you not hear what I said?
Speaker 7: You said that the Roman Sea cannot apostas.
Speaker 1: That when I said, I said, Vatican one teaches that
clear as day, that the Roman See can never apostatize
and it will always have successors until the return of Christ.
Speaker 16: Well, so on the perpetuitious successors thing, that's that's.
Speaker 7: Kind of easy to debunk because.
Speaker 16: That's what you mean, Like if you mean the sheriff
Peter is going to be continually like constantly occupied.
Speaker 7: Yeah, obviously that's not true.
Speaker 1: That's no, it says successors until the end of the world.
You can't have a hundred year gap where there's no pope, dude,
and you understand you can never have a pope again
in your system.
Speaker 16: Well, I think, well, so the guys who say that
you can't have a pope again, are the ones who
say that the new right of ordination are invalid? I'm
kind of split on that. I think they're ambiguous at best.
But I mean most said of a concerts will still
say that you could, like, there could be a new pope.
Speaker 1: And how is that going to happen?
Speaker 7: I don't know?
Speaker 1: Right, So this is a total bullshit position. It's not
a real position. It doesn't exist. And that's why although
said of a contests all fight and hit each other
and to destruct each other's Have you read the book
Set of a Concious Delusion?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I've heard you talk about it a lot, but
you haven't read read that. I've not read that book yet, but.
Speaker 2: So you don't.
Speaker 1: So you don't think Vatican One teaches that there will
be successors until the end of the world. In the
Roman Sea, it doesn't teach that.
Speaker 7: I mean it does say perpetuity of successors.
Speaker 1: Uh huh? And so how were so there's not been
a successor in the last seventy years, when when is
there going to be another one?
Speaker 7: I mean, there could be.
Speaker 16: How so one of the theories is like, like when
we keep making the joke about Pius at thirteenth and
the Third Vatican Council.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you don't see that this is totally divorced
from reality. I mean, I feel sorry for you guys,
But if that's what you if that's what you want,
go for it. Man, have fun.
Speaker 13: It's going to ruin your life, atheists.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 1: I'm mute?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 11: Hello?
Speaker 3: Hi? Are you able to hear me? Great? Thank you?
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 17: I want to ask you something. It's European for European
about this thing. I used to be an atheist, atheist.
Speaker 3: I'm Catholic now, but this.
Speaker 1: Is so you're still an atheist?
Speaker 2: Hey, Jamie, could you bring me a coffee?
Speaker 3: No, this is what I wanted to ask, Like.
Speaker 1: It's a joke. So you're still an atheist because you're
a Catholic.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got it, I got it.
Speaker 17: I want to ask you if you think that we should,
which is the way, we should, try to convert atheists
to God as well?
Speaker 1: Why convert them? I mean Francis said that atheists have
a path to God as well, and I mean your
own Vatican two documents teach that we all worship the
same God anyway, Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus. So why
do you why are you trying to convert people?
Speaker 17: Well, for me, the most important fight we got to
give is against atheism for starters.
Speaker 1: Did you hear what I said?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I heard.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus all
worship God?
Speaker 17: I will say, they have a misguided understanding of what
God is.
Speaker 1: So I mean it says that the plan of Salvation
includes Muslims. So I mean you can you can still
be saying what's the point?
Speaker 5: You know, I understand what you mean.
Speaker 17: But what I wanted to ask you is do you
think we should convert them from God?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: But you're missing what I'm saying is that you haven't
actually converted. That's my point because the God that you're
worshiping in Roman Catholicism is the same God as the
Muslim and the Jew and the Hindu, and if you
read the Bible, that's not God. Does Jesus say that
we all worship the same God? Or does he say
no one comes to Father but through me.
Speaker 3: The latter, the latter? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay, So how is Vatican two in Nostratate and Lemgentium
sixteen correct?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 17: For the moment, I wasn't talking about religion. I wanted
to know your opinion about religions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're not talking about religion.
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 17: No, I mean because I'm for the moment, I'm talking
about leading the conversion of someone to believing in God.
Speaker 1: Like you, there's no such thing as generic God. There
is no generic God that doesn't exist.
Speaker 3: I know, I know.
Speaker 17: But don't you think that some people need like a
pathway to follow in order to reach to the proper
understanding of God?
Speaker 2: Again?
Speaker 1: I mean, uh, you could say, yeah, there's like steps
in the right direction, but I mean that's It's like,
if the thesis of Vatican two is that we're all
worshiping the same deity, then it's not getting you anywhere.
Speaker 2: Terrence. Yeah, I agree, Like.
Speaker 1: Why are we You're trying to fix the world. I
think you need to fix your views.
Speaker 2: Terrence. I'm mute.
Speaker 3: Hello, how are you good?
Speaker 2: What's up? Hey, Jamie?
Speaker 1: Terrence Howard, Terrence trend Darby, what's up?
Speaker 18: And so I identify as a Hebrew Israelite. I don't follow
these practices of those that you see dressed in those
funny uniforms yelling at people in the street.
Speaker 3: Corners.
Speaker 18: However, I do identify as a Hebrew. I do believe
and know that the Bible is a historical book and
a covenant unto the children of Israel aka b Biblical Hebrews.
And so this this topic is certainly interested.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's a great Why would you believe any
of that? It's it's a ridiculous cult. I mean, it's
totally nonsensical. There's literally no reason to believe in this
stupid thing. Why would you believe it?
Speaker 3: What do you say?
Speaker 18: Excuse me, I'm just confused when you say a ridiculous cult.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Black Keeper Israelie is the stupidest modern cult of
all time. Like it's worse than even Mormons or anything.
It's the dumbest of all. Why would you believe that?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 18: Okay, Well that's your that is your theory that I
would certainly, uh, I would ask you to prove that.
Speaker 5: First of all, it's a cult, because it's not a cult.
Speaker 18: There are several different organizations who are congregations.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're all cults.
Speaker 1: How's that all of them? They're all culled?
Speaker 18: Okay, Okay, So you're just going to just say you're right,
and because you make a statement and because you're.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not. I'm saying it based on the debates
I've had with all the BHI debated, So.
Speaker 18: Based upon what How is it a cult? How is
it a cult? Not just because you say so, but
how is it a cult?
Speaker 1: Well, because it's premised on a ridiculous interpretation of certain
verses to try to prove that Jesus was black. I mean,
do you agree with those interpretations?
Speaker 5: How was he not black? How historically?
Speaker 3: How how of Jesus Christ white?
Speaker 1: I didn't say he was well, that's a non sequord.
I didn't say he was white because I said he's
not black.
Speaker 18: Okay, so wait, so let's just deal with a couple
of things.
Speaker 1: Do you think those verses that talks about him with
hair like wool and all that proves that he was black?
Speaker 18: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: But that's what I'm saying is super That's what I'm
saying is super domb and low to your low IQ bullshit.
Speaker 18: Oh well you know so, so again this is like
one of those I'm white because I'm white and I'm
right because I say so.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that it's it's all based on ignorance.
You you brought in all the racial stuff, not me.
Speaker 5: I didn't anything.
Speaker 2: You just said, you think you're white. Do you think
you're right because you're white?
Speaker 1: I didn't say because you brought that in. That's because
you got your emotional and you can't argue the facts.
Speaker 5: I'm not emotional.
Speaker 2: You started with all this race stuff. I didn't say
anything about race.
Speaker 18: I didn't start with anything race.
Speaker 2: You just did.
Speaker 3: You said you think you're right because you because you No.
Speaker 18: Okay, No, here's the funny thing. Now, let's just let's
let's calm down, all right, because I'm not I'm not
angry or anything like that.
Speaker 5: I didn't start with any race.
Speaker 1: So those verses have nothing to deal with Jesus being black.
Why do you think Why would you believe Jesus is black?
Speaker 18: Okay, So if you will allow me to answer those questions,
and I could most scrutinly do that, all right. So
the person who started out with racial stuff, because you.
Speaker 1: Be right, all right, that's just stupid.
Speaker 3: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: S breaking out long.
Speaker 1: Right, Jesus is black because it says he was. When
it shows him glorified, it says his hair was like wool,
because we all know wol means a black person.
Speaker 19: Yeahs, yes, So when you're like running tag into an atheists,
how would you refuse someone who.
Speaker 3: Denies like the ontology of logic, like anti realism.
Speaker 1: Well, they could go that route, but I think I
would just bring up the problems with that position, which
I mean, or so, are do you think logic is
in some way physical?
Speaker 13: Uh?
Speaker 1: If you think logic is purely a token, then we
don't know that it actually applies to anything in the world,
if there's no real relation between the symbols and the
actual external world. And usually those people just say, well,
we just can't know, we don't know. Well, okay, but
that's not a very good argument, just to say, well
we just don't know. We can't know. So you can
posit an anti realist position, But well, how does mathematics
work in the world? Then to build bridges and to
do all this stuff? How do we discover things like
Mandelbrot sets, but which are obviously not uh, social constructs,
they're actually discoveries. So I would say something like a
mandel brought set refute that idea.
Speaker 3: All right, cool, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, look up Jason Lyles lecture on Mandelbrot sets, and
I think that's a really good response to that.
Speaker 2: The type of a position.
Speaker 13: Kenobi, Hey, Jenny, I need a coffee bat and she
can't hear me?
Speaker 2: Obi wan kenobi, I'm mute.
Speaker 1: You don't need to see identavigation. These are the arguments
you're looking for.
Speaker 2: Move along, Move along.
Speaker 20: I'm an inquirer into orthodoxy, and there's I mean this.
I think you've probably answered this before, but I couldn't
find anything on it. It's a question regarding the church,
what was the explanation for like, obviously during the Only
Church there were plenty of heretics and schismatics, and I
think at some points they made up the lay person majority.
But what is the explanation for why the counsels and
the bishops have, like, for example, the better position of
the spirit in discerning that when like the majority are
heretical or schismatic, for.
Speaker 1: Example, the majority of the laity or the bishops or
what do you mean majority of.
Speaker 3: The laity for example?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's the argument that bishops have more discernment than ladies?
Speaker 2: I was asking, I don't understand the question.
Speaker 20: Yeah, because like for example, I think when during the
airing crisis, I think it was the majority of them
that were going towards that.
Speaker 1: Was the majority of the bishops that were not laity.
I mean, I don't know how many of the laid
you were Aran, but the majority of the bishops were semiarian.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Well, that's why truth is not determined by the majority.
Truth is determined by the truth. So you can have
a majority of the church be an error. Correct.
Speaker 20: Then if if the Spirit is guiding the church, what
is an extension of that situation as basic contract.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean there's still human free will, there's still
the reality of apostasy. And there's other cases where the
majority or a large portion of the empire fell into
heresy too, like the Iconic class controversy. So the promise
of the Spirit is not that all of the bishops
in any era will be orthodox or will persevere. You
can always apostatize. In fact, if you read Revelation one
in two and three, there's warnings to those seven churches,
for example, that they'll have their lamp stand ripped away
and God will say I'm done with you. We believe
that the same thing happened to the Roman Church. God
warned the Roman Church in Romans eleven through Paul that
if you get haughty, you'll be cut out of the Covenant.
We think they were cut out of the Covenant a
thousand years ago, and that's why they teach such ridiculous,
retarded apostasy today, which all these lunatics still think is Christianity. So, yeah,
you can have a majority. The promise of the Spirit
was not that there would always be a majority. It's
just simply that there will always be faithful bishops.
Speaker 3: Glad, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Truth is not determined by a majority, and that's precisely
why all the idiotic Roman Catholic arguments about numbers doesn't
prove anything numbers.
Speaker 2: Bro Steger curlts unmute, unmute yeoh uh huh.
Speaker 3: I I just wanted to ask you a quick question.
Speaker 21: So I heard a lot of times about this, this
saying about if God can break the laws of logic.
I need to understand that, and I don't know if
that can be a contradiction itself as an argument. I
don't think it's an argument itself. So I just wanted
to ask about it.
Speaker 1: I think the laws of logic are features that describe
the created order. So logic is something that pertains to
the created order, kind of like math. So there are
reflections of principles in the divine mind. They're not things
that determine God's essence or nature. So we don't sit
there and say God is you know, subservient to or
under the laws of logic. Rather it's the other way around.
That God exists that becomes the grounding for the laws
of logic. So a lot of people want to put
the before the horse, and they put the thing that
is grounded in God before God and make God submit
to that. That's what you see in a lot of
Roman Catholic argumentation about the divine simplicity or the energies
or any of that kind of stuff. So we just
we have it's the other way around.
Speaker 21: So you'd like view it as basically a part of
the nature of God or something like.
Speaker 1: That, or no, it's a reflection.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: So logic is a feature of the created order that
is based on the uncreated logi in the mind of God.
So there's a logie for every principle of logic or
number or whatever that exists in the mind of God,
but they're not identical. The low gi are uncreated, but
logic and these kinds of things are creatures and they're created.
That's what Maximus says, that universals can perish. That's not
the platonic position played us as universals are the monad,
they are the one. So it's a different it's a
non platonic position impossibility.
Speaker 3: It doesn't actually.
Speaker 21: So itself asking that's just self contradict itself, right.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, it's kind of a nonsense question. Like, for example,
if you know what Aristotilians argue or Roman Catholics and
Thomas argue, if you think about the the LPT, the
logical problem of the Trinity. When Muslims and Jake and
people like that use the LPT, they're trying to take
a principled analytic philosophy or logic or predication and then
say that the Christian view violates logic and therefore it's
not true. But it's not understanding that you can't smash
God into one type of naming or one type of
descriptor or one type of modern analytical philosophy, because that's
not the type of being that God is.
Speaker 3: So itself.
Speaker 21: He will have a like another divine level that we
can encumbrehend him.
Speaker 3: We're trying to bound at the well.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like, Uh, logic and math are like
one of the divine rays that comes from the divine
mind to us. God has many other things about him
right that they don't exhaust him and they don't define him.
It's sort of like if if you saw me over
here working out math problems, would you think that math
problems are my essence? No, they would be something that
is sort of coming out of me or coming from me,
proceeding from me. So in the same way, God shows
us things about himself through principles of math and geometry
and order and all that we learn about the harmony
of the divine mind and the beauty of the divine
mind and order and all that. But they don't exhaust
him or define him. Okay, So if you read Dionysius,
this is the way he speaks of the things that
come from God, the raised, the emanations, the process. I
should say not emanations, Okay.
Speaker 21: From when I'm getting from Muslis, is that the question itself.
Speaker 3: Is wrong just to ask it? Is that what you're
trying to.
Speaker 1: Say, Yeah, I mean you could argue that the question
is premised on the idea that God is somehow definable
or exhaustible by created principles.
Speaker 21: Yeah, since they said the mind being, he cannot be
defined by limited minds, and he's unlimited, so he's not
bound by by logic itself he.
Speaker 1: Is, it would be violating the apathetic theology of Orthodoxy. Right, So,
Apathatic theology holds that God in himself, in his essence,
is unapproachable, unknowable, undefinable, and inexhaustible. It's the via negativa.
But the way that we know him is by the
energies that come down to us, as Basil says in
two thirty four.
Speaker 21: Okay, so I mean, could he manipulate itself? I mean,
he's an all powerful being.
Speaker 1: All right, we're gonna move on. No, he doesn't manipulate
himself because he is a being with free will and
in nature that defines who he is and how he acts.
So God can't change his nature because that would be
ultimately going against who he himself is. So, for example,
when Paul says it's impossible for God to lie, Paul
says that because God's nature and character is holy. He
can't do evil or bad things, and so what we
consider possible or impossible is going to be determined by
our worldview. So a lot of times low tier atheists
will say, well, to be omnipotent means you can literally
do anything, and if you can't make yourself not exist,
then you're not omnipotent. Well, that's not what omnipotent means
in the Christian paradigm. And all of these words and
terms are going to be determined by the paradigm from
which they're situated. Vertical view. Hey, Jamie, she's always far
into the house. You can hear me, I mean, yes.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 22: Man?
Speaker 1: Are you calling me from World War two battlefield?
Speaker 2: What's up the Allies? Allies of it?
Speaker 1: I can't hear anything you're saying. Call back again, Try again, David.
Speaker 2: Do call me from D Day?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Another dude calling me from D Day? What's up?
Speaker 2: Man? Have the Allies landed? What's up here?
Speaker 7: We know what's up?
Speaker 11: Okay.
Speaker 22: So I had a question about the nature of the
Orthodox normatic authority that I curious speak about a lot, Okay,
I just wanted to ask how you ended up at
the conclusion that Eastern the Eastern Orthodox Church is the
historic ordattorial that we should all be bound to, and.
Speaker 1: By looking at the first thousand years, by looking at
the first thousand years of Christianity and seeing which church
matches up to the Church of the first thousand years.
Speaker 22: But doesn't that just end up at being your personal
interpretation of how that?
Speaker 1: No, that's a that's a category error. So the fact
that I came to this conclusion does not mean that
the conclusion is purely subjective. So that's the mistake that
the first guy they called inmate.
Speaker 2: The fact that we have.
Speaker 1: Interpretations does not mean that everything is a subjective interpretation.
That's a non sequitor.
Speaker 5: Okay, So yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 22: Then I found figured out the mistake of the first guy.
But that's not longer trying to say, hold, I'm trying to.
Speaker 1: Well, that is what you're saying, though you said that,
you said that if I come to the conclusion that
the Church of the first thousand years is the Orthodox Church,
then that's just my interpretation. Everybody has their interpretation, But
that doesn't mean that the interpretations are purely subjective.
Speaker 22: I mean, no, I'm not saying that I'm just saying that,
is it there a chance that you could be wrong?
Speaker 1: There is a chance, but that's not what normative authority is.
So you're confusing normative authority with existential certitude. Those are
two different things. Normative authority means is there any body
of people who have the authority to bind people to
an interpretation. That's not the same thing as how do
we have individual epistemic certitude about a question? Those are
two different things, and that's why I'm always making this point.
I'm not fussing at you, but a lot of times
Roman Catholics, for example, confuse these two things and they
act like the papacy functions somehow as an epistemic principle
when it doesn't.
Speaker 22: No, I would say that the same objection that I'm
trying to make would apply to a Roman Catholic as well.
Speaker 1: So yeah, well, but that's not an objection. That's just
a statement of what the boat that everybody's in. Everybody's
in the boat of You're gonna have to figure this
out at an individual level. There's no way out of
that boat. Even a Roman Catholic has to try to
figure out, well, which papal documents do I follow which
ones are the ones that are infallible?
Speaker 2: Which?
Speaker 1: What do I do with Vatican two? What do I
do with Francis changing the death penalty? I mean, you
don't escape this in any of these systems.
Speaker 22: Yeah, I am aware that, but I'm not a Roman Catholic.
I'm a Lutheran, if that makes any difference. But I'm
just saying that because I've heard you say on debate
with more evangelical for the stunts that it owens up
at once personal interpretational discription.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, that's what I'm saying. That's that's the normative question.
That has nothing to do with So your your argument
is confusing existential certitude with normative authority. They're two totally
different things. Okay, do you understand why they're two different questions?
The argument against the Protestant is that Jesus didn't provide
the Church a historical body of people that can bind
anyone to an interpretation that's normative authority. Why wouldn't Jesus
provide that?
Speaker 11: Okay, so I got the confusion.
Speaker 22: I'm going to look into them more.
Speaker 1: That's fine, that's okay, But that's the question that I
would say to a Lutheran or to a Protestant is
did Jesus not foresee that there would.
Speaker 2: Be squabbles and disputes in the church?
Speaker 1: And he didn't give anybody any authority to bind anybody
to an interpretation. So it's just up to everybody. It's
you know, di y, good luck, dude, And then every
generation has to reinvent the wheel and rehash and restudy
and prove every controversy, even though like obviously the controversy
of the Trinity is already settled, right, but if you're
a Protestant, maybe not. Let's just let's start all over.
Let's do it all over, because all the councils are wrong.
They can all be wrong, Tudor. The QR code is
to uh support me via bit coin, So this is
a bitcoin while at QR code. For those that are asking, well, hello,
Christi's reason indeed, what's up?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 11: I have a small question.
Speaker 23: Basically I read them and I watched most of the
stuff in the videos from YouTube and also on your
website about the translation argument, it's a very orthodox and
traditional way of basically presenting the arguments for the existence
of God. I would be curious about basically, like when
you have a tresidential argument, we reach the point where
it basically we can prove that there's no logic outside
of basically like also of God and outside of revelation.
Now you still have like those old arguments that do
not work that well, like the like the contingency argument.
It's pretty much like it's a bunch of arguments from
the old philosophy that will not really work that well
because it will generally prove like a generic god essen
or like energies.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: They also they also don't address modern philosophical critiques, posts
and Lightenment. So if you were to go debate any
you know, smart atheist like Graham Api or somebody like that,
and you start arguing from contingency and all these metaphysical
baggage principles, they're just going to say, well, how do
you know any of those metaphysical principles or the are
the case? So they are not addressing the last five
hundred years of philosophical argumentation. That's another reason why they're
not very good.
Speaker 23: Yes, and indeed I'm not basically thinking about all that.
This is like the main question I wanted to ask,
Can there be basically be like a new transcendental version
of like the contingency argument.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you probably could.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you could probably make a transcendental argument for any
of those classical because the things that classical apologetics uses
are usually necessary metaphysical principles. So you can take that
metaphysical principle that's pretty much necessary to a worldview and
make it a kind of transcendental argument. I'm not I
haven't thought about the contingency one specifically, but you could
do it with the causal argument or the teleological argument
for sure, But I'm sure you could probably come up
with some way to make necessity and contingency somehow part
of a tag argument.
Speaker 23: Yeah, so that will be a lot more interesting because
now that this will be basically not to rely on.
Speaker 11: Like self evidence and things like that.
Speaker 23: That basically are nonsense in modern.
Speaker 3: Philosophy, right because anything is still related.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, yeah exactly.
Speaker 23: Oh yeah, so that will be like a good word
for like modern philosophy and for us sorts of excretions
to basically like I think we if we can even
like recycle these arguments for a more like a complete
description or should we not really do that?
Speaker 1: No, I think there's all kinds of open avenues for
people to do work in transient arguments.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Absolutely, Okay, thanks a lot for Christi's reason.
Speaker 13: Indeed, thank you good questions. Appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I haven't thought about the contingency necessity principles. But I
imagine you could somehow argue that you know there must
be some necessary things, and that if you deny that
there are some necessary existent things, you would be led
into some kind of reductio and knowledge will become impossible.
I'm sure there's some way to construct that kind of
an argument vertical view.
Speaker 5: Yes, can you hear me?
Speaker 24: So I'm currently trying to convert to Orthodoxy, and I
have a family of four and we're all Protestant, and
I'm kind of fully invested at the moment in helping
build a church. It's a reforming Baptist church, and I
really this is more like personal advice. I really don't
know how to like pull all of them out of
that and then put them into an Orthodox church, at
least not in a way that's not harmful.
Speaker 2: Well, how would it be harmful?
Speaker 3: What do you mean?
Speaker 24: Well, I mean, because I had, I would have to
convince them in the same way that I've been convinced,
and I think it would be a very uh I
don't want it to be abrupt, you know what I mean, like, Okay.
Speaker 1: We're well maybe yeah, maybe the right thing to do
is to ease them into it. I mean, you know
your family obviously better than anyone else, so you know,
maybe maybe you need to try to ease them into it.
I don't know, I don't know what the wise course
of action is there. I mean, is your is your wife,
Like I mean, I would first of all worry about her,
because she's going to have a lot of influence, you know,
over your kids and you so would you do you
do you think she would be receptive or do you
think she's like very antithetical to something like that.
Speaker 24: Well, I think, well we've already kind of talked about it.
In her main question, which I really didn't have an
answer to, is she was like, well, don't aren't we
already and dwelt with the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 3: Haven't we been baptized?
Speaker 24: And you know, I don't really have an answer to
tell her like well, look, yeah, no, well.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean God, in his grace works in people everywhere,
and the Holy Spirit is everywhere. But you know, if
we're faced with these questions of what the true church is.
I wouldn't rest my decision on, you know, some subjective
event in the past, like well, you know I did,
you know. I mean, it'd be like thinking, well, I
said the Sinner's Prayer when I was ten and I
felt good about it, so you know, I don't need
to become a reform Baptist. But I mean, imagine I'm
applying that logic to going from Baptist to reform Baptists. Right, Well,
I mean, why do I need to go to reform
Batist church because you know, I prayed and I felt
the center, you know, the Holy Spirit when I prayed
the Center's prayer when I was ten. Well, you would
argue that, well, but that doesn't mean that, you know,
God's not calling you to you know, something more consistent
or to a closer, you know, level of relationship. And
so just apply that same argument now, well you know
what I mean?
Speaker 24: Yeah, yeah, I mean, I yeah, I get what you're saying.
I'm good, I guess from I guess her advantage points,
she's going to be she's going to be turned that
I'm that I'm losing my mind or something. But I've
I've been really fully convinced in the last you know,
six months or so, and I've kind of warmed her
up to the idea. But I think that she in
her mind, she's like she thinking, well, I've seen the
fruit in our lives and our children's lives. Why does
why is something need to change?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's a tough, tough point because on
the one hand, we can't definitively say well, you never
had the Holy Spirit. But at the same time, it's like, well,
how do you could phrase it like this, Well, maybe
the Holy Spirit's leading you to orthodoxy, Like you know
what I mean, Like, maybe maybe that's the next phase
of your relationship with God. He wants them more intimate relationship,
and maybe that's where orthodoxy is. So, I know, it's
difficult with women because they're usually based it's usually based
on feelings, and it's based on subjective experience, and it's
not typically based on objective facts and argumentation and reason
and logic and history. But I think ultimately the only
way to be sure of these things is to get
people into the actual history and the actual teaching. So,
you know, can you get her into you know, looking
at the issues.
Speaker 5: I think that I can't.
Speaker 24: And I've already already kind of got her to accept
the fact that the argument you were just making a
previous conversation about how you know Christ would Christ would
preemptively know that these types of squabbles and disputes would happen,
and that he would want some authority, and she but
she believes that.
Speaker 3: I think. Think of the point now, it's just like.
Speaker 5: We're like, because we were currently playing the church.
Speaker 1: I understand. I mean, you know, you just maybe God's
testing you about whether this church planning thing is an idol,
you know what I mean, Like maybe maybe if it's
not the right church, you don't want to plant that.
I mean, do you want to plant a bunch of
weeds in the garden or do you want to plant, like,
you know, real tomatoes in the garden. Yeah, I would agree,
Yeah you could also I would say too, like, you know,
you're the head of your household. You know your family's
gonna follow your decision, So I would say, go ahead
and do that. You could also talk to your Orthodox
priests and you know, get his take on it, because
he's probably deal He's dealt with this a lot more
than I have.
Speaker 13: I'm sure Garrett.
Speaker 2: Are you there?
Speaker 1: DC would working three dollars. Thank you so much. You
failed three dollars. Oh, I failed so much. He sent
me three dollars. Kamala goom gang five dollars, thank you,
ball Cap, Jay is back, Mercedes Benz gag yeah baby, Anonymous,
three dollars. I just want to Actually, the reason I
have this hat on is because I was supposed to
wake up early for a Burmus interview and I didn't
have time to comb my Harris, so I just do
this hat on.
Speaker 2: But then we didn't end up having an interview.
Speaker 1: Anonymous, thank you for helping me through a lot of
my doubts about orthodoxy.
Speaker 13: I feel a lot more confident, glorid God.
Speaker 2: That's great man, glad to hear that.
Speaker 1: Are you there man?
Speaker 2: What's up.
Speaker 13: Anthony?
Speaker 1: Anthony or either yeah right here?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't I'm doing well. So yeah.
Speaker 25: So I've been part of the Church of Christ probably
since it's been twenty fifteen, and I've always had a
little bit of I don't know, things are qualms with
with the church, but not like it. It was like
little things that just popped up recently where I was
I had, like a good friend as a Lutheran, and
he started talking about infant baptism with me, and and
Church of Christ is not you know, they don't believe
that or anything like that. So I didn't like the
way I reacted towards him about it, right, and uh
so it got me. So I was asking him and
questioning about it. And then he says that, you know,
he couldn't find it in the Bible or something like that,
because in my mind, I'm jumping right to you know,
Bible alone, and that's what we believe there. And so
so I went in and I asked him questions like,
you know, how how early you know, did infant baptism
happen and all that kind of stuff. But so I
went looking into it and that just kind of just
took me down a road where I did not expect
a lot of things because.
Speaker 3: What what what what I used to what we used
to do?
Speaker 25: I mean, like whenever anything was brought up about baptism,
because I think that that's pretty much what the Church
of Christ kind.
Speaker 2: Of yeah, separate themselves, right.
Speaker 25: He's like that they believe in baptismal regeneration. Okay, Well,
let's just go to the church fathers, let's go to
the early church. Let's go what did they say? What
did they do? And so I had to look at
that and I had to see where I went to
him and I said, you're right, like there is evidence
about this. And then that took me down a whole
other rabbit hole about sol the scripture. And I didn't
even really kind of think about that.
Speaker 1: And they also all believe in the real presence in
the Eucharist too, which you don't.
Speaker 2: Church christ don't believe.
Speaker 25: So, right, So so I know that, you know, you
know Lutheran's I think about Martin Luther, and I've always
had a problem. I mean, we Church of Christ, they
have problems with Martin Luther. Okay, so this is the
long story. Short is that I again, so looking into
infant baptism. Looking into that kind of led me into
what else the it was the intercession of the saints.
It led me into uh, yeah, the communion. I remember
I was I someone asked me to, well, the minister
or whatever we call them in Church Christ I still
don't know, asked me to do communion. And I went
into this like weak, long deep dive into it. And
then I just found all these other little things that
I wanted to discussed or something like that about it.
So I just got this really deep understanding about communion
and and studying about it and then studying about more
about prayer just because a lot of different things happening
in my life. And so now I've just gone down
this complete different road where I'm completely open now to you.
Speaker 1: Know, I have the same thing, the same thing happened
to me in two thousand and three.
Speaker 2: I totally understand.
Speaker 25: So yeah, so where I'm at right now is I'm
going to the people in the church. And uh, we
just we just my wife and I. I have wife
and two kids, and we just moved here to Arkansas.
It's been about two years or so, and I've been
a part of the Church of Christ here and and
uh and uh.
Speaker 7: Sorry, I'm just.
Speaker 3: What is it.
Speaker 25: Been looking into this? And I didn't like that it
started out. I didn't like the way I reacted, like
I'm like, why why am I so like it's it
seems to be like that reaction you're kind of given,
like you're you're sort of taught that to be so
anti Catholic or so anti Orthodox, you're so not even
wanting to hear anything out and like they just you know,
we have like certain writers in the Church of Christ
where you know, they look up you know, it's Bible alone,
like that's the whole thing.
Speaker 11: But then I remember, I remember.
Speaker 25: In the last couple of years, like when my one
of my friends was going through a divorce and they
kind of went outside the Bible to explain certain things.
Because there's no definite position that any Protestant Evangelical, they
don't take a position on it or anything.
Speaker 3: It's kind of all over the place.
Speaker 25: So that was kind of strange to me that I
that we weren't like I thought it was Bible alone,
you know, so and that was always strange to me
about that. So anyways, all these other things that just
came up are now are now I'm questioning and I'm
bringing it to people, and no one could give me
an answer for it.
Speaker 7: And and so.
Speaker 25: One of the things that just came up was I
guess just like suggestions about things to kind of get
me started. I'm very I'm like, in the beginning of this,
I had a my wife had a yard sale, and
a guy from an Orthodox church that's nearby.
Speaker 7: We talked a little bit.
Speaker 25: And this was kind of before I was just like
right at the beginning where I was just being open
to it.
Speaker 7: And uh and uh.
Speaker 25: Then he he came like he left an icon of
a Jesus on my car window or my mailbox and
he wrote down his number and you know said, you know,
thought that he had to he felt compelled to like
reach out to me. And now I've been it's been
about a few months, and I hadn't really kind of
get together with him. And now since I've deep dive
into all this stuff, reading all these different things, all
my arguments about whether or not we have a normative
authority you know in the church, like where you know,
like we have things like that, all these different things
are just breaking down. Now now I'm just completely I'm unsettled,
That's what I'm trying to say, and I don't know
what to kind of like I'm trying to get like
a really good structure of the church history. I'm going
to be bringing this to people just to because it
seems like I'm gonna easing out of the Church Christ
and taking my family like the guy in the Last
Caller where he didn't know what.
Speaker 2: To do right, Well, yeah, so I would say start with.
Speaker 1: Something like John Mayandor's book The Orthodox Church. Then I
would read something like Yaroslav Pelicon's volume one of his
five volume series, the first one about the emergence of
the Catholic tradition, because it's just written as an overview
of the first five centuries of the Church. So those
two books, they're not too hard to read, would be
good for you as a Protestant to give you an
idea of the ideological trek of the early Church and
the history of the Church and the basic theology. And
I would move on to something a little more, you know,
something like athanacious Is on the Incarnation or something like that.
Those are good places to go. Also, doctor Clark Carlton,
you could look up his book about Protestant Positions versus
Orthodox if you want something that's a little more polemical
and apologetic. So those are places to start. And then yeah,
continue talking to your Orthodox friend, all right, actully, thank
you man, Yeah, thank you. Glad to hear your you're
on that quest. I had this similar thing happened to
me when I was twenty one or two, and I
started reading The Church Fathers and realizing Oh, wait a minute,
they're not Calvinists.
Speaker 13: Uh oh, I started freaking out.
Speaker 1: So good news is, though, you can avoid the ten
years of Roman Catholic madness that I went into, and
you can bypass all that nonsense and just go straight
to orthodox g what's up, ge Glad and reputing one dollar?
What do you think about the fourth position political theory
or third position? No, I don't really accept any quasi
fascist position, so I don't I'm not into fascism. Fourth
political theory of Dugan is a little too much gnosticism.
If you read the last chapter in his Fourth Political
Theory book, it's very influenced by gnostic stuff. I do
agree with the rejection of capitalism in the sense of
monopoly capitalism and communism and evolution, so I agree with
those critiques in the book. I don't know about I
don't think a fourth position is going to do anything.
William Die ten dollars, I don't have any answers. So
it's like, what's your position and solution to the political
problems with today?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know William Dye ten dollars.
Speaker 2: Sam Shimun is.
Speaker 1: The one that led me to orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: That's great.
Speaker 1: Traditional Catholics blood will be boiling because they should know
that a Catholic told people to go to the Orthodox
Church for something.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, I wasn't saying that Sam Chimun had definitively converted
to Catholicism. I was saying he was attending a Catholic church.
That's what he says. So the last time I asked him,
he said he's still in between, but he believes that
because the Catholic Church will give him sacraments, he'll go
there before Orthodox. So that's that's his reasoning. I hope
he doesn't go Catholic. I think if Sam goes Catholic,
he'll have a hard time with a lot of these
years of apologetics against Muslims that he's done, given the
fact that Vatican two says in two places that Christians, Jews,
and Muslims all worship the same God. So I don't
know why anybody would want to go to that. I
can't fathom why people want. I think people think they're
going to get something in Catholicism that is just not there.
It's so they think that Roman Catholicism is this thing
on paper, and they think it's this glorious thing from
the Middle Ages. And then when you actually join it
and you find out that it's Skittle's priests and ecumenical
service with Muslims and Jews and Hindus. I mean, that's
the reality. It's not the medieval church. Dude, Wake up,
stop being dumb.
Speaker 2: Christian.
Speaker 1: They're Adrian one dollar high. Hey, what's up Adrian Christian
twenty dollars?
Speaker 2: Jay?
Speaker 1: What's the most compelling argument to help a Protestant consider orthodoxy?
The very thing that we just discussed with this guy
that the Church of the first thousand years believes in
apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ, and the Eucharist, vouchism, regeneration, tradition,
oral tradition, liturgy. I mean, so therefore anything that's not
that is not authentic. Orkers Entery, It's not that difficult.
What would you do if you wanted to help convert
a know it all friend? Well, if I know it all,
I would cut to the root of the issue and
just say like, well, how do you know you have
the right canon? Like, if I'm a Protestant and no
decisions after the of the Apostles are binding, authoritative, or infallible,
then it's open season. We can all just come up
with our own canons, can't. We just study really hard,
pray really hard, and my canon like Marcian did, right,
My canon is just gonna be the Book of Jude. Oh,
trust me, though I prayed about it really hard.
Speaker 2: I study a lot.
Speaker 1: I even learned Greek and Hebrew, and just just trust me, bro,
Jude is the only legitimate book of the New Testament
Cannon period.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 1: Now as a Protestant, how are you gonna tell me
I'm wrong?
Speaker 2: The church has received all these books of the church.
Speaker 1: What church? There's no such thing as the church, which
is all the churches and some generic collective. That's a
fiction that doesn't actually exist. Patricia, five dollars, Thank you
so much, Jub. Shout up to our time stamp master,
our buddy, Jub. He says, one hundred dollars. Wow, dude,
you don't have to send that much. Appreciate that, though.
When is the next TikTok debate stream? I gotta build
up the energy for that because it's so intense and crazy.
Speaker 2: Also, are all four.
Speaker 1: Of the Palomite synods considered ecumenical?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think they've attained the status of being authoritative, so
they're not ecumenical in this sense of like, because there
was no empire per se anymore. I guess there was.
Technically it was in Byzantium, but you know, the West
wasn't really accepting Byzantine synods. So in the classical sense
of the ocumena, it wouldn't be an ecumenical council. But
the Palomite Synods are for us the ninth Ecumenical Council.
So yes, even though it doesn't technically have the term
ecumenical council, sometimes you will see applied to all of
the Palomite Synods the term a ninth Ecumenical Council. I'm
asking because a friend is captivated by scholasticism, Well, your
friend needs to understand that scholasticism is not a thing
in Rome anymore. They don't care about that. I mean,
the Romancalloay Church quit caring about that even before Vatican two.
So this is something that nerdy twenty year olds are
spurging out about and having mental master you know what
session's over, which has nothing to do with reality. So
maybe tell your friend that he's just LARPing in a circle.
J r K to the Medieval to the Middle Ages,
which doesn't exist. Michael Jarron five dollars. Why aren't you
an Orthodox priest? Why would I be an Orthodox priest.
I've never had any interest in being a priest or
any kind of minister. I quite content being an Internet goofball,
so I will forever be an Internet goall goofball hopefully.
Speaker 2: Nathan three dollars.
Speaker 1: Hey man, what are what are the teaps for the
fat raassis to do the prostrations?
Speaker 2: I'm so fat I can't see me tolds.
Speaker 1: Instead of doing prostrations, roll down a hill and every
time you roll over, do some different prayer. Armani Joones
three dollars. Black people go to heaven if the Ethiopian
Orthodox Church isn't schis them. I've never even seen a
minority at a Russian Orthodox church. We have black people
come to our church. So but also, I mean, I
don't damn the entire collective group of people because I
don't know people's destinies. No, we're not told this, so
that's a bizarre question.
Speaker 2: G Are you there?
Speaker 3: Did you want to go?
Speaker 1: I gotta I gotta interview, so I gotta go soon.
Speaker 2: But I'll try to do as me as I can.
Speaker 5: Hello, he look, can you hear me?
Speaker 11: All right? Okay, yeah, quick question.
Speaker 26: Just trying to wrap my mind around the trinity stuff
in the co equal part.
Speaker 11: What is it that that's getting at?
Speaker 7: What is it that that means?
Speaker 1: It means they all three share the same nature. They're
equal in nature.
Speaker 5: Okay, all right, that clears up all out.
Speaker 3: Actually, so they're.
Speaker 1: They're distinct in person, but equal in nature, because I mean.
Speaker 7: At first, I mean just coequal.
Speaker 26: I thought it uh ontologically first, and I mean.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I mean ontologically meaning that they have the
same nature.
Speaker 5: Yes, okay, but.
Speaker 26: Not in terms of like like Jesus, let's say the
son and the Father are not the same thing per se, right,
ontologically saying like, now.
Speaker 1: They're distinct persons, but they're united in nature essence. All right,
So like two different human beings, they're two different persons,
but they share the same human nature. Okay, that's an analogy.
Speaker 26: And would you say, like what it is that Off
the top of my head, I think John seventeen, I
think twenty through verse twenty through twenty three, where it
says like well this paraphrasing obviously that you whoever he's
speaking to can become one with God. Like I have
paraphrasing very hard. What is that because when I think
about the coequal part, this is kind.
Speaker 11: Of the birth.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, we become sons of God by grace, not
by nature. Jesus is the second person of the Godhead,
so he is the son of God eternally generated from
the Father, from the Father's nature. So we never become
the nature of God, but we do participate in the
grace of God or the uncreated energy of God. That's
what that means.
Speaker 26: Okay, man, I got a couple other questions.
Speaker 5: Man, but I mean, it's raining over here pretty bad.
But I appreciate you. I understand a little bit more now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good questions. Appreciate that. I got a couple of
minutes for the last Nicholas, last couple questions. I want
to remind you guys too, to head on over to
chalk dot com show sponsor. Chalk dot com the best
in supplements online.
Speaker 2: If you want to up.
Speaker 1: Your toxic masculinity, you want some focus, you want some energy,
heading over to chalk dot com h o Q use
the promo code j fifty to get fifty percent excuse me,
don't use that promo. Cod use j forty four life
to get forty four percent off all those great products.
Speaker 2: What's up, man, hey man?
Speaker 19: I was wondering if you could recommend the two books
one for the on the First Council of Constantople and
the Seventh Council.
Speaker 1: I don't know if a specific book just on Constantinople one.
I mean, there could be some academic text out on
that that I'm not aware of. I mean, usually, you know,
any book that kind of covers the seven ecumenical councils
will touch on the emphasis in each of them. So
like Pelican's book, Volume one is going to cover all
of those general ideas. But I think only recently. I
don't know if Price has done Richard Price has done
Constantinople one or not. Maybe he did, But I would
just read like a general overview of it, like what
specifically are you looking for?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 11: More like how the Trinity came in?
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 1: I would say, well, you could read doctor go go
listen to uh doctor Branson's lectures on the Cappa doceans
because a lot of his lectures deal with conceptinoble one.
So doctor bo Branson has a five lectures. I think
at his website plenty of interviews on YouTube, that would
be a good place to go to. His dissertation is
on the cap of Doceans, but uh, I don't know.
That might be a little too technical.
Speaker 3: I don't know, all right. And then on the seventh
Community for the Icons.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would read, uh, the Alspinsky Lost Key book
Theology Icon Volume one, and then Theodore the Studit's book
on the Holy Icons, and John Demascus is. These are
fairly short books. John Demascus is Defense of the Holy Images.
All right, yeah, man, thank you? Xander. What's up?
Speaker 13: We've got people from Buffy the Vampire Slayer joining us today.
Speaker 1: What's up, Xander?
Speaker 3: Jay?
Speaker 2: What's going on the what's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Well, dude, my.
Speaker 19: Voice was shot, so if it's annoying, I was torn
between coming up here, So sorry about that.
Speaker 5: I was talking throughout.
Speaker 19: I think I know the answer now having listened to you.
Speaker 5: But e Michael.
Speaker 3: Jones and his writings on the logos, what are your
thoughts on that?
Speaker 19: And I was curious too, like Greek philosophy and how
operative you think that is in Christianity?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wrote.
Speaker 1: I wrote an essay on this called logos and wisdom,
and I ever since I heard him first talk about this,
I've always thought he was wrong, so I never read
his stuff on it because logos is not a pagan
philosophical principle. John is pulling from the wisdom texts of
Solomon and Proverbs, so it's not coming from Plato. He's
probably trying to appeal to people in the Greek and
Roman world by but it's not Logos is the second
person of the Godhead, and John one, it's not the
same thing as Marcus Aurelius as Logos.
Speaker 3: I think. Gotcha?
Speaker 19: And then what what are your thoughts on gnocissism and kabala?
And I'm curious about Eastern religions.
Speaker 1: Have I mean, I just did multiple lectures on kabbala
and narcissism the last two weeks, so you could find
uh several of those. And I'm not being a dickhead.
I'm just saying, like literally just covered that like multiple
times in the last few weeks.
Speaker 3: Gotcha. And then like Christian Europe, like the kids.
Speaker 19: Would call it base like throughout its history, like it
was patriarchal, it was a warring, you know, it was
it was a masculine ethic compared to now, like modern
Christianity is pretty defanged and neutered.
Speaker 1: What would you at, Well, most of what you're talking
about is just not even Christianity. It's all a bunch
of sex and cults and heretics. So I mean, I
don't wait, we don't recognize any of that stuff as
even Christianity. It's a bunch of clown clown church clown show.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well that brings me.
Speaker 19: I posted in the comments that do you know brother
Peter Diamond.
Speaker 1: I don't know them, but I know of that could Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're they're wild guys.
Speaker 1: But I posted so, yeah, people should read the set
of a Conscious Delusion by John Pontrello because he is
somebody that we helped to become orthodox out of the
set of a Conscius world.
Speaker 19: Okay, well, that he's a sharp chat like. I mean,
I'm pretty new to you. I've only been following you for.
Speaker 3: Like a month. But he put a really good argument together.
Obviously I don't know so much, but.
Speaker 19: Is there a good argument to like? Actually, he made
seven points. He said canon law states that manifest and
notorious heresy facto exchange.
Speaker 1: So John John Pontrello's book is written against all of
those arguments, and I did a three hour live stream
addressing all of those arguments, so you can look up
how set of a contess improves orthodox theology if you're
interested in in my response that suff.
Speaker 3: Ert sees.
Speaker 1: J forty four Life J forty four l f E.
All right, I think we're gonna have to end it
because I gotta go do somebody's podcast. But remember to
get my books over at Jasonelsis dot com in the
shop signed copies as the Trek Hollywood three will be
out hopefully in the next few months. I'm up to
about two hundred and sixty pages. Now I wish it
was just it just takes forever to write a book.
Speaker 2: Oh man, it's a lot of work. But be patient.
Speaker 1: That's why I haven't done a whole lot of part
twos and talks for subscribers and all that. I'll try
to get some of that material up in the next
couple of days. I'm just really trying to hammer away
at the book. But thank you guys so much and
fun talks today and appreciate the superchats. I think we
got a couple more here Stefan DV eleven dollars fifty
more cents. Your wife is making more in super chats. Uh, oh, well,
if it happens, it happens. I'm proud for her to do.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: Send some super tats for Jay tuition is due. Also,
Andrew Wilson, historian debate courses would be involved in that.
He asked me to help with that, and I said
I would be able to, but the initial day that
he asked, I wasn't able to go do it. But
maybe down the road, I think we'll be trying to
do some more stuff like that. But yeah, I'm always
down to help out with something like that. Everybody have
a good day.