Speaker 1: S S S S S S S S S S
Speaker 1: S S S S S S S S.
Speaker 2: S.
Speaker 3: All right, welcome, hope everybody's sir.
Speaker 4: I woke up today to some fancy, flashy, sassy new
Speaker 4: drama from the Internet's.
Speaker 3: Hottest little boats Eie Wearer.
Speaker 4: I'm talking about that predestined as sunny occasionalist, Calvinist Muslim
Speaker 4: man James Watt and his little cute little list that
Speaker 4: he's got. He's just so in a tizzy today. He's
Speaker 4: just sassy today. Something got up under him and got
Speaker 4: him all sassed. I don't know what it is, but
Speaker 4: if we're gonna go to Roman's nine, honey child, he's
Speaker 4: our man. He can exege that perfectly. With that diploma
Speaker 4: meal degree that he got down in South Africa, down
Speaker 4: there with his little Ubungu friends that he's got. I
Speaker 4: wonder what they get up to down there with that
Speaker 4: little lisp. He's got it and there's no telling them.
Speaker 4: Maybe he did it. Maybe he did his diploma, diploma,
Speaker 4: MA degree online. I think they have extension courses up
Speaker 4: there for little James wherever he's located inside of his
Speaker 4: little RV.
Speaker 3: They might be over here in New Orleans right now.
Speaker 4: If it's Marti Grauls time, I'm over here, about fifty
Speaker 4: miles outside of New Orleans. I I could just run
Speaker 4: over there and find James if he's over there on
Speaker 4: down in the French quarters. If he's down there, Exaget
Speaker 4: and Romans nine for some of the some of the
Speaker 4: men's over there in the French quarters. But listen, I'll
Speaker 4: tell you one thing, honey, you ain't going to find
Speaker 4: a better cosmusweater anywhere in the damn us than down
Speaker 4: there in that French quarter. Some of them women's down
Speaker 4: there that does the tarot reatings, the tarot cards, Honey,
Speaker 4: Them tarot readers will sew you a Cosby sweater like
Speaker 4: Joseph's technicolor dreamcoat, Honey, out of the doll of the
Speaker 4: Book of Genesis, honey. And that's what James White's all about.
Speaker 4: I hope James Whites will come over here and I
Speaker 4: and just talk to him a little bit. But he's
Speaker 4: got that cute little honey. Have you ever seen that
Speaker 4: little Colonel Sanders.
Speaker 5: Go to you?
Speaker 4: He's got And it just makes me think all them
Speaker 4: chickens that Biden had just killed, all one hundred fifty
Speaker 4: billion of them. If I was thinking like James White
Speaker 4: and that Colonel Sanders predestination mindset, they was destined for it, honey,
Speaker 4: all one hundred fifty millions of them. Let's see, maybe
Speaker 4: he'll come in here and tell us about Romans nine.
Speaker 4: Romans nine, I'm just joking, being silly. I'm poisoning the well.
Speaker 4: Oh wait, if I poison the well, it's on Christ.
Speaker 4: Like when James White poisons the well, it's Boomer wisdom.
Speaker 3: I don't know what he was trying to say.
Speaker 4: If he doesn't debate a person with a green profile picture, wow,
Speaker 4: those are good reasons. Now, for years, here's the backstory.
Speaker 4: We messaged James White to do debates on.
Speaker 3: The Essen Center. You've seen Shin on Absolute to my Simplicity,
Speaker 3: Tilly oak Way, all of that stuff.
Speaker 4: And for years he said, in his little sassy tone,
Speaker 4: I don't know orthodox stuff. I just don't have tons
Speaker 4: of debate I have, and he's just there's just too
Speaker 4: much list thing I've.
Speaker 3: Got to do.
Speaker 6: I've got to study the art of the list.
Speaker 3: And I don't have time to study orthodox stuff.
Speaker 4: So he had no time for the last six seven years,
Speaker 4: I guess, And now he wants to drive an RV
Speaker 4: to debate me a year out, and what I guess
Speaker 4: I'm supposed to like arrange this. I don't arrange in
Speaker 4: person debates. I mean, I don't mind it. In person debate.
Speaker 4: I've done one with Tim Gordon's brother in that ridiculous
Speaker 4: Baptist pastor I don't remember his name, but that was
Speaker 4: all organized by another podcast to settle that up. So
Speaker 4: it's not that I'm completely opposed to it, but like
Speaker 4: so William Albrech did this where he was like.
Speaker 3: Oh, debate you, but only.
Speaker 4: In person six months from now, and it's like, okay,
Speaker 4: so I'm supposed to establish and set up a public
Speaker 4: in person debate for you.
Speaker 3: I'm not doing all that shit, dude. You can hop
Speaker 3: on a damn live streaming debate.
Speaker 4: And by the way, all these people usually will debate
Speaker 4: other people on live streams. And I think his like
Speaker 4: scrawling screed today of boomer nonsense was quite amusing, Like
Speaker 4: I'm gonna have fun live streaming about this. So now
Speaker 4: he calls into question my comedic capabilities.
Speaker 3: Is he even a comedian?
Speaker 4: Well, I'll have you know that I write for one
Speaker 4: of the top comedians out there right now.
Speaker 3: You may have heard the name Amy Schumer.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Now we're going to open it up today's topics or
Speaker 4: whatever you guys want to talk about. I do not
Speaker 4: think we're really going to get many calvin Is in here,
Speaker 4: but of course Calvinism gets the priority place today for
Speaker 4: discussion topic. So if you'd like to discuss the elements
Speaker 4: of Calvinism, that could include predestination, tulip Calvins, institutes, reform theology, Puritans,
Speaker 4: it could be any of that.
Speaker 3: But we can also talk about, of course soul, scripturia.
Speaker 3: We can talk about.
Speaker 4: The history of the church, councils, authority, you know, creeds
Speaker 4: and confessions, church fathers.
Speaker 3: It's all fair game.
Speaker 4: Also, anything else related to the history of Protestantism, the
Speaker 4: prosct Church, Classical Reformation, Lutheranism, Baptist theology, whatever, Also Catholicism
Speaker 4: is on the table. If you are a papist, you
Speaker 4: may call in and make your arguments. If you are
Speaker 4: a Muslim, the buddies of the Calvinists, because they believe
Speaker 4: in essentially the Divine decree is the cause of all causes.
Speaker 4: So Muslims are welcome to call in together with their
Speaker 4: about buddy Calvinists and we can have a discussion with
Speaker 4: it as well as the atheists.
Speaker 3: It's open form today. First up is balance. You have
Speaker 3: time you.
Speaker 7: So, Jay, I wanted to talk to you about Protestism.
Speaker 8: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yep?
Speaker 7: So I've been looking into Catholicism and Orthodoxy for a
Speaker 7: little while now. I was born and raised in Protestant Church. Well,
Speaker 7: Costolicism never like intrigued me because Swols is gay with
Speaker 7: the Pope god Man. But Orthodoxy always intrigued me. And
Speaker 7: my question is because I'm I've always thought about conditionalism.
Speaker 7: It's being biblical. And my main point is Isaiah. I
Speaker 7: guess chapter sixty six, verses twenty two to twenty four
Speaker 7: referred by Jesus and Mark when he says he sends
Speaker 7: them to the outer room of darkness where the national
Speaker 7: teeth and they become objects of content and their corpses
Speaker 7: refer to Isaiah. So how is that like not like
Speaker 7: them dying in hell? If that's where they go and
Speaker 7: they're they become coarse corpses.
Speaker 3: And I didn't hear what you were saying. Conditionalism? What
Speaker 3: is that?
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's basically now where people do you know die
Speaker 7: in hell? Annihilism they call it.
Speaker 3: You're talking about annihilationism not not yet, my bad, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean, the Bible doesn't teach annihilationism. It teaches that
Speaker 3: both the body and the soul are joined together in
Speaker 3: the resurrection for all eternity, and that's based on the
Speaker 3: work of Christ. So in One Tear the fifteen Paul
Speaker 3: makes it very clear that your resurrection, whoever you are,
Speaker 3: is contingent upon Christ's resurrection and defeating death. But that
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that you're going to have.
Speaker 4: Necessarily a good experience of the escaton if you're wicked.
Speaker 4: The wicked have ever being, but they have ever ill being.
Speaker 4: The righteous have ever being as well, but they have
Speaker 4: ever well being.
Speaker 7: All right, that makes sense. I just when you look
Speaker 7: at like mark and stuff. When Jesus talking about like
Speaker 7: them can turn in the outer of darkness and the
Speaker 7: national teeth, he says, it's going to be where the
Speaker 7: fire doesn't quench and where the worm doesn't die. And
Speaker 7: in Isaiah that's where like there are objects of contempt
Speaker 7: and their corpses.
Speaker 4: I understand that, but the language is intending to discuss
Speaker 4: a spiritual state. It's not literally saying that they have
Speaker 4: a worm because the worm, according to the Church Fathers, typically
Speaker 4: is the pangs of conscience. So they're tormented by their
Speaker 4: conscience for what they did and what they didn't do
Speaker 4: in life, they didn't repent, et cetera. But the fire
Speaker 4: there is it's not everlasting darkness if it's literal fire, right,
Speaker 4: So it's the descriptions of separation from the goodness of God,
Speaker 4: not separation from the presence of God. And that's why
Speaker 4: in the Orthodox of you, the divine energy that is
Speaker 4: the river of life is the same divine energy that
Speaker 4: is the lake of fire. It's just contingent upon the
Speaker 4: mode of being of each individual person as to how
Speaker 4: that's experienced in the afterlife. So if you lived unrighteously
Speaker 4: and not according to Christ in this life, you're still
Speaker 4: going to get resurrected on the basis of Christ, and
Speaker 4: you're still going to experience God and the Eskaton, but
Speaker 4: you're going to experience the divine energies as the thing
Speaker 4: that torments you because you hated God.
Speaker 7: All right, Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 7: I wasn't trying to like make a correlation of it
Speaker 7: being dark. I know it wasn't being literal obviously, because
Speaker 7: of the flames. But the analogy whatever you were saying
Speaker 7: with the warm that makes sense. I never heard anyone
Speaker 7: say that, And trying to like research and see what
Speaker 7: other people's thoughts were.
Speaker 4: All thees Gaton Paul says that in One Green Is fifteen,
Speaker 4: God becomes all and in all and the extent of
Speaker 4: the resurrection. The scope of the resurrection in First Green
Speaker 4: Is fifteen is just as expansive and universal as the
Speaker 4: scope of Adams Fall. So that means that everyone, even
Speaker 4: tiny mustache man like, the only basis for him to be.
Speaker 3: Resurrection resurrected is the worst of Christ.
Speaker 4: So this also, by the way, we're fu's Calvinism, because
Speaker 4: Calvinism never really understands or explains why the wicked or
Speaker 4: resurrected or the reprobate would be resurrected because they have
Speaker 4: no connection to Christ. And so Calvinists just have to
Speaker 4: say stuff like, well, God just arbitrarily creates a hell
Speaker 4: body for them, Padre Pio, why'd you run away? I'm
Speaker 4: about to bring up a Roman Catholic and you literally
Speaker 4: just drop out. So it's funny, like, and people love
Speaker 4: to just talk Tomac on Twitter all day long. James
Speaker 4: White wants to schedule a debate on topics that are
Speaker 4: not the topics that I asked them debate for many years,
Speaker 4: totally different topics, and then but he can't hop on
Speaker 4: his face and have this discussion. So yeah, it's just
Speaker 4: really like another thing that people don't know maybe about
Speaker 4: Calvinist is I was in that world when I was young,
Speaker 4: and Calvinists really like their whole thing. They thrive on
Speaker 4: being recognized and being seen as scholars and intellectuals, like
Speaker 4: that's the whole religion. It's a it's a kind of
Speaker 4: a it's like just a biblical almost Talmudic version of
Speaker 4: what you know, papal scholastic people want to be right,
Speaker 4: Scholastic nerds have a lot more philosophy. But both the
Speaker 4: Calvinists scholastic want to be and the papal scholastic tomist
Speaker 4: want to be they're really just worshiping intellect.
Speaker 3: The whole religion is about intellect.
Speaker 4: And being perceived as intellectual and known as intellectual and
Speaker 4: given the validation of being an intellectual through debate. So
Speaker 4: one of the things that I've learned over the years
Speaker 4: that is very important is Calvinists do not at all
Speaker 4: enjoy being mocked or made fun of because they take
Speaker 4: themselves very seriously. And of course everyone could see that
Speaker 4: in all the silly shit that he's posted today, James White,
Speaker 4: it's all like, really, like this man, there's not a.
Speaker 3: Scholar.
Speaker 4: He's got a green of photo of himself and he's
Speaker 4: got a photo of weird background images. The background images,
Speaker 4: for those that don't know, has a bunch of fascinating
Speaker 4: lore in it that my buddy and good friend Mark Rowe,
Speaker 4: who is a very well known documentary filmmaker and a cinematographer,
Speaker 4: just made as a joke. So like a lot of
Speaker 4: the stuff, people don't even know what the jokes are.
Speaker 4: They don't get it, but that's to be expected. I mean,
Speaker 4: it's just like you know, the humor of Sam Hyde,
Speaker 4: nobody over age, I don't know, fifty maybe even forty five,
Speaker 4: I don't know, Like they don't typically care or get
Speaker 4: that kind of humor like that.
Speaker 3: That's the generation gap.
Speaker 4: So although technically James White's probably gen X, I mean,
Speaker 4: the whole mindset, the whole ethos here is just like
Speaker 4: one hundred percent boomer for sure. But the point being
Speaker 4: is like, now, of course he's not gonna they're not
Speaker 4: gonna grasp or get like, well, what all we're talking about?
Speaker 4: What we're about over here? But also like it's important
Speaker 4: not to validate.
Speaker 3: Quote unquote these people's like perception of being quote a scholar.
Speaker 3: You notice I don't care about that. I gave up.
Speaker 3: I could care less about that shit. I used to
Speaker 3: care about.
Speaker 4: That, especially when I was a Roman Catholic Thomas. You know,
Speaker 4: when I went from Calvinist to Thomas, I was very
Speaker 4: interested in academia, very interesting getting my degree. I want
Speaker 4: to be seen as, oh, I'm a scholar. And then
Speaker 4: once I realized that all that shits retarded and the
Speaker 4: people in these movements are actually just retarded, and that
Speaker 4: I actually I would respect a person who could actually
Speaker 4: like a guy who actually go out and punch somebody
Speaker 4: in the face and have a fight way better than
Speaker 4: I would respect any of these so called pastors. I mean,
Speaker 4: what did we just see yesterday. One of the biggest
Speaker 4: megachurch pastors is basically Reverend Tuttle from true detective like
Speaker 4: the literal pedo, like raping kids, you know, Protestant Evangelical
Speaker 4: megachurch pastor. So I mean, what does that tell you like,
Speaker 4: these people are just like literal trash and scum, and
Speaker 4: they want to be seen as like these super intellectuals.
Speaker 4: They're not even worth anybody's time. And by the way,
Speaker 4: the rest of the Calvinists on the Twitter spaces are
Speaker 4: complete trash too, the ones that fake that their wives
Speaker 4: are submissive prairie muffins. That other guy the other day,
Speaker 4: I think he was a Calvinist that was a fake
Speaker 4: saying he was logging in and tweeting at this fake
Speaker 4: wife account like.
Speaker 3: That she was submissive.
Speaker 4: And then you got Joel Webbin over here, who's like, uh,
Speaker 4: basically wants to be a Salafie Muslim as a Calvinist.
Speaker 4: All these Calvinists just need to go be freaking Muslims.
Speaker 4: They need to be they need to be Salafie well Hobby,
Speaker 4: they need to go be buddies with Jake and Daniel
Speaker 4: Hikikachu because that's where they'd fit in. Jamie said, Joel
Speaker 4: Webbin believes in Mermaids unironically, which is.
Speaker 3: Kind of funny. And now a bunch of the audience
Speaker 3: are going to be.
Speaker 4: Like, oh, actually I like Joel Webbin though, because there's
Speaker 4: probably a lot of other mrmaid appreciators in this chat,
Speaker 4: there's a lot of there's a lot of people with
Speaker 4: their crushes on Ariel over here. But didn't you know
Speaker 4: Ariel from Little Mermaid is actually a Jewish plot because
Speaker 4: Ariel is the name for Israel.
Speaker 3: I'm just joking as a joke, and.
Speaker 4: I would I'd like to remind you all again I
Speaker 4: am one of the top comedy writers.
Speaker 3: Now I did finagle my way into that position.
Speaker 4: James White's questioning my comedic skill sets.
Speaker 3: I'll have you all know I am the.
Speaker 4: Top comedy writer for somebody you might have heard of,
Speaker 4: Brendan Shaub.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Anybody else wants to come on to the chat. If
Speaker 4: you hit request to speak, I'll bring you up. You
Speaker 4: can ask questions in regard to Calvinism all the way.
Speaker 3: James White's actually.
Speaker 4: A ridiculous radical proponent of stupid ads. So I want
Speaker 4: to debate him about that. Actually initially, and we were
Speaker 4: going to talk about Philly Oakuay and all that stuff,
Speaker 4: and he said multiple times over the years, I don't
Speaker 4: debate orthodox stuff because I don't have time for it.
Speaker 4: So he just sort of dismissed it.
Speaker 3: And then I asked again about that sinceni.
Speaker 4: In distinction, And then we asked Jeff Durbin when back
Speaker 4: when Durbin was like in the circles or adjacent to
Speaker 4: James White was saying at one point, oh, you know,
Speaker 4: I don't really have time go out go tobate James Derbin.
Speaker 4: So Durbin said, if you would like to debate me,
Speaker 4: there's a good in line You're it's at least one
Speaker 4: year out. And I'm just like, how, like, how much
Speaker 4: first of all, how much prep do you actually need
Speaker 4: if you're a damn Calvinist, Like you can't just defend
Speaker 4: your position on the spot, Like, how much more prep
Speaker 4: do you actually need if you've been at Calvinist for
Speaker 4: freaking twenty thirty years? I mean when I was a Calvinist,
Speaker 4: like a defendant on the spot, and pretty much really
Speaker 4: any position, like if it's a really difficult issue, like
Speaker 4: let's say we wanted to have a debate with a
Speaker 4: Roman Catholic on We're going to debate, you know, the
Speaker 4: geopolitical power of the papacy, which I keep trying to
Speaker 4: get Roman Catholics to do, and none the will do it.
Speaker 4: Like I would understand somebody requesting time for that because
Speaker 4: that's a difficult nuance, a lot of time and effort.
Speaker 4: But like if you're a Calvinist, like we all know too,
Speaker 4: we all know predestination, we all know you know institutes,
Speaker 4: we all know Westminster Confession.
Speaker 3: Like how much real prep you actually need on Ross?
Speaker 10: Yeah?
Speaker 11: Yeah, it's up, Yeah yeah yeah, I say, said, I
Speaker 11: am here, so I wanted to speak with you. I
Speaker 11: have a friend with the Roman Catholic I am Ortodox,
Speaker 11: and I watched your video on iconography on the seventeen
Speaker 11: you Manical Concil, and he raped the objection that viality
Speaker 11: matter in which style is the icon.
Speaker 3: So I can't understand what you're saying.
Speaker 4: You watched the video I did on the seventh Ecmmenical Council,
Speaker 4: and we've done about four of those, so I'm not
Speaker 4: sure what.
Speaker 11: Recent one on iconography where you argued that the current style,
Speaker 11: like in the fifteenth century the Roman Catholics used is incorrect.
Speaker 10: And I read.
Speaker 11: The seventh Ecumenical councils canons and I couldn't find anything
Speaker 11: about that that.
Speaker 3: I already addressed that.
Speaker 4: So the seventh Ecumenical Council has multiple canons that do
Speaker 4: address icons, and then one hundred years later almost in
Speaker 4: the eight forty three Council, it's called the Triumph of
Speaker 4: Orthodoxy where they create the Sonoticon and they restate all
Speaker 4: of the canons and the victory or ecume me the
Speaker 4: principles of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. So the Sonoticon is
Speaker 4: a summary of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and.
Speaker 3: Includes all those principles. So just look up the full
Speaker 3: Sonoticon of Orthodoxy which includes all that.
Speaker 11: Okay, thank you. But so if it's wrong to use
Speaker 11: a different style of iconography and then.
Speaker 4: What they use, I mean, I literally address that it
Speaker 4: has nothing to do with styles. If you watch the
Speaker 4: video that you're talking about that I did, that was
Speaker 4: like twenty minutes of a live stream. I literally sat
Speaker 4: in there. That it's not an issue of the style
Speaker 4: of the icon. It's rather an issue in other words,
Speaker 4: artistic style. I mean, you could talk I'll talk to
Speaker 4: any Orthodox iconographer and they'll tell you that they at times,
Speaker 4: you know, utilize their own individual style and creativity. So
Speaker 4: there's room for flexibility there. But the point is that
Speaker 4: there's norms that you don't, for example, paint a bunch
Speaker 4: of boobies and titties and you know, butts and dick
Speaker 4: hanging out like the Vatican has.
Speaker 3: Like it's obvious. So like what I'm saying isn't even controversial.
Speaker 4: If you read the Lost Kyalspensky books volume one and two,
Speaker 4: they're not even that long.
Speaker 3: It just talks about all the same stuff.
Speaker 10: Okay, yeah, thank you, that's just my quession.
Speaker 4: All right, Yeah, no good questions. I'mpre sire that all right, Dave,
Speaker 4: what's up, Dave? You don't want to talk?
Speaker 3: What's going on? And then Dave leaves?
Speaker 4: So Dave the Muslim didn't want to talk, all right,
Speaker 4: so it's open for him. Any questions regarding Calvinism, Protestantism, Evangelicalism,
Speaker 4: from Catholicism, church history, biblical theology, Islam, Atheism, E request
Speaker 4: to speak. I'll bring you up. You can ask a
Speaker 4: question or you can offer an argument. You can listen
Speaker 4: to your reasons why you think X y Z is wrong.
Speaker 4: Just keep it to making arguments. And you know it's
Speaker 4: that other Calvinists too, I forget his name, say awful
Speaker 4: us or something like.
Speaker 3: He's like you need to do a blog debate with me.
Speaker 3: I don't do debates. That's exactly what Lofton said. Lofton's
Speaker 3: like Jay Dieks turned down a debate with me, dog,
Speaker 3: and then he doesn't tell you that the debate offer
Speaker 3: was a blog debate. Like, dude, this is twenty twenty five,
Speaker 3: broh Ain't nobody blog except maybe like some substack people.
Speaker 4: But I'm not debating you in an exchange of substacks.
Speaker 3: Anything I write is going into a stupid book. Dude.
Speaker 4: I'm not writing for free anymore. It's going in a book.
Speaker 4: So I don't know what what what these people are
Speaker 4: that boomers like you want to come debate on Facebook
Speaker 4: exchange and like, dude, get the hell out of here,
Speaker 4: go back to Facebook. Uh, boomer Land, Today's funny because
Speaker 4: it's all like boomer shit too like. And I will
Speaker 4: never stop making boomer jokes. I'm the damn grandfather of
Speaker 4: boomer jokes. I will proudly tout that as part of
Speaker 4: my credit, I wrote a viral article fifteen years ago
Speaker 4: making fun of boomers whenever world internet.
Speaker 3: Back of the day.
Speaker 4: And I will keep making fun of boomers even when
Speaker 4: I'm a freaking nine year old senior citizen man and
Speaker 4: the boomers don't exist. I'm still gonna be telling the
Speaker 4: youngsters the lore of Boomer bullshit.
Speaker 3: Where'd that guy go? He drops everybody popping on here?
Speaker 3: Drops off? Where you all at? Come on now now,
Speaker 3: Oh now, Uncle Baby Billy's Bible bunkers, Come on now,
Speaker 3: step up. Somebody got to step up. Oh now, get up, anybody,
Speaker 3: it's Uncle Baby Billy's Bible bunkers. Step on up and
Speaker 3: be quizzed. Gets your worldview tested, get your worldview put
Speaker 3: in check? All right, we got hasani hey, dudekay.
Speaker 12: I don't necessarily, I guess it kind of does apply
Speaker 12: to the town topics, but I don't have anything that's
Speaker 12: like specific to to one of the individual topics. I
Speaker 12: just actually I had a question about something regardless. Obviously
Speaker 12: I was in the obviously I was the one that
Speaker 12: was sent in the super chests last night, and that
Speaker 12: little and the thing with hypocrite and me and me
Speaker 12: and a couple of dud we were we were really
Speaker 12: going back and forth with a couple of guys in
Speaker 12: the in the chat. There were two of them specifically, well,
Speaker 12: one that I was going back and forth with like
Speaker 12: the entire fucking time. Y'all are alive, Uh, and that
Speaker 12: that's actually what I wanted to ask about. And there
Speaker 12: was some other dude he was he was literally just there.
Speaker 12: We figured out he was just there to troll you specifically.
Speaker 12: He I don't know who he is, have no clue
Speaker 12: where he came from, but that guy fucking hates you.
Speaker 12: I don't know who it is, but yeah, he definitely
Speaker 12: hates you.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well what was the profile?
Speaker 12: It was just it was just Joe. It was like
Speaker 12: Joe and the last name started with an H. And
Speaker 12: he was He's some gnostic, that's the thing he was.
Speaker 12: He was being like very very fun. The damn word
Speaker 12: the word is escape me. Like we kept on asking
Speaker 12: questions about about you know, like his views and ship
Speaker 12: like that.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 12: And the only thing he would specify, like, the only
Speaker 12: thing he specified is he tends to lean towards gnostic
Speaker 12: beliefs about But then he wouldn't and he just he
Speaker 12: would literally say about and dot he wouldn't. He would
Speaker 12: not specify anything else. It was the weirdest ever.
Speaker 4: But I mean, you can always tell those dudes to
Speaker 4: come to the open open forums and have a debate.
Speaker 4: So Joe, H, I think it's welcome to come to
Speaker 4: b Andrew, what's up?
Speaker 13: I mean, Andrew mute? Andrew unmute if you want to talk?
Speaker 3: No, what go ahead? Are there? Did you turn your
Speaker 3: mind tongue to God? And like? What do people not
Speaker 3: ever use spaces? Like? Is my space the first space
Speaker 3: for every single person? D D? What's up? Matter? Yeah?
Speaker 14: Hey, how you doing? Been a minute? Have you seen this?
Speaker 14: Uh recent article? Candice Owens is reposts it, Jack Posto
Speaker 14: is reposting. It's like Reverend Johnny Moore and our good
Speaker 14: old guy JP.
Speaker 3: Uh, I haven't seen this article. Who who is this reverend?
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Is this the guy that was the pedo?
Speaker 14: Uh No, I'm not I'm not sure. But it's just
Speaker 14: this whole concept of the I guess the uptick of
Speaker 14: Christ is king. Christ is king being co opted by
Speaker 14: some I guess ethno nationalist types.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't doubt that the establishment has fed and
Speaker 3: people trying to do that. But I've not seen this
Speaker 3: article and I'm not sure. So you said with our
Speaker 3: buddy who JB P like Jordan Peters.
Speaker 15: Yeah? Yeah.
Speaker 5: Jordan Peterson COT.
Speaker 3: And Jordan Peter Peterson co authored an article about the
Speaker 3: co opting of Christ the King dealing with at no
Speaker 3: nationalists is ever you're saying.
Speaker 14: Yeah, so if you see Jack Poso posted about it,
Speaker 14: Reverend Johnny Moore and Jordan B. Peterson talking about how
Speaker 14: anti Semitic movements have hijacked the Christis King and uh,
Speaker 14: well they're basically. But I wanted to talk about it
Speaker 14: because well, I mean, I think that there's something to it,
Speaker 14: and I've I've been struggling.
Speaker 5: With that myself.
Speaker 14: A lot of the guys, even in the Orthodox space,
Speaker 14: like that Orthodox Luigi like sometimes he's towing that line,
Speaker 14: you know, And.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean I've I've spoken on this topic like
Speaker 4: multiple times.
Speaker 3: I did.
Speaker 4: I devoted like the entire week two weeks ago to
Speaker 4: this topic. And I don't follow all the Luigi's post
Speaker 4: so I don't know everything that he said, but I
Speaker 4: know that, you know, Luigi was really into Fuentos for
Speaker 4: a while and then they fell a scance on one another,
Speaker 4: and he was dealing with Groyper's for a long time.
Speaker 4: So now I don't know about Fuentes himself, but I
Speaker 4: wouldn't have I would imagine that there's quite a few,
Speaker 4: you know, provocateur fed type people absolutely involved in trying
Speaker 4: to get individuals involved in and stirring up some kind
Speaker 4: of movement like that.
Speaker 3: That's fake.
Speaker 4: In fact, I mentioned that to I hypocrite last night.
Speaker 4: A lot of those people, I think try to link
Speaker 4: it to Islam, like this is the right wing dudes
Speaker 4: that want to link up with Islam. It's like, well, well,
Speaker 4: like all, well to see their anti Jew, anti Zionis
Speaker 4: so they're all based when Islam is literally the rabbi say,
Speaker 4: Islam is the broom of Israel.
Speaker 3: Destroy the Just a lot.
Speaker 5: Of h Man glorification.
Speaker 14: I mean, I'm pretty sure there's a quote by mustache
Speaker 14: Man himself about oh, we would have preferred the Mohammedan religion.
Speaker 5: You know, there's a lot of.
Speaker 14: This, yes, he says, like sissification of of Christendom and
Speaker 14: and all this kind of stuff.
Speaker 4: And however, it's also true that the people on the
Speaker 4: right and some of those spears obviously will not talk
Speaker 4: about apac u Zionism and the rabbinical traditions and their methodology.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 14: I'm no judas are like you know, if if you
Speaker 14: if you make a nuanced critique of all of a sudden,
Speaker 14: you're a massade agent.
Speaker 5: You know, uh, and and it's.
Speaker 4: Almost like I've been called that, dude. I've been called
Speaker 4: that for like years because I'm on the Alex Jones Show.
Speaker 4: And then when when I devote an entire week and
Speaker 4: a half actually to rebindic Judaism, dispensationalism, Zionism, then suddenly, oh,
Speaker 4: you're an anti Semitic.
Speaker 3: You know. It's like it doesn't matter what you talk about.
Speaker 3: Dealers do this.
Speaker 14: But unfortunately, I think there's this guy that's kind of
Speaker 14: a attached at the hip to oh and Shroyer. I
Speaker 14: don't I don't think Schroyer's necessarily signed is John Hancock
Speaker 14: to it, but he's kind of floating around this guy
Speaker 14: who definitely he's got me on the block list on
Speaker 14: like three different accounts, calling me massad and you know,
Speaker 14: jew lover and this, that and the third.
Speaker 5: But it's just frustrating.
Speaker 14: I guess I wanted to come on and see what
Speaker 14: what your position was on it is.
Speaker 5: I do think in a big way it is fake
Speaker 5: and gay, as I say, but.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's like the only answer to these positions I
Speaker 4: think is Christ in the in the traditional Orthodox sense,
Speaker 4: because you know, you're not going to have peace between
Speaker 4: Arab and jew and all this kind of stuff until
Speaker 4: there's a recognition of the Messiah. So uh, you know,
Speaker 4: but in the in the meantime, so that's not going
Speaker 4: to happen right away most likely.
Speaker 3: I mean there's not. Really. It's like when people say, well,
Speaker 3: who's better a Muslim.
Speaker 4: A Calvinist or a papist, and it's like, well, I
Speaker 4: mean they're all kind of problematics. It's like it's hard
Speaker 4: to it's like hard to pick amongst the wrong positions sometimes.
Speaker 14: Yeah, well, anyway, I think that uh, whoever that that
Speaker 14: good old Southern molasses boy was that you're trying to
Speaker 14: get on here.
Speaker 5: I think he's kind of racist for not wanting to
Speaker 5: debate green people.
Speaker 3: But that's a good way. But like, yeah, why does
Speaker 3: James White get to be racist against green people like myself?
Speaker 3: You know clearly clearly in that.
Speaker 4: Picture I'm intending to be taken seriously because I'm pictured
Speaker 4: with mac and me, And if James White doesn't know
Speaker 4: what Macamy is, then that's already uh self refuting for
Speaker 4: James White, basically, his career is over.
Speaker 3: Dan, what's up, good evening?
Speaker 16: Can I be?
Speaker 3: He say?
Speaker 9: What?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? You can hear me, I can
Speaker 3: hear you.
Speaker 16: Okay, So I have questions about Calvinism, right, So my
Speaker 16: first question, Okay, my first question is on your belief
Speaker 16: over God decline all actions, right, so they believe that,
Speaker 16: or I'm not very shonable. I know that some people
Speaker 16: believe that God decrease all actions and that includes scein.
Speaker 16: But at the same time they they hold that man
Speaker 16: is responsible for sin. So my first question is how
Speaker 16: how how does that work?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 8: Do you understand what I mean?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so that's correct.
Speaker 4: Calvin Is, for the most part, believe that that all
Speaker 4: evil and sin are absolutely under the divine decree. Absolutely,
Speaker 4: so that's really not even in question in Calvinism. Calvinists
Speaker 4: give lip service to secondary causes and human free will
Speaker 4: and choice, but even even the secondary causes are still
Speaker 4: caused by the first cause, the divine cause.
Speaker 3: So really it's just kind of lip service. And that's
Speaker 3: why historically.
Speaker 4: Some Calvinists, amongst the Puritans Jonathan Edwards for example, they
Speaker 4: actually end up being occasionalists, just like the Sunni Muslims.
Speaker 3: So let's see Andrew try again at doak pay.
Speaker 17: Hi jak Amy. Yes, Sir Hi, so I was going
Speaker 17: through your video the other day. I'm Roman Catholic, by
Speaker 17: the way, and you mentioned in your video about icons,
Speaker 17: talking about how the Seventh Ecumenical Council actually distributes the
Speaker 17: Roman Catholic position, and you basically said that in the
Speaker 17: Seventh Council they gave sulf like limitations and criteria for
Speaker 17: icons in within church services and all that.
Speaker 3: I was looking.
Speaker 4: Yeah, sorry, I just addressed that it's so in the
Speaker 4: Orthodox view the Seventh that Caminical councils, and we don't
Speaker 4: view it like the Roman Catholics, that there's this like
Speaker 4: strict legalistic thing that, oh, that's only the Seventh. That
Speaker 4: chemical Council, the Council of eight forty three is what
Speaker 4: we celebrate in the Orthodox Church as the victory of
Speaker 4: Orthodoxy is called triumph of Orthodoxy. So yeah, way that
Speaker 4: council puts out the Sonotacon, which is from A three,
Speaker 4: which is about the Seventh Ecumenical Council. And by the way,
Speaker 4: the Seventh that Gundom Council does have multiple canons that
Speaker 4: deal with icons. For example, says not to make icons
Speaker 4: of God the Father. So that's one example that easily
Speaker 4: right there wipes out a whole bunch of Roman Catholic iconography,
Speaker 4: because in principle you're not supposed to do that.
Speaker 3: Now, I'm not saying that all.
Speaker 4: Orthodox churches obey this, because sometimes Worthdox churches are not canonical,
Speaker 4: but I was pointing out that the principles that you
Speaker 4: see even in the canons, even before getting to the
Speaker 4: Sonoticon and other documents, the principles already from the outset
Speaker 4: exclude things like the extreme accesses that you see all
Speaker 4: throughout the Roman cllegtory.
Speaker 17: Yeah, so that's what as a thing I couldn't really like.
Speaker 17: So I saw that. I saw them like in two
Speaker 17: candids that talked about you can s how to make
Speaker 17: the icons bind sea, it's explicitly how to what is
Speaker 17: including in acos always excluded from icons except what obviously
Speaker 17: Godfather being depicted.
Speaker 4: Now there's a canon about the God the Father, and
Speaker 4: it's actually I think even earlier if I recall the
Speaker 4: exclusion of God the Father is actually in Trollo, and
Speaker 4: then it's restate all the Trello canons, by the way,
Speaker 4: are affirmed by and I see it too, by the way,
Speaker 4: so there's it's not just the canons, and I see
Speaker 4: it two. I see you two, also affirms Trollo.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Any and then but if I recall even if you
Speaker 4: go to New Advent, if you do control F and
Speaker 4: you search icon on the canons under the Seventh Council,
Speaker 4: there's I'm going from memory here, there's multiple canons to
Speaker 4: talk about the icons, the images and all this kind
Speaker 4: of stuff. They do not lay out artistic strictures per se.
Speaker 4: That comes later on in the development of what happens
Speaker 4: in terms of contrasting the East with the West.
Speaker 17: Oh okay, so that so layout you said that came later.
Speaker 17: What's like time period?
Speaker 3: Was that? Was that like after.
Speaker 4: Well, if you read this, look up the sonaticon and
Speaker 4: the sonatakon, the full one, like not an abridged one,
Speaker 4: like the full one from that or what's believed to
Speaker 4: be from that time is pretty lengthy and it all
Speaker 4: so you know, it goes into some of.
Speaker 9: The operating Okay, cool, thanks man.
Speaker 3: Yeah no, that's great.
Speaker 4: Questions I put in the in the comments of that
Speaker 4: video that I'm referring to eight forty three, and that's
Speaker 4: anauticon Andrew, you want to try again, yes, sir.
Speaker 18: Hey, just let you know this actually is my first
Speaker 18: time speaking on a Twitter space. Sor right, I know, yeah,
Speaker 18: I know you were. Hey, Look, so I converted to
Speaker 18: Catholicism in twenty sixteen. I was raised Calvinist Presbyterian. I
Speaker 18: was just starting to read a lot of church history
Speaker 18: and in some Catholic apologetics that it made sense.
Speaker 8: And then, you know, with the.
Speaker 18: Post Vatican two Catholic Church, I was having some theological issues.
Speaker 3: Yeah, man, you're going through what I went through in
Speaker 3: the two thousands.
Speaker 18: Yeah, and uh, then you know, so then I I've
Speaker 18: drifted towards traditionalism, and then and then you know, I've
Speaker 18: been studying for for a few years, and and then
Speaker 18: I'm having other issues. And so lately, you know, I've
Speaker 18: been listening to Father Josiah Trinham and in reading some
Speaker 18: Orthodox stuff, and there's a lot of stuff that's making
Speaker 18: sense to me. But this may seem like a simple question,
Speaker 18: but I've been reading this book, The Rise and Fall
Speaker 18: of the Papacy. It's uh talking and the guy's talking
Speaker 18: about how the ancient church. You know, he's talking about
Speaker 18: a lot about the pentarchy, the five patriarchs, and uh,
Speaker 18: with the schism, here's my question. With the schism between
Speaker 18: you know, the patriarch of the West and the other patriarchs.
Speaker 19: How does.
Speaker 18: How do they come how does the Orthodox Church now
Speaker 18: come to like.
Speaker 19: A consensus base, uh like decision like it do they
Speaker 19: just like because Rome is in schism just basically ignore
Speaker 19: them like no, or like don't.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah.
Speaker 4: So the Orthodox view does not believe that Rome is
Speaker 4: still part of the church. That's how a Vatican two
Speaker 4: kind of mindset where when they look at us, they
Speaker 4: see us as quote the eastern lung of the Church.
Speaker 3: They have this accumenist view.
Speaker 4: Orthodox ecclesiology does not include heretics and schismatics as amongst
Speaker 4: the body of Christ. So no, we do not believe
Speaker 4: that the papacy continued to be somehow you know, part
Speaker 4: of the church or halfway in the church or one
Speaker 4: third of the church. No, they left the church. They're
Speaker 4: not in the church. That's why they have to convert
Speaker 4: to the church. And that's why every Orthodox church traditionally, classically,
Speaker 4: historically has made people go through a profession of the.
Speaker 3: Abjuration of heresies.
Speaker 4: So when you join the Orthodox Church, are supposed to
Speaker 4: I sure your previous heresies and mistakes, whether Protestant Calvinists Lutheran.
Speaker 3: Or Roman Catholic.
Speaker 4: So that shows you right there that I mean, you
Speaker 4: wouldn't be abjuring your previous heresies if they thought it
Speaker 4: was the church.
Speaker 18: Yeah. And another question, do you have any like historical
Speaker 18: books that would the like in depth stuff recommendations like
Speaker 18: on orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: In like.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, yeah, like there's a bunch, But if
Speaker 4: you go to my channel when it comes to the
Speaker 4: questions of like Vatican two and the history of the
Speaker 4: papacy and those problems. Uh, I mean, I dare say
Speaker 4: that I've gone deeper into that topic and more intently
Speaker 4: into that topic than the author that you're speaking.
Speaker 3: Of, or Father Josiah.
Speaker 4: Not to knock those guys, but I spent many years
Speaker 4: in the world of Roman Catholicism and in those documents,
Speaker 4: and I know those documents better than those guys. I
Speaker 4: know those documents better than pretty much all the Roman Catholics.
Speaker 4: So I could tell you, like you know where it'll
Speaker 4: go in Denzinger, I can tell you where to go
Speaker 4: and the you know, Roman Catholic dogmatic councils, like I
Speaker 4: know all that stuff really well. So find my old
Speaker 4: videos about you know, Romancantholisism Vatican.
Speaker 3: You know that kind of stuff.
Speaker 4: Vatican One contradictions, all that stuff is pretty solid, I
Speaker 4: would say from my my channel. I mean, if you're
Speaker 4: looking for, you know, Orthodox Church history in this regard,
Speaker 4: I would say get the Papa Doccus Mayan North book.
Speaker 3: The Papacy in the Middle Ages.
Speaker 4: I think that book is really good because it's about
Speaker 4: the period when the East and the West split, and
Speaker 4: you'll see very clearly that from one thousand to fourteen
Speaker 4: hundred the Roman Church clearly went in a different direction
Speaker 4: than the pre existing United Church.
Speaker 18: Hey, thank you so much, and I will check out
Speaker 18: your video.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean there's a lot.
Speaker 4: There's a lot, but there's also you know, you could
Speaker 4: get another You could get Michael Welton's book Two Paths
Speaker 4: as kind of a readable, more introductory book. Catholic Father
Speaker 4: crab people.
Speaker 10: Hey, there as a Catholic.
Speaker 20: The skive them obviously being nearly a thousand years ago,
Speaker 20: seems like a lot of one side.
Speaker 10: Fucked up, the other side fucked up. And then did
Speaker 10: the spider man mean, uh, you're out, No, you're out.
Speaker 10: But I'm the Church.
Speaker 3: No, you're the Church.
Speaker 20: At what point is or the the disunified Orthodoxy and
Speaker 20: that claim to be the true Church and not have
Speaker 20: broken apart part of the true Church. At what point
Speaker 20: is that fruitful and what part of that is just pride?
Speaker 20: And would it not be beneficial?
Speaker 4: Your question assumes that the Roman Catholic Church is unified,
Speaker 4: and I can make multiple arguments to demonstrate that it's
Speaker 4: not unified. And to accuse the Orthodox Church of pride
Speaker 4: is ignoring the papal admissions at the Alexandria Synod and
Speaker 4: the t eighty Synod which admit that the Roman Church
Speaker 4: engage in a lot of pride. So, uh, it's a
Speaker 4: question of which one's right, which one's wrong.
Speaker 3: It's not a question of you know.
Speaker 4: I mean, look at the centuries after the Schism, which
Speaker 4: church evolved away from the canonical structure of the Church
Speaker 4: of the first thousand years.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I haven't studied this forever.
Speaker 20: So I need you to speak at least in a
Speaker 20: way that can be interacted with, you know.
Speaker 4: And so you're here to debate the topic and you're
Speaker 4: accusing us of pride, but you're not familiar with the
Speaker 4: history that you want to debate.
Speaker 20: I'm not I'm not saying that Orthodoxy is incorrect where
Speaker 20: you're claiming that Catholicism you.
Speaker 4: Just said that it was an issue have brought you
Speaker 4: said centuries of pride without unity.
Speaker 20: So does the Orthodox claim that Catholics are not Christian.
Speaker 4: Where the traditional Orthodox position is that the papacy is
Speaker 4: heterodox for about thirty different reasons.
Speaker 20: Okay, so the baptism in a Catholic baptism is not
Speaker 20: valid and only an Orthodox baptism is valid, saying that
Speaker 20: everybody else is wrong when the schism went tit for tat.
Speaker 3: This is just an appeal to This is just an appeal.
Speaker 3: This is just an appeal to emotion.
Speaker 4: And the appeal is already assuming that the Catholic position
Speaker 4: is correct on baptism. So you've not yet demonstrated that
Speaker 4: the Catholic ex operary operators position is correct. So your
Speaker 4: appeal to that and appeal to emotion doesn't work.
Speaker 10: Okay, have fun, have fun?
Speaker 4: So do you want to Why don't you want to
Speaker 4: talk about the changes?
Speaker 3: So he left? So here's what Roman calvics do.
Speaker 4: They sit there and they call me names all day,
Speaker 4: say I'm the worst person ever. They hop on here
Speaker 4: to debate when we get into the topics. They have
Speaker 4: no knowledge of the topics. They act like that and
Speaker 4: then they run away. Quay loquay, I me.
Speaker 8: I have two questions.
Speaker 21: So the first one is I attend to a Russian
Speaker 21: Orthodox church, like, is are the teachings that they have
Speaker 21: in that church the same as if I go to
Speaker 21: let's say, a Greek Orthodox church, you know, or other
Speaker 21: like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's the same.
Speaker 4: It's the same faith because it's it's called the canonical
Speaker 4: Orthodox churches, So it's all the ones.
Speaker 3: That are in communion.
Speaker 4: And even if there's a period when one of the
Speaker 4: bishops or the patriarchs are out of communion until there's
Speaker 4: an excommunication, you it's still quote the same face, yes.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 22: And then I thinks, and I have my second question,
Speaker 22: which is I went to your website, jasonalysis dot com.
Speaker 22: I went to the recommended reading section. Are those books
Speaker 22: you know? Do I still have to read them?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 22: Are they okay for me to read? The ones that
Speaker 22: are about Orthodoxy? I'm the apologetics?
Speaker 3: What do you mean are they okay? Why wouldn't they
Speaker 3: be okay?
Speaker 22: No, I'm just asking just out of curiosity, you know,
Speaker 22: that's just it.
Speaker 4: I mean, I haven't updated that list in a couple
Speaker 4: of years, but I don't recall there being anything weird
Speaker 4: or questionable on there.
Speaker 3: I'll take another look at it. Vic.
Speaker 23: Hey, I just had two things I wanted to say,
Speaker 23: just a comment and a question. Uh the comments the
Speaker 23: article that I mentioned earlier. Uh, just like my opinion
Speaker 23: on that is just like it seems to me that
Speaker 23: it's a typical like uh, that article. I mean, it's
Speaker 23: like a typical like cry bully hall monitor like tone
Speaker 23: policing thing where it's like, oh, well, bad people say
Speaker 23: Christ is king, So you can't say because if you
Speaker 23: say that means you're like one of them, you know,
Speaker 23: So I think we should uh just dismiss it in
Speaker 23: my in my opinion whatever. And then the question is is, uh,
Speaker 23: I'm kind of confused a little bit about Plato's dualism,
Speaker 23: and I'm sorry this is if this is a bit
Speaker 23: of a basic question, But it seems to me that
Speaker 23: he does have like a binary like oppositions in a
Speaker 23: system like like uh oh.
Speaker 4: Yeah, of course, I mean that's all that's great, reelectic,
Speaker 4: but like.
Speaker 24: For example, like yeah, between material world and the world
Speaker 24: of the forms, but like at the same time, there
Speaker 24: also seems to be like uh, a hierarchical dualism, if
Speaker 24: that's like the right way to put it, in the
Speaker 24: sense that he seems to say that the good is
Speaker 24: I'm sorry, evil is the privation of the good, as
Speaker 24: we would say.
Speaker 3: So I'm not.
Speaker 25: I don't know.
Speaker 23: It just got me a little bit confused that he
Speaker 23: just kind of say, Okay, these things are intentioned and
Speaker 23: then these things are kind of like structured hierarchically.
Speaker 4: Right, So evil has different senses. Evil can be moral sense, right,
Speaker 4: which in Christianity we believe that there's a moral sense
Speaker 4: to evil, and that's really what's meant in the Bible
Speaker 4: most of the time when it's talking about, you know,
Speaker 4: violating the tank commandments and being an evil person. But
Speaker 4: the Church Fathers also make use of the platonic and
Speaker 4: neoplatonic usage of metaphysically speaking, evils or evil is to
Speaker 4: do with privation and non being, and that helps them
Speaker 4: explain onto logically that evil doesn't have a substance, it
Speaker 4: doesn't have being, and it's not created because everything that.
Speaker 3: Exists is created by God and it's called good.
Speaker 4: And so everything that exists has some nature that makes
Speaker 4: it what it is, and evil has no nature. There's
Speaker 4: not a nature to evil, otherwise we would be Manichaeans.
Speaker 4: But Platonism does not distinguish really the ontological sense from
Speaker 4: the moral sense. So there's a lack I would say
Speaker 4: in Plato that, like, you're never going to get an
Speaker 4: explanation in Platonism as to why the One split into
Speaker 4: the diad and into the triad, and why we have
Speaker 4: why we have all this multiplicity that's supposed to get
Speaker 4: back to the One. So yeah, Christianity is a moral religion.
Speaker 4: I mean, it has metaphysics, but morals are first, and
Speaker 4: Greek philosophy is a metaphysics religion. It's not primarily concerned
Speaker 4: with morals and ethics first. Man's chief problem is metaphysical.
Speaker 3: But of course that doesn't mean that Plato doesn't have
Speaker 3: a place for.
Speaker 4: Ethics and virtues. Certainly he does. He thinks they're intimately connected.
Speaker 4: But the fact that he thinks that there's a descending
Speaker 4: hierarchy of like an ontologically diminished status for the descending
Speaker 4: hierarchy of the emanations, like that.
Speaker 3: Doesn't mean that they're not. There's not a dialectical.
Speaker 26: Okay, thank you, that really clears it up.
Speaker 4: Yeah, questions I think that when you get into like Platinus,
Speaker 4: he tried to synthesize Plato and Aristotles. He's he's actually
Speaker 4: trying to deal with some of those problems in both
Speaker 4: Plato and Aristotle.
Speaker 3: It's open for me. You guys want to bring up.
Speaker 4: Philosophy, topics, Calvinism, Protestantism, Becauseolicism, Islam, Atheism, church history, papacy,
Speaker 4: biblical theology. It's all on the table. We got a
Speaker 4: nice crowd of two and twenty in here. Of course,
Speaker 4: I didn't think James White would actually show up, but
Speaker 4: I don't know why he wouldn't if we need, like
Speaker 4: why does he need a year to prepare to debate
Speaker 4: like can calvin is stuff that he's debated for the
Speaker 4: last thirty years. I don't know why, but no, he's
Speaker 4: of course he's gonna, you know, so he's too good
Speaker 4: to come in here and do that. But whatever, Yeah,
Speaker 4: I just don't see why I need to do it
Speaker 4: in person, debate a year from now on the topics
Speaker 4: that are none of the topics that I suggested to
Speaker 4: debate with him for the last six seven years. So
Speaker 4: how about he debate the topics that I, uh, or
Speaker 4: maybe there were if there's some happy medium.
Speaker 3: He debates the Philly OQUI absolutely my suplicity as as
Speaker 3: an interestinction and its social contourism like that. But and
Speaker 3: then people who say they want to do in.
Speaker 4: Person debates, this is a way to postpone and kind
Speaker 4: of you know, throw out there a thing that's really
Speaker 4: difficult to set up, and they kind of just hope
Speaker 4: that it'll get forgotten. And I also think he loaded
Speaker 4: his post with a bunch of blame humor, jobs and
Speaker 4: insults so that I would reply with jobs and insults,
Speaker 4: which is what I did, so that he could go
Speaker 4: and say, well, look this person's not serious. He replies
Speaker 4: with jobs and insults. It's like, okay, so when you
Speaker 4: do it, it's christ like. And that's what all his
Speaker 4: gay followers are like, look at.
Speaker 3: This guy, he's not serious. Look at those jobs and
Speaker 3: insults as like, you mean.
Speaker 4: What DA's white said. So it's a weird double standard.
Speaker 4: These people are ridiculous.
Speaker 27: Yes, sir, So I don't know if you I didn't
Speaker 27: comment on your debate stream, But have you heard of
Speaker 27: this guy Naven allegedly Ian.
Speaker 8: Now allegedly ian.
Speaker 27: He's this atheist right now he's so he basically is
Speaker 27: trying to argue that God doesn't exist because of slavery
Speaker 27: in the Bible, and he basically says that because God
Speaker 27: is the perfect lawgiver, therefore it follows that God is
Speaker 27: either immoral or does not exist because he sanctioned slavery.
Speaker 3: So how would you that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Lewis just made a two hour documentary on that topic.
Speaker 4: So yeah, there's nothing that necessitates that a lawgiver can't
Speaker 4: give people laws that gradually lead them to an end goal.
Speaker 3: So that'd be like.
Speaker 4: Saying a parent is a bad parent because they don't
Speaker 4: give to their child the laws and the rules that
Speaker 4: are appropriate for a teenager or for an adult. So
Speaker 4: it's just an oversimplification fallacy, I would argue, because the
Speaker 4: idea that the ancient world and you know, in this
Speaker 4: barbaric realm, that they were suddenly expected to have the
Speaker 4: norms and the ethics of you know, the twenty first
Speaker 4: century is just kind of an unrealistic.
Speaker 3: Unrealistic expectation.
Speaker 4: And also, how does he know that it's more perfect
Speaker 4: to immediately give the law of the highest expectations versus
Speaker 4: a graduated law giving that leads men over time to
Speaker 4: more and more higher standards.
Speaker 3: So he's just assuming that that's what's.
Speaker 4: Entailed in perfection I have, but I have no idea
Speaker 4: how he would know, Aufrey or I that that's what's
Speaker 4: entailed in a perfect lawgiver.
Speaker 3: And so you could just ask.
Speaker 4: Him, you know, epistemic questions as to on what basis
Speaker 4: how do you know that was your justification for that assertion.
Speaker 3: So because of he's going.
Speaker 4: To try to reply on rely on biblical ethics and
Speaker 4: the revelation of who God is. Well, God revealed it
Speaker 4: such that he gradually, in a graduated way, gave laws
Speaker 4: to men to lead them to higher and higher standards.
Speaker 4: And then Lewis's documentary gets into the history of slavery
Speaker 4: in the history of Christianity. So he just put he put,
Speaker 4: like I don't know, a lot of time and effort
Speaker 4: into that.
Speaker 3: Lewis was working on that for like the last three
Speaker 3: or four years. But away good questions. It's open for him.
Speaker 3: If you have a question or a comminent you're you're
Speaker 3: welcome to bring it up to the table. If you disagree,
Speaker 3: you can make an argument. Please make it an argument.
Speaker 3: We don't care what you think about me. You can
Speaker 3: already just say I'm the worst person. I don't care.
Speaker 4: You can say I'm tiny mustache man, interbred with Judas,
Speaker 4: interbred with saar On, interbred with Jeffrey BADONCA doc Dahmer.
Speaker 4: I'm all four of those combined into also being a
Speaker 4: KGB Massade.
Speaker 3: Cia operative who worked with Jeff SIMONC. Geffrey.
Speaker 4: So I'm all those guys combined as an operative. So
Speaker 4: now we know I'm the worst person, and then now
Speaker 4: we can just move on to the actual topics.
Speaker 6: He what's up, Hello, how's it going?
Speaker 5: Jay?
Speaker 28: Doing well? I could bring up tag correct. I just
Speaker 28: had one question. So when I brought up tag to
Speaker 28: an atheist, he brought up that I was affirming the consequence,
Speaker 28: and I was wondering how you'd respond to that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, it's just it's not assuming the thing
Speaker 4: in question. So I think if you go watch my
Speaker 4: video addressing the top ten objections to tag, and then
Speaker 4: there's another one I did, there's the it's the two
Speaker 4: most popular tag videos that I did, and I think
Speaker 4: I addressed that that objection in both of those videos,
Speaker 4: So go check those out if you want to fuller
Speaker 4: it's just misunderstanding what tag is. So first of all,
Speaker 4: tag is not the same thing as the transcendental argument itself.
Speaker 4: Like transcendent arguments have been used all the way back
Speaker 4: to Aristotle, They've been used all the way back to.
Speaker 3: John Damascus and Book one without the knowledge. I mean,
Speaker 3: they have a long.
Speaker 9: History.
Speaker 3: Right. So if we look at the claim that if
Speaker 3: you I'm looking this up here, so from the consequent
Speaker 3: argue for those don't in the audience, the logical fallacy
Speaker 3: where someone incorrectly concludes that if a conditional statement consequent
Speaker 3: the then part, if that's true, then the antecedent must
Speaker 3: also be true. So the difference is that we're not
Speaker 3: saying that because God exists, or excuse me, we're not
Speaker 3: saying that because there's knowledge therefore God exists.
Speaker 4: In the sense of like a fallacy where you are
Speaker 4: dealing with normative claims about day to day type stuff
Speaker 4: or day to day type arguments, the difference is that
Speaker 4: this is dealing with the notion of grounding for an
Speaker 4: entire worldview.
Speaker 3: So a lot of times fallacies are dealing with things
Speaker 3: that are not at that level. Right.
Speaker 4: So sometimes when we talk about circularity, right, people say, well,
Speaker 4: you're being you know, the tag is a circular argument,
Speaker 4: you're committing circularity. And then when we say well, at
Speaker 4: the root level, all arguments are circular, they then say
Speaker 4: something like, aha, see you're giving yourself some the free
Speaker 4: reign to use circular argmentation. That's only when you're dealing
Speaker 4: with things not at the level of a paradigm or
Speaker 4: a worldview, because part of TAG is already just assumes,
Speaker 4: or it's baked into the argument that everybody's worldview bottoms
Speaker 4: out is something self referencing.
Speaker 3: Now, it's true that.
Speaker 4: An atheist could could say, well, I take issue with
Speaker 4: that claim, right, If TAG is built on that, then
Speaker 4: I take issue with that claim that everything is built
Speaker 4: on something self referencing. And if they do, then ninety
Speaker 4: nine percent of the time they're going to end up
Speaker 4: with some kind of classical foundationalism or self evident principles
Speaker 4: or axioms.
Speaker 3: Right, And the problem is that that's an even worse route
Speaker 3: to take.
Speaker 4: They'd be better off just trying to go after critiquing
Speaker 4: TAG rather than to try to affirm their self evident principles.
Speaker 4: As you saw in the debate with Trent, that's a
Speaker 4: very difficult and impossible task because anytime you try to
Speaker 4: argue that something is self evident, you also assume a
Speaker 4: standard of self evidence that sets it off from the
Speaker 4: things that are not self evident, and thus that standard
Speaker 4: becomes more fundamental than the so called self evidence principle.
Speaker 4: And also the self evidence principle is relying upon that standard,
Speaker 4: and thus if it's relying on something it's not self evident.
Speaker 4: Beyond that, there's also the criterion problem, which, if you
Speaker 4: believe in classical foundationalism or self evidence, criterion problem becomes
Speaker 4: a problem, and resolving that is more difficult than just
Speaker 4: as saying, okay, fine, some everybody's world view botom is
Speaker 4: out at some point. So what TAG is doing is
Speaker 4: arguing not at the normal day to day level of
Speaker 4: you know, I know Bill Cosby is a bad person
Speaker 4: because you know, let's think, how can we put this
Speaker 4: into a firm of the consequent? If I'm trying to
Speaker 4: think of a way to let's say, what the let's
Speaker 4: find an example of a firm of the consequent, So
Speaker 4: you could say something.
Speaker 3: Like the best advice.
Speaker 4: You could give to a first year university student is
Speaker 4: to work hard. If you do well at university, you
Speaker 4: will do even better once you've graduated. Wait a minute,
Speaker 4: that's not It comes an example. Excuse me, if I
Speaker 4: have caffeine.
Speaker 3: I will be awake all night. I'm awake all night,
Speaker 3: therefore I had caffeine.
Speaker 4: So it's a fallacy because there might be multiple reasons
Speaker 4: why you're awake all night, and it doesn't necessitate that
Speaker 4: the way that you were awake was through caffeine. But
Speaker 4: when we're setting up a transcendental argument that's dealing with
Speaker 4: grounding for a worldview, there's not an infinite number of
Speaker 4: possibilities for how you could ground a transcendental category. So
Speaker 4: you might say something like well, and then a lot
Speaker 4: of the atheists do say this, and when we have
Speaker 4: the space come up, they'll say something like, well, you know,
Speaker 4: if I were to formulate the argument like X is
Speaker 4: the necessary condition of why why? Therefore X? You know,
Speaker 4: knowledge is a PREAKONDI. God is breedish of knowledge. Knowledge exists,
Speaker 4: therefore God. There's not an infinite number of reasons that
Speaker 4: you could or ways that you could ground knowledge, right,
Speaker 4: So it's a it's a false comparison to the analogy to.
Speaker 3: Sorry, we're trying to drive and I'm trying to give
Speaker 3: directions too. At the same time good directions.
Speaker 4: Here, it's a false analogy to the caffeine example, because
Speaker 4: there's multiple reasons and explanations for why you might be
Speaker 4: up all night. Maybe you're nervous, maybe you ate some
Speaker 4: weird food, and it's keeping.
Speaker 3: You up right.
Speaker 4: So it doesn't necessitate that the only reason that you're
Speaker 4: uphole all night is.
Speaker 3: Because you had caffeine. But to apply that to the
Speaker 3: critique of acts as a necessary condition of why why
Speaker 3: therefore X, it's not the same thing because the argument
Speaker 3: is about grounding a paradigm and a worldview in transtional
Speaker 3: categories as a whole, and there are not a host
Speaker 3: of things that could ground that. So even if you.
Speaker 4: Thought that tag was somehow affirming the consequence, the argue
Speaker 4: is actually much more radical than that, because it's actually
Speaker 4: arguing that logic itself presupposes God, so you couldn't use
Speaker 4: logic as a way to cancel out or disprove God's
Speaker 4: existence when the argument is about, well, what grounds logic itself?
Speaker 4: So it's actually missing the forest for the trees in
Speaker 4: terms of what's prior to the thing in question, namely logic,
Speaker 4: if that makes sense. So that was along with an explanation,
Speaker 4: but hopefully that's helpful, Like if the question was just
Speaker 4: you know, a mundane example, like if I drink coffee,
Speaker 4: I will stay up all night. I stayed up all night,
Speaker 4: So therefore it was because of coffee. Well maybe, but
Speaker 4: maybe there's other reasons. Right, that's a mundane example. That's
Speaker 4: not the same thing as saying, well, there's infinite ways
Speaker 4: to ground transmit categories and worldviews. There's not like any
Speaker 4: any kind of thing you start listing, like even if
Speaker 4: you live, even if you thought there was multiple like,
Speaker 4: they're not going to work to do the grounding work,
Speaker 4: so they're missing what the argument actually is. I think
Speaker 4: people get tripped up because it's an argument for a worldview,
Speaker 4: and it's an argument that's prior to logic itself, so
Speaker 4: it's a metallogical argument. It's open for him. If anybody
Speaker 4: wants to hop on, hit the request to speak, and
Speaker 4: you can come up to the top. We can talk Calvinism,
Speaker 4: tag Protestantism, Catholicism is a long atheism, art history rooms, papacy,
Speaker 4: you want to discuss it. You got it, You got it, dude,
Speaker 4: it's open for him. We actually got I thought we
Speaker 4: had two hundred people. There's three hundred and eight people
Speaker 4: in here. I know there's got to be some Calvinist lurkers, y'all.
Speaker 4: Calvin is back there, lurking, y'all lurk, And what y'all
Speaker 4: afraid of?
Speaker 3: John? Danger? We're in danger and John's here. I'm mute.
Speaker 4: Why did you leave? I don't understand. There's three hundred
Speaker 4: people and nobody wants to come up here and talk
Speaker 4: about any of these topics listened.
Speaker 3: I don't get it.
Speaker 4: There's over three hundred people, Hi, no problem question.
Speaker 29: I was in a debate yesterday and then I was
Speaker 29: listening to what went on afterwards.
Speaker 3: At you dropped out?
Speaker 5: Dude.
Speaker 3: Now he's totally gone. Tell me, dude, is it? Try again?
Speaker 3: Try again?
Speaker 26: Coming back there?
Speaker 3: Yep?
Speaker 30: Okay, sorry, but I don't know what happened.
Speaker 26: Okay, so I'll just shorten it up here.
Speaker 31: A gentleman.
Speaker 30: He proclaims to be uh Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 3: You must have a bad connection, dude. I don't know.
Speaker 3: Maybe you can get to a space place where you
Speaker 3: got a better connection, but I may not come on now,
Speaker 3: y'all got we got three hundred people in here, over
Speaker 3: three hundred people, and nobody has any objections. I know
Speaker 3: there's a lot of Protestant workers.
Speaker 4: I promise I'll be nice to you unless you want
Speaker 4: a debate, if you want, if you want to ask questions,
Speaker 4: come on up.
Speaker 6: I'll be sweet.
Speaker 3: I'll talk to you like Youbama happy, your mama for you.
Speaker 3: I'll be sweet too. Promise I won't hurt your feelings.
Speaker 6: I love you. I'm your mama on the internet.
Speaker 3: I won't be that thinged bank daddy.
Speaker 6: He's in the dog house.
Speaker 3: He ain't gonna get in tonight.
Speaker 5: I'll be your mama.
Speaker 32: I love you.
Speaker 3: Oh you sweet. Internet boys don't won't get your feelings hood, Trent.
Speaker 3: I missed the days of the Internet when.
Speaker 4: Everybody was just uh it was wild West and everybody
Speaker 4: just made fun of everybody, and you expected to get
Speaker 4: your feelings hurt. Now we're in this atmosphere for like
Speaker 4: he should go out ahead, Trent.
Speaker 33: Hey, Jay, Oh, I hope it's all right if I
Speaker 33: get can asked an Orthodox question.
Speaker 3: I promise it's not like a basic catechumen one. Okay, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I was.
Speaker 33: Wondering if you can explain to me because in my
Speaker 33: local parish community I haven't really gotten any succinct answers,
Speaker 33: but can you like properly explain if like the Russian
Speaker 33: Orthodox Church and Greek Orthodox Church are formerly not in
Speaker 33: communion and if so, what is the consequence of that
Speaker 33: with the ecumenical patriarch.
Speaker 4: As far as I know, they're still out of canonical communion,
Speaker 4: but there has not been a formal excommunication. So church law,
Speaker 4: canon law usually proceeds in stages. Whether it's even the
Speaker 4: Romancallolic Church or whether it's the Orthodox Church, they both
Speaker 4: kind of have some of the same principles about stages
Speaker 4: of canonical procedure, and so if there was an excommunication
Speaker 4: of the EP, they're out of communion right now. But
Speaker 4: for example, we don't rebaptize or quote baptize people who
Speaker 4: were to come to us from the Greeks. We would
Speaker 4: still accept them as having the faith. That might be
Speaker 4: different though, if the situation progressed to a full excommunication,
Speaker 4: and then it would be a dependent then it would
Speaker 4: be a situation where the other patriarchates would choose sides,
Speaker 4: probably whether you know EP or MP.
Speaker 3: So hopefully it doesn't get to that, but we have actually.
Speaker 4: Seen multiple types of things and examples of this in
Speaker 4: church history, Like in the first millennium you had patriarchs
Speaker 4: and schism many times, and it wasn't the Roman bishop
Speaker 4: who just magically solved that in a lot of these cases.
Speaker 4: You even had recently, I think the Macedonian Church that
Speaker 4: was in schism for like eighty years and they resolved
Speaker 4: that conflict last year, so without the pope.
Speaker 3: So anyway, that's where it stands right now.
Speaker 26: Thank you.
Speaker 33: If I can ask a quick follow up, do you
Speaker 33: foresee it going that direction that's what you want?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 33: Do you foresee it going that direction with the Greek
Speaker 33: Church based on like your historical understanding.
Speaker 4: I don't know, because you know, it includes a lot
Speaker 4: of factors. Obviously, the EP is really close to the
Speaker 4: CIA in the State Department, and they're really tied to
Speaker 4: what Washington wants, and uh, you know that makes it
Speaker 4: difficult because it's not just religious stuff, a lot of
Speaker 4: political stuff. So I don't know how that will all
Speaker 4: shake out. You know, you could get a situation where
Speaker 4: if Trump ends the the war in Ukraine, if things
Speaker 4: go in that direction, then that could put an end
Speaker 4: to the Ukraine schism, and that could put an end
Speaker 4: to a lot of these actions of the EP which
Speaker 4: contradict his own statements and actions from prior to the war.
Speaker 26: Okay, that's all I had.
Speaker 33: Thank you very much, Jay, And also I just wanted
Speaker 33: to say, really appreciate all your work.
Speaker 8: You helped me a lot fine Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: Thanks Trent, appreciate that. That's really kind.
Speaker 4: Where As many years to you otis, what's up, man, beam?
Speaker 4: You want to try if Otis can't connect, I'm.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's the matter cracking?
Speaker 34: So for the record, I'm a Calvinist, I'm a reformed Anglican.
Speaker 34: That's my specsum coming from. I'm very much aware of
Speaker 34: your criticisms of Calvinism, and you know about the whole
Speaker 34: like what was it again you say, well, totally means
Speaker 34: that we can't know if we're elected and so on.
Speaker 34: So I understand a lot of your criticisms.
Speaker 3: But I mean that's a very minor criticism. The majority
Speaker 3: of my criticisms are hard.
Speaker 34: Yeah, I know it's one of them, and I know
Speaker 34: they are like other like things.
Speaker 4: You think, Oh, well, the majority of the majority are crystological.
Speaker 4: So maybe if you want to debate that, you can
Speaker 4: address that.
Speaker 25: Well.
Speaker 34: I had a question, if that's fine, just one question
Speaker 34: about these Orthodox position. Okay, yeah, so obviously you know
Speaker 34: you used to be a Calvinist. You you at least
Speaker 34: know what we think is comforting about Calvinism, right like
Speaker 34: we think that because we're elect we're in God's hands
Speaker 34: and salvation doesn't depend on us, and so on, and
Speaker 34: so at least two, maybe the everyday person people can
Speaker 34: understand what the comfort is in Calvinism with unconditional election
Speaker 34: in particular, even if you think it doesn't make sense,
Speaker 34: I get that. But you can see how there is
Speaker 34: a comfort there. How do you because the way I
Speaker 34: understand it, And if you want to just say, well,
Speaker 34: my interpretation's wrong, that's fine. Saint Paul talks of predestination
Speaker 34: as a comfort in scripture, and I just don't understand
Speaker 34: how that makes sense if you don't hold on conditional election.
Speaker 34: How like, is there any comfort in predestination for the
Speaker 34: East Orthodox or not?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean comfort in the sense of we view
Speaker 4: predestination in those passages as primarily dealing with collectives. And
Speaker 4: so if you look at even the statement in Rome's
Speaker 4: nine about Jacob and Esau, if you go back and
Speaker 4: read it in the original passages talking about the nations,
Speaker 4: and so when Paul writes to the Ephesians, for example,
Speaker 4: he calls the entire visible church at Ephesus the predestined,
Speaker 4: he does not single it out for the invisible church.
Speaker 34: Okay, so would you say that there's any comfort we
Speaker 34: can derive as individual Christians.
Speaker 3: Or absolutely, That's what the sacraments are there for, is
Speaker 3: to actually provide that's comfort and assurance that well, I.
Speaker 34: Mean specifically for predestination. Like obviously sacraments of you know,
Speaker 34: they be assured a little bit.
Speaker 4: Again, I mean, I could even I could even say
Speaker 4: with the Augustinian position that, like, like Augustine said, even
Speaker 4: if the final persevering elect are the real true quote predestined,
Speaker 4: we don't know who has that, and we don't in
Speaker 4: other words, we don't know who has the gift of perseverance. So,
Speaker 4: for example, even the Augustinian model refutes that idea because
Speaker 4: he believes in a collective predestining, so to speak to grace.
Speaker 4: But that doesn't ensure that, that doesn't ensure that you
Speaker 4: have the gifts of perseverance, because many fall away and apostatize.
Speaker 34: All right, thank you, then have a nice one.
Speaker 35: Yeah, good questions. Hold on one second, team.
Speaker 36: I'll go ahead, Bean, Yeah, I just wanted to add
Speaker 36: on to what the guy was seeing, the affirming the
Speaker 36: consequent Uh, the way that tag is argued, I wouldn't say, well,
Speaker 36: like tag isn't being argued.
Speaker 6: Uh, let's see, let's see.
Speaker 3: How do I see this?
Speaker 8: I hid it in my head and I just kind
Speaker 8: of figure, hold on.
Speaker 3: All right, well you can you can think about it.
Speaker 3: You can think about it, come back, major danger? What's up?
Speaker 3: Got a mute?
Speaker 5: If you want.
Speaker 3: Major danger? Unmute? If you'd like to speak, are you there?
Speaker 3: You gotta turn your mic on? If you guys want
Speaker 3: to speak. I don't like nobody's used. We've been doing
Speaker 3: these spaces for how many years? Are you there?
Speaker 4: Anybody else is open for him? If you'd like to
Speaker 4: come up topics that are alvin.
Speaker 3: Isn't protests, but also is the Muslims church, history of
Speaker 3: deal politics. We can make it whatever we want. Jen,
Speaker 3: what's up? Jen?
Speaker 37: I'm mute, En. Nobody wants to speak. You guys don't
Speaker 37: know how to do this? Go ahead?
Speaker 3: Hello, yep, Hey, how are you doing? Jack? Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 38: I'm kind of curious if you know this from your
Speaker 38: study of Catholicism.
Speaker 3: I was Patholic as well.
Speaker 38: I'm something that's I've been wondering is do you think
Speaker 38: there was a theological basis for the Latin Church using
Speaker 38: unleavened bread in the uh in the around the fifth
Speaker 38: to the seventhde Suries.
Speaker 3: Is there a theological basis? I don't know what they
Speaker 3: would have argued.
Speaker 38: I don't know either. I heard theories that because of
Speaker 38: the Germanic migrations they were in a state of penitence,
Speaker 38: and oh, okay.
Speaker 3: I also heard.
Speaker 38: That because of the cutting off of the Mediterranean they
Speaker 38: couldn't receive proper grade for leamon bread from Egypt. So
Speaker 38: I was just curious if you knew anything of like
Speaker 38: exactly why they did.
Speaker 4: No, I don't know, And you know, that might be
Speaker 4: a situation where there could be, you know, some canonical
Speaker 4: wiggle room. It's kind of like the Orthodox Church, for example,
Speaker 4: in Japan, as I understand it, Japan, the government mandates
Speaker 4: that people have to get cremated, and Orthodox can of
Speaker 4: law doesn't allow for cremation. But they ruled that it's
Speaker 4: better to have the Church in Japan and accept cremation
Speaker 4: than to not have the Orthodox Church in Japan.
Speaker 3: Oh Canon's are you know? Chirk law is the spirit
Speaker 3: of the law, and that's.
Speaker 5: What's up.
Speaker 35: Alright, Hello, all right, so wasting everyone's time in uh defiance?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 5: Hey man?
Speaker 39: Hey, So I've been listening to you for quite a bit.
Speaker 39: Love your stuff. I kind of am considering myself a
Speaker 39: recovering Calvinist. But I have a question about Romans chapter nine. Okay,
Speaker 39: So in Romans chapter nine, Paul kind of lays out
Speaker 39: his case and then he gets to the point and
Speaker 39: I can't I can't cite it exactly, but he gets
Speaker 39: to the point where he kind of anticipates the counter argument,
Speaker 39: and he says something along the lines of so what like, so,
Speaker 39: so what if God did make vessels for wrath and
Speaker 39: vessels for glory?
Speaker 4: You go back to the passage where it's originally cited.
Speaker 4: It's a passage that's talking collectively about nations. Jacob and
Speaker 4: Esau are two nations in the womb. And the point
Speaker 4: that I made to the other guy is that we
Speaker 4: know that it's collective because the same terminology and language
Speaker 4: that Paul uses in Ephesians is used of the collective
Speaker 4: visible church at Ephesus and for the for the Calvinist
Speaker 4: ex of Jesus. To be correct and to work, Paul
Speaker 4: has to then be writing not to the church at
Speaker 4: Ephesus that has a bishop named Timothy, but to the
Speaker 4: elect at Ephesus, who are the unknown, invisible church, Aaron,
Speaker 4: the non binary. So I guess there's like a bunch
Speaker 4: of profiles three, now two, and then this will be
Speaker 4: the third one calling in to play country music.
Speaker 3: Let's see if this one does it. Fat pussy, please
Speaker 3: come play your country music, all right, So guess not
Speaker 3: fry guys, yep.
Speaker 40: I just had a couple of questions. I'm actually an
Speaker 40: Orthodox catechumen converting from Roman Catholicism, and I've been seeking
Speaker 40: out I've been seeking out various Protestant sources and Catholic
Speaker 40: sources for you know, during this mass conversion of Orthodoxy.
Speaker 40: Maybe why you shouldn't convert, just because I'm curious to
Speaker 40: see their arguments, And yeah.
Speaker 3: I think we should be aware of all that. I
Speaker 3: think that's a good thing to do.
Speaker 40: I actually had a little conversation with Redeem zo U
Speaker 40: in the DMS, and I just wanted to ask. He
Speaker 40: mentioned that Oriental Orthodoxy is more quote unchanged than Eastern Orthodoxy,
Speaker 40: and he never really elaborated. Do you know what he
Speaker 40: might mean by that?
Speaker 4: Uh, he's probably just referring to some thing he heard
Speaker 4: somebody say. I don't think he knows anything about any
Speaker 4: of that stuff.
Speaker 41: Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Speaker 40: Another thing he mentioned was was Palamism, and I noticed
Speaker 40: there's a lot of a lot of people who take
Speaker 40: issue with Gregory Palamas. I don't really know why that is.
Speaker 40: Do you know why all these different Protestants really don't
Speaker 40: like Gregory.
Speaker 4: A lot of people are speaking from ignorance, and they
Speaker 4: don't know that the Compadocians teach the essen Sentergi stinction.
Speaker 4: They don't know that Althanatius teaches the ssen sentert sinction.
Speaker 4: Sat Sterrihal teaches it explicitly. He talks about the energies
Speaker 4: that are not the essence. I mean, you can't really
Speaker 4: even have the real presence in the Eucharist without the
Speaker 4: sentergy sinction, because you're don't necessarily have a created grace,
Speaker 4: a created God in the eu Christ which doesn't exist
Speaker 4: or doesn't things that created God, or you're going to
Speaker 4: be getting the divine esdence if you believe in absolute
Speaker 4: divine simplicity, so the only the essence interestinction can make
Speaker 4: sense of the Eucharist. Looks like it's going to be
Speaker 4: another Taylor Swift song, Michelle, I'm mute. Why are you
Speaker 4: raising your hand when I just told you to I'm mute?
Speaker 42: Were you speaking to me?
Speaker 1: Jay?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 42: Sorry, I think there's a pause between sometimes we request
Speaker 42: and when you tell us to speak, So I apologize. Yeah,
Speaker 42: I just had thanks for your spaces. I pride myself
Speaker 42: in being able to comprehend pretty well, but I usually
Speaker 42: have to listen to your recorded spaces and take notes
Speaker 42: and kind of go over it again. So thanks for
Speaker 42: recording them. I was in Jerusalem last year, long story short.
Speaker 42: It was in emphesis and Jerusalem actually left October sixth, believe.
Speaker 6: It or not.
Speaker 42: And while I was there, I just I prayed for
Speaker 42: the Lord to really reveal himself and to send people
Speaker 42: who were true seekers of the truth to me. Orthodox
Speaker 42: priests approached me again, long story short, while I was
Speaker 42: in the Holy sepulcher and said, hey, God told me
Speaker 42: that you wanted to pray with me, and it was
Speaker 42: just wild. Then when I went to Ephesus, almost the
Speaker 42: exact same thing happened. To me, so really diving in
Speaker 42: and studying all this, but on a side I don't know,
Speaker 42: conspiracyal note, do you think or believe that this pope,
Speaker 42: being the first Jesuit pope, is the last pope? And
Speaker 42: do you have any videos or discuss any of the
Speaker 42: Jesuit influence upon the Catholic Church?
Speaker 43: Thank you?
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, this is a topic I love to go
Speaker 4: into and I rarely get asked about it. So the
Speaker 4: greatest book for this is actually written by a traditional
Speaker 4: Roman Catholic. His name is David Wimhoff, and he wrote
Speaker 4: nadam page book called John Courtney John Courtney Murray, Timelife
Speaker 4: Magazine and the Doctrinal Warfare proposition CIA's influence in the
Speaker 4: Cali Church using the Jesuits, particularly John Courtney Murray. That's
Speaker 4: obviously more of a twentieth century analysis, particularly Vatican two,
Speaker 4: in the post Vatican two era soft power usage of
Speaker 4: the Cali Church by the American deep state. It's a
Speaker 4: really really well researched, le well referenced. I mean has
Speaker 4: I think eight hundred foot notes. So Wemoff's book is
Speaker 4: probably the best, absolute perfect book on the topic. I
Speaker 4: have lectured about seven or eight hours on that book
Speaker 4: on my YouTube channel, and so if you just look
Speaker 4: up Jesuits, Cia, OSS wm Off, you'll get all of those.
Speaker 4: Another good book on this is Operation Gladio by Paul Williams,
Speaker 4: who is also a Catholic who I think is like
Speaker 4: a history professor. He wrote on this, and I think
Speaker 4: he's kind of pretty much done with Catholicism after he
Speaker 4: went deep into the Gladio rabbit hole. But Gladio also
Speaker 4: is adjacent to all this through the Jesuits too. It
Speaker 4: doesn't it's not explicitly about Jesuits, but it's about the
Speaker 4: CIA's connection to the Vatican Bank and all that. Written
Speaker 4: by and again another Catholic who's not a quote conspiracy theoristy,
Speaker 4: he's a professor. So those are two that deal more
Speaker 4: recently with that. In road to the Roman Catholic Church.
Speaker 4: I think that there's a lot of kind of low
Speaker 4: tier Seven Day Aventists type people that are idiots. They
Speaker 4: think that the Jesuits around the world that stuff's really stupid.
Speaker 4: But the Jesuits do have a role to play in
Speaker 4: kind of influencing the Roman Catholic Church to be what
Speaker 4: it is nowadays with this hyper liberalization, especially with Francis.
Speaker 4: I think Francis is really the the ultimate example of that.
Speaker 4: And you know, he was already kind of allied with
Speaker 4: the CIA in Operation Condor, and it's so you know,
Speaker 4: if you follow his trajectory, it really makes there's no
Speaker 4: surprise there that he would, you know, be friends with
Speaker 4: all the people from Davos. You know, his mentor is
Speaker 4: one of Klaus's best friends from you know, World Economic Forum.
Speaker 4: He promotes the United Nations the World Economic Forum values
Speaker 4: and ideas. So I think it's pretty transparent nowadays. If
Speaker 4: you talked about this a while back, you know, this
Speaker 4: was this is all you're crazy, it's crazy, coup plant.
Speaker 4: But all this stuff is actually pretty well documented. It was,
Speaker 4: it was in all the geopolitical literature. Just a lot
Speaker 4: of people don't know about it. I think that's more
Speaker 4: important than even you know, the origins of Ignacious, Loyola
Speaker 4: and the Jesuit Order.
Speaker 3: I mean, all that stuff is interesting, it's.
Speaker 4: Fascinating, and they have a curious history. I wouldn't be
Speaker 4: surprised if Ignacious' model of spiritual exercises wasn't borrowed from
Speaker 4: his esoteric days.
Speaker 3: So for those that don't know.
Speaker 4: Uh, Ignacious Loyol of the before he converted to Catholicism,
Speaker 4: was involved in some kind of esoteric group. I don't
Speaker 4: They weren't the Illuminati, but they called themselves something like
Speaker 4: the Illuminatos or the Enlightened Ones.
Speaker 3: Or something like that.
Speaker 4: And I'm not even saying that that necessarily means his
Speaker 4: conversion wasn't genuine. I mean, he could have been fully genuine,
Speaker 4: but regardless, he did bring a lot of those spiritual
Speaker 4: practices quote unquote into the Jesuit order, and then that
Speaker 4: became something that was very useful for cell networks and
Speaker 4: intelligence networks.
Speaker 3: So there's a long history to this, Brandon, it was a.
Speaker 44: I did a quick question, well a two part question.
Speaker 44: So the first one is given the chaos of the
Speaker 44: early Church prior to the Nice Scene Council, and I
Speaker 44: suppose I've heard this on Joe Rogan's podcast, but do
Speaker 44: you think there's any credibility to this idea that the
Speaker 44: early Church might have incorporated psychedelics in their Eucharist? And
Speaker 44: as a follow up question, do you think there's any
Speaker 44: spiritual value to the use of psychedelics.
Speaker 4: No, I don't think there's anything incredible at all about that.
Speaker 4: John Aleegro was kind of rejected and kicked out of
Speaker 4: academia when he proposed the theory some decades ago. It's
Speaker 4: kind of just seen still as a quack theory. I
Speaker 4: don't think there's really anything in Christianity at all amenable
Speaker 4: to or consistent with pollucinogenics. I mean, even even Alvis Toxley,
Speaker 4: who wrote about superiority of pollucinogens to bread and wine
Speaker 4: and the Eucharist, didn't think that there was anything hallucinogenic
Speaker 4: about Christianity's notion of the Eucharist. And there could be,
Speaker 4: you know, some usage for extreme cases of people with extreme.
Speaker 3: Like I had a friend.
Speaker 4: Who was an extreme alcoholic and drank himself to death,
Speaker 4: and I would have said maybe in his case, like,
Speaker 4: since he was at the point of almost dying, like,
Speaker 4: might as well.
Speaker 3: Try some kind of you know whatever.
Speaker 4: However, they do the therapy with you know, aohuasc or whatever,
Speaker 4: which sometimes works for people who have extreme addictions.
Speaker 3: So maybe in extreme cases, but no, I don't think
Speaker 3: generally speaking, human beings should be trying to have spiritual
Speaker 3: experiences with hallucinogens. Rhodesian chet Hanks, Hey J.
Speaker 45: Sorry, my audio kind of went out. One interesting thing
Speaker 45: you mentioned about Huxley, and I think why Orthodox should
Speaker 45: always avoid psychedelics is you put your trust in them.
Speaker 45: I think Huxley died tripping. He like asked for a
Speaker 45: bunch of acid on his deathbed. Yeah, thanks, so yeah,
Speaker 45: so I mean that kind of summarizes it well anyway,
Speaker 45: thank you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's an interesting point.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, I think when Orthodox saints and
Speaker 4: elder's comments on.
Speaker 3: This, they talk about it like, Okay, yeah, you.
Speaker 4: Might be opening your you know, noetic faculties to the
Speaker 4: spiritual realm when you do that, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 4: that you're ready for the spiritual realm, and that doesn't
Speaker 4: mean that it's the approved method for looking into the
Speaker 4: spiritual realm either, which is why it can, you know,
Speaker 4: terrify you and drive you insane. I'm not saying that everybody.
Speaker 4: I've done hallucinogen, so I'm well aware of how it works,
Speaker 4: and not everybody who trips goes insane. But it's sort
Speaker 4: of like, I don't know, it's like playing spiritual roulette
Speaker 4: or something like you could go and say, Henry, what's up?
Speaker 3: Yeah, seth, good, Yes.
Speaker 32: I've got a question.
Speaker 46: So I'm I'm kind of a person, but I'm like
Speaker 46: ninety percent of my way to deciding to become an
Speaker 46: Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 32: But I have a question about ikons.
Speaker 46: Sure, I mean, so it's explained as windows to the divine, right, Yeah,
Speaker 46: but I'm curious as to like, what do they reveal
Speaker 46: that scripture doesn't.
Speaker 4: Well, they're essentially the same type of revelation as scriptures,
Speaker 4: So in a sense, what they reveal that scripture doesn't
Speaker 4: would be the facts and the history and the lives
Speaker 4: of the saints who lived after the scriptures.
Speaker 3: So that's one thing they reveal.
Speaker 4: I mean, Gregory Poulomas is a saint and he's not
Speaker 4: in the Bible, So it reveals to us things about
Speaker 4: saints after.
Speaker 3: The time of the apostles.
Speaker 4: Even the icons that are, you know, scenes of even
Speaker 4: the icons that are the scenes of like biblical imagery,
Speaker 4: like the the Theophany or christ Baptism. I mean, those
Speaker 4: icons are the same messages and meaning of the Bible.
Speaker 4: It's just a different medium or firm because written texts
Speaker 4: are not the only way in which God speaks to us.
Speaker 4: Because God created the beauty of the natural world. God
Speaker 4: wanted his Temple in Jerusalem to be beautiful and full
Speaker 4: of iconography, and so God is just also fine with
Speaker 4: revealing himself and truths about himself and his people through
Speaker 4: icons and through beauty and not just through written texts.
Speaker 46: Yeah, and I know icon veneration is quite like it's
Speaker 46: a big thing. But besides polycarphs like bones that could
Speaker 46: be considered venerated, like what other examples like in the
Speaker 46: early days would they be?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: For example, all the early churches, even in the catacombs,
Speaker 4: have altars and had.
Speaker 3: The eucharists on the altars.
Speaker 4: So if you go to the catacombs in Rome, you'll
Speaker 4: see the altars when the church was persecuted down in
Speaker 4: the catacomb, and even when the basilicas began to be
Speaker 4: converted after Roman, after Catholicism was no longer persecuted. The basilicas,
Speaker 4: which are houses like fancy houses that you know senators
Speaker 4: and elite Roman you know senators used to live in
Speaker 4: or whatever like, when they converted the houses into churches,
Speaker 4: they would set up barriers or communion rails, which means
Speaker 4: that not everybody had access to the eucharists. So that
Speaker 4: itself tells you that there's a reverence for the euchrost itself.
Speaker 4: So the Eucharist is the icon part excellence that Protestants
Speaker 4: and people who you know, criticize this point always missed.
Speaker 4: They don't understand, well, the euchroust itself is that, but
Speaker 4: the altar itself is holy, and the altar itself is
Speaker 4: what became a tradition for the Church to put relics in.
Speaker 4: So this is an ancient, you know, early church tradition
Speaker 4: to put relics in the altar. And then the cross
Speaker 4: quite naturally became something that was venerated very early in
Speaker 4: the church. The monastics were doing the sign of the
Speaker 4: Cross very early in church tradition. So all of these
Speaker 4: things show the principle, including holy water two of sacramental theology,
Speaker 4: which is the very point and the purpose behind iconography.
Speaker 4: So people miss all of that and they don't even
Speaker 4: look at It's.
Speaker 3: Like, well, howk them.
Speaker 4: There weren't giant icons put up everywhere in the second
Speaker 4: third century. You mean, because the church was in the catacombs.
Speaker 4: But guess what, when you go on the catacombs, there's imagery.
Speaker 4: I've been to the catacombs in Rome, and I've only
Speaker 4: been to one of them there everywhere, and they have imagery,
Speaker 4: so they have pictures of Jesus, they have pictures of
Speaker 4: Bible scenes. If you go to the Dura Europo Synagogue,
Speaker 4: it has images and iconography everywhere on the walls.
Speaker 32: Okay, cool, thanks, that's so logic.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I have a video where I discussed this, and I
Speaker 4: actually go into a Protestant liturgical historian, Hugh Wiber's book
Speaker 4: Byzantine Liturgy. The first chapter of that book refutes all
Speaker 4: the Gavin Ortland stuff and the James White stuff. I've
Speaker 4: shared that probably twenty times on Twitter. Go watch my
Speaker 4: video that's like twenty minutes refuting Gavin Ortland on icons.
Speaker 4: I think it's like a twenty minute video. All I
Speaker 4: do is cite Protestant liturgical historians. So I don't know
Speaker 4: why I'm not dissing you. It's just like it's like
Speaker 4: the same.
Speaker 3: This is like stuff like kicks up for whatever reason.
Speaker 4: And if people are like, oh, everybody's arguing over something
Speaker 4: that we've been making videos about for like seven years.
Speaker 3: Like go watch all the videos already made on this Darius.
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 4: In fact, maybe I can find that video and put
Speaker 4: it underneath this for you guys, because I know everyone
Speaker 4: is too lazy to actually find a video. No one
Speaker 4: knows how to use search functions anymore. So it's about
Speaker 4: the fourth one that comes up when I search for it.
Speaker 4: So I'm gonna put it under here for you guys.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, did it my churn? Yes, sir.
Speaker 25: Oh, hey, mister Dyer. I just want to say I
Speaker 25: appreciate you and your your work. It's been very helpful.
Speaker 25: My friend has helped me converting to decent Orthodoxy. I
Speaker 25: actually graduated from Master's University, and I've had a lot
Speaker 25: of questions and I actually asked John MacArthur at a
Speaker 25: Q and A myself, which is, I'll give you permission
Speaker 25: to uh not permission to call me on the video
Speaker 25: at a Q and A about the Master dem Nada.
Speaker 25: So there's a video of it. I don't know if
Speaker 25: you can d M me or something. I can't send
Speaker 25: you the link, but I wanted to ask more about
Speaker 25: the the Nestorianism with the mass uh maskedev nada. I
Speaker 25: think that's how you pronounce it. I'm having.
Speaker 3: Notorianism.
Speaker 25: Yeah, yeah, I've watched I've watched videos, a lot of them.
Speaker 25: I watched all of them, but I'm still having trouble
Speaker 25: like understanding it are like the has to put it
Speaker 25: in my own words of.
Speaker 4: Wow, okay, hold on, hold on, So let's let's distinguish
Speaker 4: some things.
Speaker 3: So can you mute? It's really loud, so just meet
Speaker 3: for a second. Oh, I apologize, It's okay, it's me
Speaker 3: for a second. Okay.
Speaker 4: So mass Damnata is an Augustinian teaching based on his
Speaker 4: reading of Romans five, that all human beings are in
Speaker 4: Adam as in an archetype. He speaks of this explicitly,
Speaker 4: for example, in the City of God. I've lectured through
Speaker 4: the entirety of the City of God and we covered
Speaker 4: the sections where he talks about this.
Speaker 3: The idea is that basically.
Speaker 4: We all not only send in Adam, but we were
Speaker 4: also guilty in Adam because we were in his loins
Speaker 4: as in an archetype, in him, like in a kind
Speaker 4: of neoplatonic way. So that means that when an infant
Speaker 4: is born or from sect from the second of conception,
Speaker 4: the infant is not only liable to the effects of
Speaker 4: original sin, he's also guilty of original sin and thus
Speaker 4: liable to full on damnation and torments.
Speaker 3: So that's what mass damnotomys.
Speaker 4: And the only people who get out of that in
Speaker 4: the Augustinian system are those who are not just predestined,
Speaker 4: but in this life come to the church, come to
Speaker 4: the font, get baptized, and persevere until the end, and
Speaker 4: thus demonstrate that they were one of the elects. So
Speaker 4: you have that's why he wrote a treatise called on
Speaker 4: the Gift of Perseverance. But he also wrote other books
Speaker 4: on operative and cooperative grace, et cetera, none of which
Speaker 4: is consistent with the Calvinist teaching, because Augustine did not
Speaker 4: believe ultimately in an invisible church. He believed that the
Speaker 4: visible church has a visible structure that is unified, it
Speaker 4: is singular, it has the means of grace alone through
Speaker 4: the sacraments. He believed in praying for dead, He believed
Speaker 4: in all the things that we believe. He doesn't believe
Speaker 4: the things that the Calvinists believe, So that's mass damnata.
Speaker 4: Nasaurianism is a different situation where the patriarchal Constantinople started
Speaker 4: teaching that Mary is not the mother of God, meaning
Speaker 4: that the person that she gave birth to was not
Speaker 4: the divine person of the word, the second person of
Speaker 4: the Godhead, but rather that there's a dual subject going
Speaker 4: on in the life of Christ, where at times it
Speaker 4: is the subject Jesus of Nazareth, who's a human subject,
Speaker 4: and at other times it's the second person that God had,
Speaker 4: the logos, who is speaking and revealing himself in the gospels.
Speaker 4: And so when Nastorius is condemned at Ephesus, he's condemned
Speaker 4: for a dual subject Christology, that saying Cyril writes about extensively.
Speaker 4: So those are two separate topics, but I'm happy to
Speaker 4: address either one.
Speaker 25: I appreciate that, brother, Thank you.
Speaker 3: So what was the question about mass Dunn and John MacArthur.
Speaker 25: I was Oh, I asked him. Uh, I asked him
Speaker 25: back in twenty twenty one. I went to the pulpit,
Speaker 25: you know, because I grew up not reform, but whatever.
Speaker 25: I asked him, was there a break in the trinity?
Speaker 25: Because you know, you just said, Father, Father, why have
Speaker 25: you forsaken me? And I was expressing and I asked
Speaker 25: him like, how wasn't there a break because it seems
Speaker 25: like it and in the video, I don't know. You
Speaker 25: can go to my Facebook or something like that if
Speaker 25: you search up my name. In the video, he says
Speaker 25: basically that yes, there was a separation.
Speaker 3: And then wow, that's awesome. Find that.
Speaker 25: So yeah, if you I don't know, can you DM
Speaker 25: on Twitter or something, I can give it to you.
Speaker 4: Well, why don't you just post it underneath this thread here,
Speaker 4: put it as a comment and I'll play that on
Speaker 4: the live stream or something. But yeah, that's different. So
Speaker 4: mauth da'maa is the Augustinian doctrine. The argument that I
Speaker 4: make about penal substitutionary atonement is that the Classical Reformation tradition,
Speaker 4: when they interpret the text my God, My God, why
Speaker 4: have you forsaken me? All the Classical Reformers believe that
Speaker 4: Jesus of Nazareth was damned on the cross, and so
Speaker 4: if you believe he's a divine person, you split the
Speaker 4: trinity because damnation means a severance from the presence, love
Speaker 4: and unity of God and divine life. So you're saying
Speaker 4: that the second person of the God had was severed
Speaker 4: from the divine love, unity and presence of the Father,
Speaker 4: which is impossible. It's anti Trinitarians stupid, But Calvinists don't
Speaker 4: care about Trinitarian theology. They'd rather do their steriology first,
Speaker 4: and if that screws up the.
Speaker 3: Trinity down the road, who cares? Right.
Speaker 4: But in the Orthodox position, seteriology is downstream from triadology.
Speaker 3: It's the other way around. It's the reverse.
Speaker 4: And that's why no Calvinists will ever be able to
Speaker 4: win a debate when it comes to the monarchical trinity
Speaker 4: versus their stupid heterodox trinity.
Speaker 3: Often. Hey j how are you fine with that?
Speaker 47: Hey?
Speaker 3: So, I just had a quick question about epistemology.
Speaker 48: From some of your videos I've watched, I've seen that
Speaker 48: you don't just allow claims, so you want epistemological justification
Speaker 48: for things. But also at the same time, i've heard
Speaker 48: you say, well a lot of claims kind of have
Speaker 48: at the base level, kind of like epistemological circularity.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I literally just addressed this about twenty minutes ago.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, okay, I'll tune back in. Fine, you can
Speaker 3: ask a question again, Go ahead, okay.
Speaker 48: So, like, if I wanted to say something like, well,
Speaker 48: I know I'm a conscious being, like there is consciousness,
Speaker 48: I mean I can't in your world. I want to
Speaker 48: be able to say that's self evident. And if not, like,
Speaker 48: how would I justify something like that.
Speaker 4: Right, So, I mean, the first point is that anybody
Speaker 4: who doesn't want to believe in recursive, you know, paradigm
Speaker 4: level questions being self referencing, they're going to, most likely
Speaker 4: ninety nine percent of the time they're going to be
Speaker 4: some form of foundationalist in terms of epistemology. And if
Speaker 4: you're a foundationalist, you're gonna have to deal with their
Speaker 4: criterion problem. You're gonna have to deal with how we
Speaker 4: know what's self evident and why is that self evident?
Speaker 4: Which is going to rely on some prior principle that
Speaker 4: susses out the non self evident from the self evident.
Speaker 3: And if the self evident things.
Speaker 4: Rely on a principle which teases out the self evident
Speaker 4: and non self evident, then it's no longer self evident
Speaker 4: because it's relying on another principle because by definition, self
Speaker 4: evident principles can't rely on other truths or other things.
Speaker 4: If you watch the Trent Horn debate, the whole debate
Speaker 4: ended up being about things that were self evident. So yeah,
Speaker 4: so a person who disagreed with tag or the way
Speaker 4: that we approach epistemology, they could go in the direction
Speaker 4: of denying that all world views are at a fundamental
Speaker 4: level self referencing or recursive. But they're in an even
Speaker 4: more difficult box if they do that, because now they're
Speaker 4: going to have to give an account for the criterion
Speaker 4: problem and the principles of self evidence, which is.
Speaker 3: Going to be a nightmer.
Speaker 48: Okay, thank you, I'll go back and I'll watch the
Speaker 48: Trent Horn debate, and then as so, what was your.
Speaker 3: Question about consciousness? Like what was it? So you just
Speaker 3: you're just repeating the cards that you.
Speaker 48: Mean, Well, no, it wouldn't be because I watched you
Speaker 48: debate te Dump, and I remember te Dump wanted to
Speaker 48: do the whole cartesian I think therefore I am.
Speaker 3: But you put into question that Trent Horn did the
Speaker 3: same thing.
Speaker 48: I didn't watch the Trent Horn, but I remember what
Speaker 48: you you brought up with Tea Dump is that hey,
Speaker 48: Bertrand Russell has a critique of the coquito, which is like,
Speaker 48: there's a jump to a being or an eye, but nonetheless,
Speaker 48: like Corre, I do think there there there is not
Speaker 48: necessarily an eye, but there is experience. And if I
Speaker 48: wanted to justify that experience, can I say that it's
Speaker 48: self evident or what I need to be more.
Speaker 4: I'll just cut it. I'll just cut it out. Even
Speaker 4: easier and even better than version of Russell's critique. If
Speaker 4: you look at cons critique of the coke e toe,
Speaker 4: he says, if you say I think therefore I am,
Speaker 4: I am, or I exist, that's a time determination.
Speaker 3: You have not proven time yet.
Speaker 4: Your argument assumes the existence of time, and so therefore
Speaker 4: the cogito is not self evident. By the way, the
Speaker 4: coketo has been savage by philosophers ever since. They cart
Speaker 4: pointing out how it relies on all kinds of things,
Speaker 4: not just time, and not just the false non sequit
Speaker 4: or conclusions or eyes. But it also assumes sentences and
Speaker 4: propositional meaning, which it hasn't demonstrated yet.
Speaker 48: Interesting, So, I mean, is there not necessarily proving an
Speaker 48: eye like an independent self? Is there a way to
Speaker 48: epistemologically kind of demonstrate that there is conscious experience outside
Speaker 48: of just saying well it's self.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, I think the strongest argument is const argument
Speaker 4: that it's a transcendental category, which he calls the unity
Speaker 4: of apperception, which is the self for the knower I mean,
Speaker 4: in other words, for the possibility of perception, you have
Speaker 4: to have a nowherre or self. But that would be
Speaker 4: a transcendental argument, that would not be a Kantian self
Speaker 4: evident axiom.
Speaker 48: And that's the unity of ap ap procession.
Speaker 3: You said ap perception.
Speaker 4: That's just Kant's famous terminology for a unified experience that
Speaker 4: a self or a knower is having. So basically, Kant
Speaker 4: is just saying that in order to have a meaningful world,
Speaker 4: or a meaningful life, or a meaningful experience, there must
Speaker 4: be some unifying thing or substrate that is connecting all
Speaker 4: of these disparate experiences in your daily life. And so
Speaker 4: for that to be the case, it's obviously not going
Speaker 4: to be proven in since experience since it's not under
Speaker 4: the purview of since experience.
Speaker 3: So where is it? How is it? How wo do
Speaker 3: we know it?
Speaker 4: It's a perfect example of one of the things that
Speaker 4: calls a transcendental category, which is assumed in any act
Speaker 4: of knowing. So to have a meaningful experience presupposes a
Speaker 4: what he calls a transcendental unity of a perception. That's
Speaker 4: just fancy word for a conscious mind of self a knowwhere.
Speaker 48: Okay, cool, Yeah, I'm going to look into that. It's
Speaker 48: something I've been thinking about a lot. And then after this,
Speaker 48: like little chat log is closed. Can I go back
Speaker 48: on Twitter and like rewind it?
Speaker 26: Just so?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 44: Cool?
Speaker 3: Well, thank you so much. Jay. I appreciate that question.
Speaker 3: I appreciate those are good questions. Andre. What's up man, Colin?
Speaker 3: I'm you, Hey, Jay, what's up? Man?
Speaker 44: Yeah?
Speaker 49: Go ahead, Hey dude, I had a quick question for you.
Speaker 49: It might be fairly simple, but I was thinking about
Speaker 49: this the other day. Could you elaborate on the Orthodox
Speaker 49: perspective on who Melchizedek is in Genesis fourteen?
Speaker 48: Is he?
Speaker 3: I wrote a buff back article on it.
Speaker 4: Okay, okay, cool, I'm just beating it because it's loud,
Speaker 4: but I appreciate your out of the mouth of babes. Yeah,
Speaker 4: Melchizedek is an actual Old Testament person.
Speaker 3: He's not Jesus. He's a type of Jesus, and he
Speaker 3: is spoken of as the King of Salem.
Speaker 4: He's a priest king of Salem, which makes him a
Speaker 4: type of Christ, being the ultimate priest king.
Speaker 3: Maybe we should I'm sorry, We're trying to park and
Speaker 3: it's like bad traffic here, so I keep getting distracted.
Speaker 4: So yeah, he was actually the king of Jerusalem, because
Speaker 4: Salem is Zion, David explains in the Psalms.
Speaker 3: And so what this means is that if you believe Genesis,
Speaker 3: then it's telling you that uh Salem or the city
Speaker 3: of Zion, was actually the city of the righteous before
Speaker 3: the Jews.
Speaker 4: Existed in the sense of Abraham. So Abraham is beginning
Speaker 4: of quote Judaism because he's the first to.
Speaker 3: Be called in that way.
Speaker 4: And God calls Abraham not because no one else in
Speaker 4: the world believed in God, but rather Abraham goes to
Speaker 4: the righteous gentile priest king Malchisedek and ties to him,
Speaker 4: which shows the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood over the
Speaker 4: Ironic And this is why in Hebrew seven Paul uses
Speaker 4: this as a powerful argument for the superiority of Christianity,
Speaker 4: which is the Melchizedekian priesthood amongst its bishops, priests.
Speaker 3: And laity.
Speaker 4: That priesthood supersedes and transcends the ironic priesthood because it
Speaker 4: is superior, although even the ironic priesthood is also a
Speaker 4: type of christ.
Speaker 31: Joseph, go ahead, hey, Jack, you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Hey.
Speaker 50: First of all, I want to say I've been listening
Speaker 50: for a couple of years, and I love just the
Speaker 50: way you break things down and your movie your movie reviews,
Speaker 50: all that stuff. So I love your debates everything. I
Speaker 50: love everything there is. Yeah, no problem, no problem, it's
Speaker 50: really good stuff.
Speaker 8: Let me ask you. And I've heard you.
Speaker 3: I've heard you.
Speaker 50: With other people like if someone comes to you who's
Speaker 50: who comes from a partisant background, which it is more
Speaker 50: on solo sola scripture, and they want to debate you
Speaker 50: or have a discussion with you on the Bible, you
Speaker 50: kind of cut their legs off. And you I've heard
Speaker 50: you do this before. I don't know if you're still
Speaker 50: doing this. It's been a couple of months. As i've
Speaker 50: heard you, maybe you changed your augmentation, maybe, but I've
Speaker 50: heard you say things like, well, who brought the Bible?
Speaker 50: Who gave you the Bible? And that's kind of your
Speaker 50: way to cut the legs off.
Speaker 4: So I want to know I never see using that
Speaker 4: argument because it's a classic one as one of the
Speaker 4: ones that helped convert me.
Speaker 50: Now, okay, now, so my next question is because I
Speaker 50: have I feel like I have a response to that argument.
Speaker 50: So I want to see what you think I want
Speaker 50: to see what you're what your answer is? I guess
Speaker 50: so wouldn't that be?
Speaker 3: Well, no, that's fine.
Speaker 4: You can always bring you know, challenges and responses like that.
Speaker 4: But could you give me just a couple of minutes
Speaker 4: because I meant the gas station and I had to
Speaker 4: use the bathroom and I got to get a water.
Speaker 3: So can you hold on for maybe a minute or two? Yeah,
Speaker 3: so just give me a second? Okay, go ahead. Man,
Speaker 3: I'm back on the corner all right, so I think
Speaker 3: can you hear me? Yeah?
Speaker 5: All right?
Speaker 50: So, like I said before, when someone comes to you
Speaker 50: and it kind of wants to argue the debate what
Speaker 50: the Bible says before you you even get into that
Speaker 50: conversation with them, and you kind of try and cut
Speaker 50: their legs off from the beginning and say, well, who
Speaker 50: brought you the Bible?
Speaker 3: This and that X Y Z. Okay?
Speaker 5: Cool?
Speaker 50: And let me ask you, isn't isn't that? Isn't that
Speaker 50: technically committing the fallacy of composition where you're saying, okay,
Speaker 50: because the Orthodox Church brought this, that means they have
Speaker 50: the truth now and everything going forward.
Speaker 10: You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 50: Isn't that the fallacy of composition to assume that the
Speaker 50: Orthodox Church, just because they that God used them to
Speaker 50: bring the truth of scripture to everybody, that now that
Speaker 50: every teaching they have now is true.
Speaker 4: You to say what I'm saying, Well, no, the argument
Speaker 4: is not that because the Canon was put together by
Speaker 4: the Church that therefore everything that they believe or say
Speaker 4: is true.
Speaker 3: I don't. I don't even have to concede that.
Speaker 4: All I have to do is show that the Protestant
Speaker 4: epistemic grounds for knowing the Canon and trying to enforce
Speaker 4: the Canon doesn't work for Protestantism.
Speaker 3: In other words, and let me let me explain why
Speaker 3: that would be the.
Speaker 4: Case, because, for example, a Roman Catholic might make the
Speaker 4: same argument, right, so a Protestant. A Protestant might say
Speaker 4: back to me, well, okay, so maybe I admit that
Speaker 4: you know the church quote unquote of history is indispensable
Speaker 4: for the determination and knowledge and decision of the Canon.
Speaker 3: But why Orthodoxy over Rome is ALSOSM. So no, I don't.
Speaker 4: I don't think the argument that argument alone necessarily proves orthodoxy,
Speaker 4: except that you have to go deeper into it and
Speaker 4: point out that, well, actually, the Roman Catholic arguments is
Speaker 4: not much better because they just argue that is whatever
Speaker 4: the pope decided at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasis.
Speaker 3: But that just assumes that papalism is true.
Speaker 4: The rest of the Church had a fluctuating and varying
Speaker 4: canon for centuries, even up into the Seventh Council.
Speaker 3: So I don't understand.
Speaker 4: So if that, if the church was papal, they weren't
Speaker 4: listening to Damasis about what the canon.
Speaker 3: Was, right, I see. So let's so let me ask
Speaker 3: you all I all.
Speaker 6: I need to do.
Speaker 4: All I have to do is just demonstrate that tradition
Speaker 4: and a living body of people with normative authority are
Speaker 4: absolutely necessary even to know what the written Word of
Speaker 4: God is, and that undercos Protestancy.
Speaker 50: So so okay, so this okay, So this is another
Speaker 50: question happening.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 50: So if if that's what orthodox theology is claiming, if
Speaker 50: the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is able to
Speaker 50: if we're able to come to the knowledge of God
Speaker 50: without the Orthodox Church proper, what doesn't that defeat that argument?
Speaker 30: Though?
Speaker 50: If I'm able to come to a lot of truth
Speaker 50: by reading the scriptures, just me alone with the Lord
Speaker 50: wouldn't that doesn't that undercut that argument then?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: I say, we're saying, well, there's a difference in scripture
Speaker 4: between different types of knowledge.
Speaker 3: So for example, you can have rational.
Speaker 4: Diological knowledge of something, or you could have factual knowledge
Speaker 4: of something and not have intimate knowledge of the thing.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: So like when the scriptures say that Adam and even
Speaker 4: knew Adam knew his wife Eve, Right, that's a different
Speaker 4: type of knowing than just having, like I know of
Speaker 4: the person. So no, I would say that Protestants can
Speaker 4: have a knowledge of Jesus and a knowledge of those things.
Speaker 4: If God has his own ways by which he can
Speaker 4: reach a Protestant, he can do that. But it's not
Speaker 4: because of Protestantism. It's in spite of Protestanism, or it's
Speaker 4: in spite of Catholicism, because it's ignoring the fact that
Speaker 4: it's ignoring whether or not God set up an institution
Speaker 4: by which he wanted people to connect to him, namely
Speaker 4: the Church.
Speaker 31: So let me ask you, so what did it?
Speaker 50: That's a good it's a good answer, So let me
Speaker 50: ask you what can I give that same answer though
Speaker 50: to Orthodox because if all men are if all men
Speaker 50: are fallible, right, And I know what the Orthodox teaching
Speaker 50: is on, you know, on that type stuff. When they
Speaker 50: agree on a certain issue whatever, you would say that's that.
Speaker 50: You would say that to God speaking even though infallible
Speaker 50: men are making that decision, you would say, the Holy
Speaker 50: Spirit is leading the church correct.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like when a council is speaking in an ecumenical
Speaker 4: you know, setting with the whole mind of the church
Speaker 4: on issues that are you know, universally agreed upon and
Speaker 4: received eventually by the entire church. It might be unclear
Speaker 4: in that generation what that is, but eventually, but over
Speaker 4: time it gets accepted and we know what the mind
Speaker 4: of it.
Speaker 3: And we know the mind of the church.
Speaker 4: But yes, that's infallible, but not the individual men, I
Speaker 4: see my dutt And by the way, Protestants. Protestants already
Speaker 4: admit this if they think the Bible is infallible, because
Speaker 4: they think that these fallible men came together to make
Speaker 4: at least one infallible decision, namely the Cannon Scripture.
Speaker 3: Or you go with the RC.
Speaker 4: Sproul route of saying that it's a fallible collection of
Speaker 4: infallible books, which is self refuting.
Speaker 50: I guess I come from an evangelical background, and I've
Speaker 50: been just really reading, reading, reading scripture, reading scripture, watching
Speaker 50: a lot of y'all's videos. I mean, I've watched hundreds
Speaker 50: and hundreds of debates on various topics, and I personally
Speaker 50: find that you are the best debater that i've heard.
Speaker 50: I mean, just be honest, yeah, I personally, I mean,
Speaker 50: your arguments are even if you're even if you're in
Speaker 50: the wrong, I mean, you can debate your out of it,
Speaker 50: like it's just that I see.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying you are wrong.
Speaker 8: I'm just saying that that's.
Speaker 3: How good you are, that you know that you can
Speaker 3: do that. So let me give you I'm gonna hold on,
Speaker 3: so hold on.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna I'm gonna re share a couple screenshots.
Speaker 3: Hopefully I can find the other one here.
Speaker 4: That give you an example from Protestant scholars of how
Speaker 4: elaborate the decision of the canon was, and it gives
Speaker 4: you a window into this so to where hopefully we
Speaker 4: can realize that like the Canon of Scripture wasn't like
Speaker 4: it's it's centuries of variations and differences and debates and disputes,
Speaker 4: and that alone means that Christians were not operating on
Speaker 4: the principle of solar scriptura for all those centuries. So
Speaker 4: why would we be accepting a doctrine of quote sola
Speaker 4: scriptura when God clearly was saving these people, you know,
Speaker 4: during these times without sous.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 3: No, it makes perfect sense.
Speaker 50: And that and that's where what you were saying, God
Speaker 50: is using Catholics in spite of themselves. God's using process
Speaker 50: in spite of themselves.
Speaker 5: Is it? Can I?
Speaker 50: Can I not make the same critique and say that
Speaker 50: God is always working Whenever God's word is shared, It's
Speaker 50: never gonna return void no matter who is give.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: But again, but but to whom much is given, much
Speaker 4: is required. And so the more knowledge that you have,
Speaker 4: the more culpable you are, as Jesus says. And so
Speaker 4: if you do know about these things and have the
Speaker 4: ability to, uh, you know, find an orthodox church.
Speaker 3: Let me give you another example, like underneath, then you're
Speaker 3: more liable.
Speaker 9: So I just.
Speaker 3: Retweeted right now. Uh.
Speaker 4: This is a page from Lee McDonald's book Formation of
Speaker 4: the Christian Biblical Canon, and it's the page where he
Speaker 4: talks about how Revelation was not even and considered the
Speaker 4: Bible in Rome until affinacious went and convinced the Bishop
Speaker 4: of Rome that Revelation and Hebrews and other texts were
Speaker 4: actually should be included in the cannon. So what this
Speaker 4: shows us is that this is not like they're not
Speaker 4: operating on sola scriptura. If they're debating what things go
Speaker 4: into it, that proves they were not Protestants. They did
Speaker 4: not operate on sola scriptura, and thus sol scriptura is
Speaker 4: not true.
Speaker 3: That's one of the key pillars of Protestants.
Speaker 4: Just read this page right here from a Protestant scholar
Speaker 4: on how instrumental the fallible human decisions and argumentation of
Speaker 4: Afthenacious were about what books went in the Bible.
Speaker 50: So, Jay, how are you sharing these pages so I
Speaker 50: can see? I'm sorry, I'm driving, I have the phone.
Speaker 3: I literally just so it should be the top of
Speaker 3: my wall. I just sweet at the Regent.
Speaker 4: By the way, I also wrote, if you scroll down
Speaker 4: a little bit, I reposted my two essays on the
Speaker 4: dude cannon from like ten years ago, fifteen years ago.
Speaker 50: Gotcha love to that. Well, I don't want to take
Speaker 50: up too with your time, man, but this, I know
Speaker 50: that was a great question.
Speaker 3: Appreciate it, man.
Speaker 4: Just scroll down to uh Reputation of the Protestant Canon
Speaker 4: Part one and Reputation of the Protestant Canon Part two.
Speaker 4: Maybe I'll scroll down and find him and retweeting or
Speaker 4: something superhero.
Speaker 30: Hey, Hello, can you hear me?
Speaker 8: Stir Hey, dear dar.
Speaker 3: I just want to say thank you for the opportunity
Speaker 3: to be able to talk.
Speaker 5: Huge supporter man.
Speaker 51: I've been following for quite a while and to love
Speaker 51: all your debates, especially as the ones that you do
Speaker 51: with Sam Schmann got logic. But I have a I
Speaker 51: grew up Protestant, actually Pentecostal, obviously Protestantism.
Speaker 52: I have a like one or two questions real quick.
Speaker 52: So my parents are like, you know, like I said,
Speaker 52: I grew up Pentecostal. Personally, I feel like the Holy
Speaker 52: spiritsmen leading me to the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 3: But like a lot of that, it's just been like,
Speaker 3: you know, me doing my own uh my own I
Speaker 3: guess devor with Christ and like studying.
Speaker 6: And stuff like that.
Speaker 53: I want to ask you, uh what, like can you
Speaker 53: can you give me like biblical uh I guess or
Speaker 53: scripture to support like tradition and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I mean there's a bunch.
Speaker 4: I have an article that I wrote called the Biblical
Speaker 4: case for tradition. So go to my website, Jayson Elsins
Speaker 4: dot com and then just look up a Biblical case
Speaker 4: for tradition and that will give you multiple texts to
Speaker 4: discuss it.
Speaker 54: Uh.
Speaker 4: Oh, it's guys, trying to get over here. We're about
Speaker 4: to get crushed by some honest so trying to several lives.
Speaker 4: But yeah, I mean there's there's quite a few. I mean,
Speaker 4: second Thessalonians too, where Paul talks about, you know, whether
Speaker 4: keep the traditions, whether or oral or written. You know,
Speaker 4: Jesus in Matthew twenty three refers to the Cathedra the
Speaker 4: seat of Moses. There's nothing in the Bible about the
Speaker 4: Pharisees sitting in a seat of Moses. That's tradition.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 4: There's traditions in the New Testament cited where you know,
Speaker 4: Jesus said it's better to give.
Speaker 3: Than to receive.
Speaker 4: There's no statement where Jesus says that in the Gospels,
Speaker 4: so that's some kind of tradition. The Gospels themselves and
Speaker 4: their authorship, particularly in the case of Matthew, are known
Speaker 4: by tradition. So Matthew doesn't tell you that Matthew the
Speaker 4: Disciple is the author of the text. So that's something
Speaker 4: that is known by church tradition, and that the various
Speaker 4: bishoprics and sees passing down the tradition that Matthew the
Speaker 4: Disciple wrote that, and that's very important for canonicity, right.
Speaker 3: So I think Protestants overlook this.
Speaker 4: They think that when I say something like, you can't
Speaker 4: you know, know the canon without the Orthodox Church, a
Speaker 4: lot of times since misunderstand that and they think that
Speaker 4: the argument is just, oh, you're just saying that I
Speaker 4: can't understand those books without orthodoxy, or I can't know
Speaker 4: what the Bible is without an infallible interpreter.
Speaker 3: No, No, that's the Roman Catholic argument.
Speaker 4: I'm making a different argument, which is that you can't
Speaker 4: even know the authorship tradition of the Gospels, which is
Speaker 4: crucial to canonicity, without the tradition of the Church.
Speaker 3: And once I saw F. F.
Speaker 4: Bruce, you know, Lee McDonald, all these Protestant evangelical scholars
Speaker 4: admitting the role of tradition in the Bible and its
Speaker 4: formation in history, It's like, well, obviously this is not
Speaker 4: the Protestant model, so.
Speaker 3: This is just not true. Gary, Gary got on you man.
Speaker 30: I can't hear anybody.
Speaker 3: Jay, Yep, are you there?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 30: Wow, Hey, I was just in the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: I'll tell your mind.
Speaker 30: Oh, I just thought i'd say a little something about
Speaker 30: your debate on Calvinism. You know what all these religions
Speaker 30: have in common? What they all believe in the higher
Speaker 30: God or the atheist? Of course, there is no god.
Speaker 3: That's profound, bro.
Speaker 30: And it's interesting that now, Jay, I'm curious you said
Speaker 30: you were even jelical. Is that how you were raised?
Speaker 15: What?
Speaker 30: What did you say?
Speaker 5: What?
Speaker 3: I can't take the smack into the your dog? No,
Speaker 3: I'm orthodox, Jaron R.
Speaker 4: Jason, excuse me, you'll notice that James's.
Speaker 22: Hey, Ja, I want to ask what's your opinion on
Speaker 22: Gregory of Nissa and his teaching of universalism?
Speaker 8: Like, what would you say to that?
Speaker 4: I would say he's wrong about that, and he's wrong
Speaker 4: about gender being a reduced a product of the fall.
Speaker 4: So yeah, many of the church fathers got many things wrong.
Speaker 26: Thanks, that's it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the Universal's position is condemned by three councils. Jordan. Hello,
Speaker 3: can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Jay?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 55: Awesome, awesome? Uh my name is Jordan. So either questions
Speaker 55: or you had once sit in one of your lives
Speaker 55: or debates that the this is a God is the
Speaker 55: energy of God? How does that make How does that
Speaker 55: make sense? If God is eternal? How is his existence
Speaker 55: and energy?
Speaker 5: If?
Speaker 55: And correct me if I'm wrong? Isn't this the energy
Speaker 55: is just the act of God, the acts or the
Speaker 55: activities of God.
Speaker 4: Yes, every predicate though, is an energy because they're an
Speaker 4: energy that we know that's revealed to us, and that
Speaker 4: comes down to us. So God's existence, God's actions, all
Speaker 4: of those are in the Orthodox view energies God.
Speaker 3: She's okay, So that that does make sense.
Speaker 4: And yes, he exists from all eternity. His existence is
Speaker 4: an eternal, energetic manifestation.
Speaker 55: So I guess from like, I guess from there that
Speaker 55: there's something beyond his existence that's in his essence that
Speaker 55: we cannot understand.
Speaker 4: But that that's yes, it's not in his essence. It
Speaker 4: is the essence that is beyond existence. And that's directly
Speaker 4: from Dionysius himself. Oh understood. Awesome, Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: That that was that was pretty much great questions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, R.
Speaker 4: Rate plum Off is a debate with the Marline. I awesome,
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, you can come back. I thought you were
Speaker 4: done balance.
Speaker 56: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's up, Jordan? I was inviting you back. I
Speaker 3: didn't realize you were still speaking out that you're done.
Speaker 3: You can come back if you want.
Speaker 1: I have like a two part question, just a shout out.
Speaker 1: I love your work with Alex Jones and stuff like that,
Speaker 1: Rachel as well. I see Rachel's here. Her work is nice.
Speaker 1: But my first question is do you have like a
Speaker 1: specific timeline base of how secularism has infiltrated America and
Speaker 1: how that stems from like the UK and in the
Speaker 1: big Banks, the Rothchild set up and there, and the
Speaker 1: work they've been doing to like promote uh. I guess
Speaker 1: you would say degeneracy, but on top of that, like
Speaker 1: world government control.
Speaker 4: I don't know if there's a specific timeline for secularism,
Speaker 4: because you could argue that the secular realm as an
Speaker 4: idea for the state and for state craft goes back
Speaker 4: arguably to the Protestant Reformation and then the seeds of
Speaker 4: it there and then the French Revolution. So I would
Speaker 4: say that the French Revolution is probably the real source
Speaker 4: of the notion of a completely secular realm. That's not
Speaker 4: touched by ethics, morals, or theology outside of human legislation.
Speaker 4: That seems like, I'm pretty sure it's an Enlightenment and
Speaker 4: then French Revolution idea. You could track that though with
Speaker 4: quickly says that the French Revolution was funded by Protestant, Swiss.
Speaker 3: And Jewish banking elites.
Speaker 4: And I would argue that America, as an offshoot of
Speaker 4: the French Revolution already has kind of baked within it
Speaker 4: a secularist tendency. But it's, like we were saying on
Speaker 4: the podcast last night with High Hypocrite, my view is
Speaker 4: that America kind of had kind of competing ideologies in it,
Speaker 4: So it kind of had elements of Christianity and it
Speaker 4: had elements of Enlightenment secular philosophy. And America was always
Speaker 4: just kind of in this journey to see which road
Speaker 4: it would take.
Speaker 3: Would it take the path of enlightenment.
Speaker 4: Uh, you know, Masonic secularism, or would it go in
Speaker 4: a more Christian direction. And it didn't go into Christian
Speaker 4: direction precisely because for well, for many reasons. But one
Speaker 4: of the other things that's important that I think people
Speaker 4: overlook is that that principle of the free reign of
Speaker 4: the of the state, that it's not under the church
Speaker 4: or connect to the Church, that there that there should
Speaker 4: be a quote secular realm. The Roman callit Church was
Speaker 4: condemning that back in the seventeen hundreds and eighteen hundreds
Speaker 4: when they condemned the French Revolution. You had Orthodox writers
Speaker 4: that were condemning it. When the Bolshevik Revolution happened. Probably
Speaker 4: Natiev is a great one about he said that you
Speaker 4: don't get an actual secular state, you actually get the
Speaker 4: state of God. So if you remove the church, you
Speaker 4: don't get this you know, free state, you get this
Speaker 4: God state. So quite a few writers have been kind
Speaker 4: of pointing that out from any centuries.
Speaker 3: But I would argue that you.
Speaker 4: Could just depend it on French Revolution and then the
Speaker 4: influence in the West, and then the Roman Catholic Church
Speaker 4: capitulating to the idea of the good of a secular
Speaker 4: state at Vatican Two and their rejection of Christian nation states.
Speaker 1: Got to Yeah, I've seen the argument like people have
Speaker 1: made with Thomas Jefferson. They're trying to like twist his
Speaker 1: words around, saying like he was trying to separate church
Speaker 1: from like the country basically, but he was based only
Speaker 1: trying to like actually promote the government, not trying to
Speaker 1: pick a specific church to represent the government, because I mean, I.
Speaker 3: Think but Jefferson does have those Enlightenment Jacobin ideas.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I wasn't trying to like make a case for Thomas Jefferson.
Speaker 1: I was just trying to shift out that what's it called.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's a good example of somebody who.
Speaker 4: Is kind of like got both of those kind of
Speaker 4: tensions within him, where yeah there's some there's some quasi
Speaker 4: Christian elements there, but also these Jacobin elements. And then
Speaker 4: unfortunately America went in the direction of the you know,
Speaker 4: the jacob inside.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you could see that with like the Founding Fathers.
Speaker 1: I mean, even like George Washington, they were trying to
Speaker 1: go to the realm of I think deism, where they
Speaker 1: were trying to say, like there's no such thing as
Speaker 1: miracles and all that stuff, and they were being like
Speaker 1: deists towards Jesus, and I was just I was like
Speaker 1: more or less like trying to like archetypes. Is this
Speaker 1: like a spiritual like thing that's going on and it
Speaker 1: like does it spawn from the Catholic Church or it
Speaker 1: just does just spawn from bad men? From the Catholic
Speaker 1: Church that wanted to use That's.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's all enlightenment for a Masonic.
Speaker 56: Perfect Yeah.
Speaker 1: And then my second question, I'm sorry if this is
Speaker 1: too long, you can boot me if you want. But
Speaker 1: I've been writing a book for the past like three
Speaker 1: years on this like so called spirit of like whatever
Speaker 1: we're talking about. Then this so called narcissism, like enlightenment crap,
Speaker 1: and how that's all connected to like demonic forces and stuff.
Speaker 1: But when I when I go down to the root
Speaker 1: cause of this, it comes down to like the Garden
Speaker 1: of Eden and how well you can say per se,
Speaker 1: like the devil was the father of all lives, He's
Speaker 1: the father of evil. But my question it will stem
Speaker 1: from that being the sense of like is evil. Evil
Speaker 1: is in the sense of like rejecting God. So with
Speaker 1: us being the giving that choice of rejecting God, was
Speaker 1: that does that mean that we were since uh, we
Speaker 1: were created from nothing, and so when we were created
Speaker 1: from nothing and we were given the choice of rejecting
Speaker 1: the truth and love and then picking nothing to be
Speaker 1: like the and that nothing is what transpires him to
Speaker 1: like selfishness and like loving creatures.
Speaker 4: Yeah, actually, none of the Church fathers do like and
Speaker 4: the choice of vice over virtue to sort of negating
Speaker 4: yourself and choosing non being. So, yeah, I think you
Speaker 4: would find that in Saint Athanasius. You would find that
Speaker 4: in sant Agusta.
Speaker 3: And that's a that's a pretty common refrain when the
Speaker 3: church fathers are kind of talking about, you know, the
Speaker 3: metaphysical effects of moral evil. Jordans, do you want to
Speaker 3: ask another question?
Speaker 55: Yeah, I had another question, Thank you for having back on. Also,
Speaker 55: so in the Letter of Especially it's too the Letter
Speaker 55: of Dinitheus that was which is accepted the Council of Jerusalem,
Speaker 55: like the sixteen hundreds. He speaks about in that in
Speaker 55: one of the chapters where he's he uses the word transfer.
Speaker 55: But I've had Protestant friends speak about how he is
Speaker 55: asserting that the Orthodox use that use the exact same
Speaker 55: terminology of transfer. So my question is if that's canon
Speaker 55: or if that's kind of for the entire Orthodox Church?
Speaker 55: Would that not this? Would that not mean that we
Speaker 55: have the exact same understanding of the eucharists except from
Speaker 55: the crease right.
Speaker 4: So, first of all, those are Western translations of texts,
Speaker 4: and it's fine if we have texts that have the
Speaker 4: word transubstantiation, and if there's no I don't have him
Speaker 4: even have a.
Speaker 3: Problem with that word.
Speaker 4: For example, John Damascus in the translations that we have
Speaker 4: of on the Orthodox Faith, use the term transfibstantiation. That
Speaker 4: just means a change of substance in the Eucharist through
Speaker 4: the action of the Church.
Speaker 3: But the Roman Catholic view is not just that. It's
Speaker 3: not a minuscule view of just that.
Speaker 4: Like they have a very worked out dogmatic theology of matter, form,
Speaker 4: and intention for any sacrament, so for the sacrament of
Speaker 4: the Eucharist and trans association their ex opera apparato doctrine
Speaker 4: is part of it. Their doctrine of the words of
Speaker 4: consecration is what does it. And that's odd because that
Speaker 4: is separate from the epiclesis so in the Roman Goalthic position,
Speaker 4: they have no notion of an epic liasis that's at
Speaker 4: all relevant or necessary for the confecting of the Eucharist.
Speaker 4: That's not the Orthodox view. It's foreign to the Orthodox mind.
Speaker 4: And for example, that contributes in the Roman Catholic position
Speaker 4: to this idea of eucharists not being communal. It can
Speaker 4: be something that you can do, you know, like the
Speaker 4: Roman Gathic priests can just do like the words of consecration,
Speaker 4: and he can always forever. For example, if a Roman
Speaker 4: Catholic priests became a Satanist, he can forever confess and
Speaker 4: blaspheme the Eucharist because he never ceases to be a priest.
Speaker 4: We don't think that that's superstitious. If you leave the faith,
Speaker 4: you're not confecting the Eucharists. It doesn't matter how you know,
Speaker 4: how much magic Roman hokey pokey you think you have.
Speaker 4: And so, for example, that's another area where all of
Speaker 4: the metaphysical baggage that Roman Catholicism dogmatizes about transubstantiation is
Speaker 4: not necessarily contained in the word transubstantiation, which just means
Speaker 4: change of substance.
Speaker 3: So no believe. We believe there is a real change
Speaker 3: of the bread and wine, and that change becomes body, blood, soul,
Speaker 3: and uncreated energy of Christ. Jason Jason, Yes, sir.
Speaker 29: Awesome.
Speaker 26: Questions more on then?
Speaker 32: I know if you are familiar with that, I guess
Speaker 32: what's your opinion on?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so this is an I appreciate, it's not it's
Speaker 3: not the topic today. We're not talking to in any fry.
Speaker 3: What's up? Go ahead? Hey?
Speaker 40: I had a geopolitics question kind of similar to something
Speaker 40: a few callers back was saying, all right, uh, something
Speaker 40: you mentioned on the hypercrite stream youuron is the Rothschild
Speaker 40: connection to South Africa.
Speaker 8: I was wondering what that was about.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so quickly as a whole section where he talks
Speaker 4: about them funding the Bowler War.
Speaker 43: Okay, And I had another related thing.
Speaker 40: Is it anything of note to point out that Musk
Speaker 40: and Peter Teel are both South African? Should we be
Speaker 40: weary of South African technocrats?
Speaker 4: I don't necessarily think that there's a direct connection between
Speaker 4: white people in South Africa and technocracy. I wouldn't think so.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't know exactly why. I mean, Charlie's Thorne,
Speaker 4: isn't she from South Africa too? I mean I don't
Speaker 4: think she's a technocrat, So.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean, I don't know the vibe
Speaker 3: and the ethos of the people of South Africa.
Speaker 4: Like it's like I was saying on on that stream,
Speaker 4: I'm not really well studied on the history of Africa.
Speaker 3: And I mean I know the A and C is bad.
Speaker 3: I know about.
Speaker 4: Oh, what's his face? That was in prison forever. He
Speaker 4: was actually working for British intelligence oddly enough, Mandela, Yeah,
Speaker 4: Mandela was actually working in British intelligent.
Speaker 3: People don't know that. But so I know about some
Speaker 3: of the espionage saft, but like, I don't really.
Speaker 4: Know a lot of the history of the Boers other
Speaker 4: than the war and all that. Other than that, the
Speaker 4: roth Childs are involved in funding it.
Speaker 40: According to Quickly, Yeah, that doesn't surprise That doesn't surprise
Speaker 40: me at all.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was actually kind of surprised. Well, actually, I
Speaker 3: wasn't surprised when you mentioned it, because it's like, well, okay, well.
Speaker 43: What do they not fund exactly?
Speaker 5: That was it? Though?
Speaker 3: That was I think I think he mentioned it in
Speaker 3: both books.
Speaker 4: I think it comes up in both Tragy and Hope
Speaker 4: and in Anglo American Establishment.
Speaker 3: I think he mentions it in both.
Speaker 8: I'll have to check that out.
Speaker 43: I have the book, I just need to actually sit
Speaker 43: down and read it.
Speaker 4: They were also involved in the debacle over the Suez
Speaker 4: Canal because Disraeli was.
Speaker 3: Their operative hm hmm. Interesting yep.
Speaker 4: So Disraeli's machinations over the Swiss Canal or at the
Speaker 4: past of the rod Jobs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but thank you for the questioning that guys. Tony.
Speaker 3: What's up Tony? Yeah? Help you, yes, sir.
Speaker 30: Yeah.
Speaker 9: So basically, wait, all right, we're.
Speaker 4: Gonna move on open topics for Calvinism, Protestism, Catholicism. Do
Speaker 4: you have politics, if you want Islam, atheism. We've still
Speaker 4: got a lot of people in here, three or so so,
Speaker 4: and we already did your questions. I want to give
Speaker 4: some other people some opportunity to come up they want to.
Speaker 4: You don't have to debate. If you want to ask
Speaker 4: you a question, you can. But if you do want
Speaker 4: a debate, you go to the head of line. Uh,
Speaker 4: just keep it to those topics. Any atheist, any Muslim,
Speaker 4: any church history, Catholicism, Protestants of Calvinism.
Speaker 3: Today's your day. You can even make an argument.
Speaker 4: And presentation as long as you want within reason. If
Speaker 4: you want to refute me, here's your chance. I'll give
Speaker 4: you the mic. You can talk and talk and talk.
Speaker 4: Let me know ahead of time if that's what you'd
Speaker 4: like to do. If not, it's it's.
Speaker 3: All on y'all.
Speaker 4: Anybody else any any how are You've got three hundre
Speaker 4: people and nobody wants to talk what y'all doing. It's
Speaker 4: everybody another some Calvinists in here. So we got three
Speaker 4: innre people, Dames White making a big fuss today and
Speaker 4: none of y'all Calvinists. Y'all just want to lurk a lark.
Speaker 3: And Joseph again. What's up.
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 3: I've got to Jordan again. Nobody else comes?
Speaker 10: Hey, Jack, yummy?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 50: So I had another question. So in the Orthodox Church,
Speaker 50: the Eucharist is what saves you. Correct, you guys see
Speaker 50: that as that that's the way of salvation. Baptism and
Speaker 50: then the Eucharist.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean there's a lot of things that quote
Speaker 3: save you. There's not just one thing that saves you.
Speaker 4: All the sacraments are involved in your salvation as well
Speaker 4: as you know, the Bible and everything.
Speaker 50: Okay, got because I don't know why. I just heard
Speaker 50: another Orthodox guy the other day talking about how the
Speaker 50: Eucharist saves you and that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I mean we can say that without it
Speaker 3: being you know, exclusive, right, So it's still true. But
Speaker 3: I mean that doesn't mean it's the only thing. Matt,
Speaker 3: what's up? Hey, what's going on?
Speaker 43: Kind of new to the space here, So are you
Speaker 43: taking a stance in any particular religion. Are you just
Speaker 43: taking questions about any religion?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I defend I defend Orthodox Christianity.
Speaker 4: So but we can debate, you know, any challenge to
Speaker 4: that position from any of the other positions.
Speaker 43: Sure, okay, so Orthodox Christianity, that's interesting.
Speaker 15: Uh.
Speaker 43: I guess the first question would be, you know where
Speaker 43: exactly does Orthodox Christianity come from? And you know who
Speaker 43: gets to decide what is orthodox? What is the original
Speaker 43: meaning of the religion?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean the.
Speaker 4: Historic churches that were set up under the Roman Empire
Speaker 4: in the first second third century by the Apostles their successors,
Speaker 4: who you know, were at the councils of Nicea, Conceptsinople,
Speaker 4: et cetera during the first millennium. So that's what defines
Speaker 4: and that's who defines the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church today,
Speaker 4: that's the canonical Orthodox Catholic Church is the same church
Speaker 4: as that church.
Speaker 43: Okay, But I guess my point is, how do how
Speaker 43: do we know exactly what they believed in and exactly
Speaker 43: what they taught all these years later because we can
Speaker 43: go read them where.
Speaker 3: What do you mean?
Speaker 4: Where you can read Ignatious Clement Cyprian, you can read
Speaker 4: Athenacious Alexander.
Speaker 3: I mean, these are all pre Nicean Church fathers.
Speaker 43: So we all so we're basing our entire belief system
Speaker 43: on five guys who we have no idea.
Speaker 3: No, I.
Speaker 4: Listed five people who are very famous, known throughout the
Speaker 4: entire world. It's not people that nobody knows who they are.
Speaker 4: They're representative bishops of their time. And then I listed
Speaker 4: the Council of Nicia, which was all the bishops of
Speaker 4: the Roman Empire in three twenty five. So these are
Speaker 4: not nobodies, and they're not people that you can't find.
Speaker 4: They're not obscure people. So, but we don't have the
Speaker 4: original writings of the New Testament.
Speaker 43: We have copies of copies of copies, So how can
Speaker 43: we really trust any document from antiquity and from the past.
Speaker 3: Do we just have to put our faith in it?
Speaker 4: Then, well, the New Testament documents are more well attested
Speaker 4: to than any other ancient and historical document. There's over
Speaker 4: five thousand copies of the New Testament from the first
Speaker 4: few centuries of the church.
Speaker 3: That may be true.
Speaker 43: There may be more copies of the New Testament than
Speaker 43: any other book, but those other books we don't claim
Speaker 43: to be written or inspired by God.
Speaker 3: So I guess that's the big difference.
Speaker 4: Well, that's just that was just a reputation of your
Speaker 4: first assertion that it's not well attested to. It is
Speaker 4: well attested to better than any other book like Plato
Speaker 4: or Aristotle or anyone else from antiquity.
Speaker 3: Yes, no, I'm saying that that may be true.
Speaker 43: But if the Orthodox stance is that it is, again
Speaker 43: depending on what you believe, it was inspired by God
Speaker 43: or written by God, or however the Orthodox Church says it.
Speaker 43: Then if that's the case, well we don't we don't
Speaker 43: have that original text. And then if God wrote it
Speaker 43: or inspired if God wrote it, or but.
Speaker 4: That's no, that's your correct, and that we do not
Speaker 4: have what's called autographa. We have later copies of the
Speaker 4: Gospels and Paul's epistles. But that's not how I would
Speaker 4: go about arguing whether the religion is true. I would
Speaker 4: use a more philosophical argument, which is more of a
Speaker 4: more of a worldview level argument than competing claims about
Speaker 4: historicity of the text, because the religion is not ultimately
Speaker 4: even based on the text, because it's the church, the.
Speaker 3: Community the church that produce the text. So the church
Speaker 3: is even prior to the text.
Speaker 43: So does the belief in Jesus being the son of God?
Speaker 43: Is that even relevant within Christianity today? Or is Christianity
Speaker 43: more just about a lifestyle.
Speaker 3: No, that's absolutely fundamental to Christianity.
Speaker 43: Okay, but how can we know that he was actually God?
Speaker 4: Well, I would use a transcendental argument to prove that
Speaker 4: the Christian orthodox Christian paradigm is the only paradigm that
Speaker 4: can give an account for knowledge, ethics, and metaphysics.
Speaker 43: I'm not sure how you how you can prove that.
Speaker 43: I mean, we have no writings from Jesus. Nobody who
Speaker 43: wrote the New Testament actually knew Jesus at all.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's just assuming that.
Speaker 4: That's assuming that Jesus didn't a point. Apostles who are
Speaker 4: able to write down what Jesus taught and Jesus did
Speaker 4: inspire the Old Testament in our view, so that's not
Speaker 4: even true in terms of the Old Testament.
Speaker 3: That's all about Jesus as well.
Speaker 4: From our perspective, what the argument I gave is called
Speaker 4: a transcendental argument that only with the Christian worldview in
Speaker 4: terms of its metaphysics, ethics, et cetera, can give an
Speaker 4: account for things like reason and logic.
Speaker 3: But yeah, possibly, I mean it depends.
Speaker 43: There's obviously thousands of different religions that people believe in,
Speaker 43: and you know, I don't claim to understand all of
Speaker 43: them because there's so many, and I'm sure they would
Speaker 43: make the same statements about their own religions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's a different thing from actually doing it.
Speaker 3: So what's your what is your perspective, what's your worldview?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 43: My view is I'm a Christian, but I think that
Speaker 43: there's a lot of I think there's a lot of issues,
Speaker 43: and I think there's a lot of things that people
Speaker 43: just need to be honest about in terms of the
Speaker 43: text and and what it really means in terms of
Speaker 43: how it relates to us all these years later, two
Speaker 43: thousand years later.
Speaker 4: Well, how could you be a Christian if you don't
Speaker 4: believe that Jesus is the Son of God or that's
Speaker 4: a necessary belief, because that's always been a necessary position
Speaker 4: for Christian No.
Speaker 43: I didn't state it one way or the other what
Speaker 43: I believe. I was just basically stating stating a point
Speaker 43: because I think a lot of people consider themselves cultural
Speaker 43: Christians now where they don't necessarily believe that, but they
Speaker 43: claim Christianity.
Speaker 4: But it sounds like the way you were arguing was
Speaker 4: as a cultural Christian or as an atheist.
Speaker 3: So I'm confused about your position. No, I'm just interested.
Speaker 3: I'm just interested to get your perspective and what's that.
Speaker 3: You won't say your position. No, I'm not going to
Speaker 3: say a position.
Speaker 43: I just just just like to, you know, just like
Speaker 43: to ask questions and see what people's thoughts are because
Speaker 43: it is it is such an interesting topic.
Speaker 4: Okay, So let me give you Let me ask you
Speaker 4: a question. What how would you give an account for
Speaker 4: logic and reasoning?
Speaker 43: An account for logic and reasoning in terms of what
Speaker 43: a specific topic?
Speaker 3: What is logic and what is the faculty of reasoning?
Speaker 3: And how do we have it? And how does it work?
Speaker 3: And how do you know that.
Speaker 43: Logic would be something that I could prove using my brain?
Speaker 43: Deductive reasoning, maybe math science, the environment. You know, reasoning
Speaker 43: is the ability to to dissect certain information and create
Speaker 43: a specific outcome.
Speaker 4: Uh, well, how does using logic prove it? So we
Speaker 4: use all kinds of things that aren't necessarily the case.
Speaker 4: I mean I might utilize, uh, you know, unicorns in
Speaker 4: my narrative story about fiction realms. That doesn't prove that
Speaker 4: unicorns exist. So what why does using a thing mean
Speaker 4: that it's the case.
Speaker 3: Or that it's true.
Speaker 43: No, I just if you're trying to if you're trying
Speaker 43: to get to the point of using logic, are you
Speaker 43: trying to say, how do we use logic to prove
Speaker 43: what we're talking about is true or false?
Speaker 4: Well, earlier I made the argument that only Christianity can
Speaker 4: give an account for those types of things, and you said, well,
Speaker 4: I'm not sure about that. So I'm illustrating how I
Speaker 4: would go about making that argument by asking you what
Speaker 4: your account is in your worldview for logic as a
Speaker 4: thing itself, and then I'm going to contrast it with
Speaker 4: my perspective in my account of how logic works.
Speaker 43: Well, quite frankly, I don't think there's anything logical about
Speaker 43: the story. I don't think there's anything logical that really
Speaker 43: makes sense.
Speaker 4: Well, that's fine, but I'm making a different argument, which
Speaker 4: was about the categories themselves and how we account for them. So,
Speaker 4: for example, if Jesus is the universal principle of reason
Speaker 4: or Logos himself, that's a way to give an account
Speaker 4: for universals and logic, And I'm asking you, if you're
Speaker 4: going to use logic to argue against Christianity that it's
Speaker 4: not logical, what is your account for logic?
Speaker 9: Then?
Speaker 43: Well, I think I think that that's an assumption to
Speaker 43: say that he is he is logos or logic.
Speaker 3: Well, now, wait a minute.
Speaker 4: The revelation, which you don't accept, even though you said
Speaker 4: you're a Christian, calls.
Speaker 3: Him that in John one.
Speaker 43: Right, yes again, but there are you know, many issues obviously.
Speaker 4: With the new text, So maybe maybe it's all false,
Speaker 4: maybe all the Gospels are false.
Speaker 3: How does that help you to give an account for
Speaker 3: reason and logic?
Speaker 43: Well, my, my, my reasoning in logic tells me that
Speaker 43: out of all the people who have ever lived on
Speaker 43: the planet.
Speaker 4: So you're you're just appealing to You're appealing to the
Speaker 4: thing I asked you to give a justification for.
Speaker 3: I asked you how logic is the case and how
Speaker 3: you know that?
Speaker 4: And you're just saying, well, I use logic, yeah, but
Speaker 4: I'm asking you for an account for that.
Speaker 43: No, that the logic is from a it would be
Speaker 43: coming coming from a historical perspective. So from a historical perspective,
Speaker 43: then you must say then that the miracle of him
Speaker 43: being born to virgin and resurrecting from the day you're listening.
Speaker 4: I'm asking you about logic itself, and you keep diverting
Speaker 4: away from that and restating an argument based on logic.
Speaker 4: I want to know in your worldview, how there's such
Speaker 4: a thing as logic and how it works if you're
Speaker 4: an agnostic or whatever you are.
Speaker 43: Yeah, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure proving what
Speaker 43: the definition of logic is has anything to do with
Speaker 43: the using logic to argue against Christianity.
Speaker 3: I'm using logic.
Speaker 43: I'm using logical statements that you must use those.
Speaker 3: Rely on logic. And how does logic work? Well?
Speaker 43: Logic works by using your brain, I would say.
Speaker 4: So again, you're restating the thing that was already disproven
Speaker 4: a minute ago. Using a thing or saying that it's
Speaker 4: in your brain doesn't make it justified and doesn't show
Speaker 4: how it works. How is that universal? Is it just
Speaker 4: your brain?
Speaker 3: What about my Is it in my brain too?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 43: But it's like it's like, how do you know anything
Speaker 43: is real in the world? You use your brain, you know?
Speaker 4: So your answer is a two quote way to ask
Speaker 4: me how I know anything is real. When I ask
Speaker 4: you for an account for logic and universal categories.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that.
Speaker 4: Then it's how do you give an account for logic
Speaker 4: and it's universal, immaterial, invariant nature.
Speaker 3: What does that mean?
Speaker 43: You're using a lot of big words, But what does
Speaker 43: that mean? I'm giving you, I'm giving you how.
Speaker 4: These are standard, they're standard philosophical terms. You wanted to
Speaker 4: use logic to argue against Christianity, and I'm saying, okay, fine,
Speaker 4: maybe Christianity is false. I want you now to give
Speaker 4: me an account for the thing that you're relying on
Speaker 4: and using, namely.
Speaker 43: Logic, because the claims of the New Testament and the
Speaker 43: claims of the Bible.
Speaker 3: Yeah again, I already let's say I can see to
Speaker 3: you that the Bible is false. How does that give
Speaker 3: an account for the ontological status of logic?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 43: But but I'm but I'm I'm using logic and I'm
Speaker 43: getting to my point, which.
Speaker 4: Is that they make which is a circle. Because I'm
Speaker 4: asking you how you know logic works in the world.
Speaker 4: What's your justification for logic? You're using a thing that
Speaker 4: you have no justification for that was your original critique
Speaker 4: of me, your original critiqus have no critique.
Speaker 3: You're relying on you. Yes you did. You said, we're
Speaker 3: relying on a book that we can't know.
Speaker 43: Yeah, but that's not a mira because you didn't write it.
Speaker 43: It's not a critique on you.
Speaker 3: It's a critique of my position. And stop playing word games.
Speaker 3: I'm asking you to justify your use of logic because
Speaker 3: that's what you're relying on through a few Christianity. So
Speaker 3: you're in you're in a terrible position. No, not really,
Speaker 3: because okay, so why should we believe logic? How is it?
Speaker 5: What is it?
Speaker 3: Where is logic?
Speaker 6: Is what you live every day?
Speaker 3: And so for instance, you don't say how that is.
Speaker 3: It's just what you live, Okay, I live as a degenerate.
Speaker 25: Is that?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 43: No, No, there's there's certain there's certain laws of physics. Right,
Speaker 43: for instance, there's not one person on this planet.
Speaker 3: So the laws of logic or the laws of physics
Speaker 3: in a way, you use logic. Can you observe can
Speaker 3: you can you observe a law of logic under a
Speaker 3: Microsoft No?
Speaker 43: But you use logic in order to figure out what
Speaker 43: the laws of physics are.
Speaker 3: You think things, doesn't tell me that it's true or
Speaker 3: that it should be used.
Speaker 4: I gave the example earlier of a unicorn in a
Speaker 4: story that doesn't tell me unicorns are true.
Speaker 43: No, But for instance, there's not one person on this
Speaker 43: planet who can walk on uh in a pool of
Speaker 43: lukewarm water. Right, But in the Bible they make the
Speaker 43: claim that Jesus walked on water. So that's an extraordinary event.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I already conceded. Yeah, but I concede it
Speaker 3: to you. Let's say that the Bible is false. That's fine,
Speaker 3: So it's all it's all made up stories. How does
Speaker 3: that work for? You? Give an account for logic, the
Speaker 3: very thing that you're using. I don't know that I
Speaker 3: have to make that connection. Oh so you don't have
Speaker 3: to give an account for the things that you rely on,
Speaker 3: but I do. No, no, no, another fallacy.
Speaker 43: I'm not relying on anything but logic and reasoning.
Speaker 3: You and you don't have to give an account.
Speaker 6: No, no what I am, because no you're not.
Speaker 3: You just keep stating that it's the case and that
Speaker 3: you use it. That's not giving an.
Speaker 43: Account for it or explaining how it is or where
Speaker 43: it is or what it is yeah, but your your
Speaker 43: stance is that you're you're believing every word of that
Speaker 43: book as if it is you.
Speaker 3: Want me to accept.
Speaker 4: You want me to accept an immaterial, invariant, unchanging, unseeable
Speaker 4: thing that you can't give an account for.
Speaker 3: You just say it just is. Now, I imagine if
Speaker 3: I came to this debate and I said, God just is,
Speaker 3: you would laugh at that. That's literally what you're doing
Speaker 3: with the thing that you're using to try to argue
Speaker 3: against God's existence.
Speaker 43: No, that's not what I'm doing, and I'm not arguing
Speaker 43: against God's existence.
Speaker 3: It's not what you're doing. What you literally said about
Speaker 3: ten times that logic is just what it is, and
Speaker 3: it's what we do with our brain. It just is.
Speaker 43: No, I mean, my argument is that it's a book
Speaker 43: full of mistakes, contradictions, it's not inerranive.
Speaker 3: How does that tell you?
Speaker 11: What?
Speaker 3: Can you not repeat? You don't even understand what my
Speaker 3: argument is? You couldn't Could you restate my argument? You're
Speaker 3: all over the place. I don't know exactly. I don't
Speaker 3: know that. I'm not all over the place. I'm very
Speaker 3: precise for the last twenty minutes exactly what my argument is.
Speaker 3: How am I all over the place when I've asked you,
Speaker 3: like twenty times to give a justification for what logic
Speaker 3: is or how you use it.
Speaker 43: Well, you're asking me to use logic and reasoning, and
Speaker 43: I'm using logical examples of why there might be a problem.
Speaker 3: No, I'm asking you a higher order question. I'm asking
Speaker 3: you what it is? Not do you use it? What?
Speaker 26: Is it?
Speaker 5: What? What? What?
Speaker 43: Does what your definition of logic have anything to do
Speaker 43: with what we're talking about. You're trying to confuse every
Speaker 43: body in here with your.
Speaker 3: Laughing at you. They're laughing at you because you can't
Speaker 3: give an account for the thing that you're using. No,
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I don't think so. No, you're
Speaker 3: not you're not actually giving I assure you. And then
Speaker 3: when it goes on YouTube, everyone's gonna be laughing to it,
Speaker 3: So I assure you that you will be laughed at.
Speaker 43: No, I don't actually think that, because you haven't given
Speaker 43: me one explanation for why.
Speaker 3: You can't even restate what? Can you restate? Can you
Speaker 3: restate what my argument is?
Speaker 43: You can restate it. Well, you can restate it if
Speaker 43: you'd like.
Speaker 3: I've done it about ten times, and I want to
Speaker 3: see if you're able to do it.
Speaker 43: You're you're not giving an argument at all, all right,
Speaker 43: you're not even giving an argument for what a sarge.
Speaker 3: I gave him multiple arguments in production.
Speaker 4: Stone, Stone, Stone, It's amazing, like he couldn't even grasp
Speaker 4: or restate twenty times me asking him, well, what is
Speaker 4: the thing that you're relying on when you call the
Speaker 4: Bible illogical and Christianity irrational? I literally ask him twenty
Speaker 4: I mean, all you have to do is just restate.
Speaker 4: You know, you're asking me to give an account for logic.
Speaker 4: It's like talking to like a five year old. They
Speaker 4: just keep being totulant.
Speaker 3: Stone.
Speaker 57: I'm mute, man, Hello, sir, I'm sorry, I just joined
Speaker 57: your space. Can then I ask your religion?
Speaker 5: First? Are you Christian?
Speaker 9: Okay?
Speaker 3: Very good?
Speaker 6: I am a Muslim?
Speaker 9: Very good, very good, very good.
Speaker 43: I'm Muslim, oh, very good, very yes.
Speaker 3: So what is the debate today?
Speaker 4: Anything relating to Islam, Christianity, Atheism, Protestantism, you name it?
Speaker 9: Okay?
Speaker 57: So can I start?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 57: Okay, So I personally believe the Quran is the word
Speaker 57: of God, the direct words of God, because it came
Speaker 57: to correct what came before to Moses and to Jesus.
Speaker 57: So the current tell us.
Speaker 3: On why would all words be corrupted to Moses and Jesus?
Speaker 57: What do you mean corrupted?
Speaker 3: Well, you're arguing that he came to fix what was given.
Speaker 57: Before, right, Yes, because he claimed that people changed it
Speaker 57: with their own hands.
Speaker 25: Uh.
Speaker 3: No, it says that they changed it with their it.
Speaker 4: It says they spoke against it with their tongues and
Speaker 4: that they wrote false versions. It doesn't say that the
Speaker 4: in ngeal or that the Torah was changed.
Speaker 5: Hm.
Speaker 57: It says that descriptures before was changed, and descriptures.
Speaker 4: Before that in chapter and five, five forty seven and on,
Speaker 4: it says that you can check what is new with
Speaker 4: what came before.
Speaker 3: How could you do that if it was changed?
Speaker 57: Okay, so easy, we can do it even easier. So
Speaker 57: the current tells us it's the direct words of God.
Speaker 57: And to know that it's the word of God, you
Speaker 57: have to challenge it.
Speaker 3: You have to look for mistake.
Speaker 4: And that's exactly what I'm doing. Because if if that
Speaker 4: you can check it before? No, why would I with
Speaker 4: something corrupted?
Speaker 3: How could I check it?
Speaker 5: Jim?
Speaker 57: Please let me speak one by one?
Speaker 9: Brother?
Speaker 3: How can I check it if it's corrupted.
Speaker 57: I'm just saying it's easy.
Speaker 9: Brother.
Speaker 57: If you find the Quran, say that. If you find
Speaker 57: a single mistakes and contradiction into Quran.
Speaker 3: No, you don't even understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 57: Brother, I'm listening.
Speaker 5: You'll just look.
Speaker 4: The Quran says you checked the Quran according to prior revelation.
Speaker 4: You just said the prior revelation is corrupted. Why would
Speaker 4: I check it against the thing that's corrupted?
Speaker 3: Brandon? What's up?
Speaker 30: Jack?
Speaker 5: Can you hear me?
Speaker 25: Man?
Speaker 58: First, I just want to say I am an inquirer
Speaker 58: and thanks for helping me come back to the church.
Speaker 12: Uh.
Speaker 58: When you are critiquing Islam, and specifically the problem of
Speaker 58: the one and the many, can you run that argument,
Speaker 58: you know, the relation of a law to his essence
Speaker 58: or to his attributes rather, can you help me pick
Speaker 58: that argument apart?
Speaker 4: Well, it really depends on which akida of Islam you're
Speaker 4: talking to, can you mute?
Speaker 30: Yeah?
Speaker 4: So that argument is really going to have to be
Speaker 4: tweaked depending upon whether you're talking to Ashia or whether
Speaker 4: you're talking to an Ashari, or whether you're talking to
Speaker 4: an AUTHORI. I mean, it really just depends because they
Speaker 4: have different accounts of the attributes and the relationship of
Speaker 4: the attributes, the essence and the relationship of Allah to
Speaker 4: the Quran, whether it's uncreated in the sense of, I
Speaker 4: mean they believe in uncreated Koran, but then whether the
Speaker 4: Koran is able to be translated into the various languages,
Speaker 4: and whether the words of Allah themselves to Gabriel are
Speaker 4: then created or uncreated.
Speaker 3: So they just move the problem, move the problem back
Speaker 3: and stuff. So it really depends upon which school of Islam.
Speaker 4: You're talking about when it comes to the attributes. So
Speaker 4: if you're talking to like a Daniel or Jake, who
Speaker 4: are Wahabi Salafi, like, their approach is going to say that, like,
Speaker 4: the attributes are really distinct from Allah and that they
Speaker 4: exist in and of themselves in some kind of Well, actually,
Speaker 4: when doctor Branson asked Jake this, he says, do you
Speaker 4: think that the attributes are self existing? Because Jake is
Speaker 4: trying to say that anything that is self existing, like
Speaker 4: the father, is higher in status than the son, because
Speaker 4: the son, if he requires the father for his existence,
Speaker 4: does not possess the attribute of self existence. And so
Speaker 4: the same argument is just applicable to the attributes, But
Speaker 4: it depends upon how that Muslim is going to give
Speaker 4: an account of the attributes. So, for example, against doctor Khalil,
Speaker 4: you couldn't make that argument the way that you would
Speaker 4: make the argument against Jake, because doctor Khalil is not
Speaker 4: going to speak of the attributes as really distinct the
Speaker 4: way that Jake will. And so if you ask him,
Speaker 4: ask Jake like, is Allah identical to his essence, I mean,
Speaker 4: to his attributes?
Speaker 9: No?
Speaker 3: Are the attributes fully Allah and fully divine? Yes?
Speaker 4: Then how do you not have a composite do it?
Speaker 4: In regard to your argument for how heap doctor Kalil
Speaker 4: make the same argument, the platonic argument, a new simplicity
Speaker 4: position that he doesn't even have an account for actual differentiation,
Speaker 4: the same way we'd argue against Ads, because ADS is
Speaker 4: ultimately a neoplatonic position. So again, it just depends up
Speaker 4: on which Muslims you're talking to.
Speaker 3: And how their school gives an account for or Allah
Speaker 3: and his attributes.
Speaker 43: Got it?
Speaker 58: Thanks man?
Speaker 3: Yeah, So it's not really the one in the many problem.
Speaker 3: It's more like the attributes.
Speaker 4: In their relationship to Allah, and whether a lat really
Speaker 4: is many or not? Is I mean, I guess it's
Speaker 4: a kind of a one in many kind of argument,
Speaker 4: but it's more so the ontological status of the attributes
Speaker 4: and the majority, like the Sunnies, they believe there's an
Speaker 4: uncreated Koran. You could just ask them like, okay, is
Speaker 4: the uncreated Koran identical to Allah?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 4: Oh, okay, then there's two uncreated eternal things, and the
Speaker 4: same with the attributes. Like that's a really easy way
Speaker 4: to put it.
Speaker 3: They'll go, No, it is the speech of a lot. Okay,
Speaker 3: I don't care whether you call it the speech of
Speaker 3: a law. Is it eternal?
Speaker 32: Yes?
Speaker 3: Is it allah? No, it is the speech of a
Speaker 3: lat Okay. How many is that allah? Speech of a law?
Speaker 3: I'm counting too, how many do you count?
Speaker 59: No?
Speaker 60: It is.
Speaker 3: It's like they just it's like talking to five year
Speaker 3: old robots.
Speaker 61: They Vincent, Hey, jay, uh, I don't want to disappoint.
Speaker 61: My name is actually not Vincent van Gogh, and I
Speaker 61: am a woman. Are you able to hear me?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 31: Okay?
Speaker 61: Uh So I'm Catholic. My friend whose orthodox got me
Speaker 61: under your videos, especially when we're discussing the the occult
Speaker 61: and love your roots videos, So thanks for taking allowing
Speaker 61: me to speak.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 61: I have one comment in one question, uh, and I
Speaker 61: think I could throw them together. The one comment is
Speaker 61: I recently saw your I don't want to call it
Speaker 61: a debate, but that buffoon called misfit Patriot appeared on
Speaker 61: your live feed. Yeah, and you know it was embarrassing. Honestly,
Speaker 61: is a Catholic like those type of people that's not
Speaker 61: the people that go to Mass every week?
Speaker 3: That that's not you know, I used to be a Catholic,
Speaker 3: so I understand.
Speaker 61: Yeah, and so that's kind of like my thread, So
Speaker 61: I mean, that's really it was so embarrassing. But I
Speaker 61: do see a lot of that now, especially on the
Speaker 61: online stuff where people I think someone mentioned I don't
Speaker 61: know the two speakers ago, the guy that said he
Speaker 61: was Catholic but was arguing against Christianity.
Speaker 4: I don't think he I don't even know if he
Speaker 4: knows what he is or if he's just a grifter.
Speaker 4: I mean, he went on Twitter immediately after the debate
Speaker 4: and he's like, no, I'm not really Catholic, but I
Speaker 4: was raised Catholic, So I don't think.
Speaker 61: Yeah, I think think I was just a complete moron.
Speaker 61: So I would love any more insight you have on that,
Speaker 61: because like I couldn't get enough of it. How what
Speaker 61: a moron he was. But unfortunately it's like a stain
Speaker 61: on Catholics. And I was wondering if my question is,
Speaker 61: and it might be too broad of a question, but
Speaker 61: is there a point you can say that really was
Speaker 61: a tipping point from you go into Catholicism to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 61: I mean I love learning about Orthodoxy, and I love
Speaker 61: listening to your shows and your podcasts or your kid.
Speaker 4: Well, if you look up my old podcasts where I
Speaker 4: just contrast, there's one called Vatican one refutes Catholicism, and
Speaker 4: then Vatican one for his Orthodoxy, Vatican one versus Vatican two.
Speaker 4: Like some of those really just lay out the things
Speaker 4: that led me out of Roman Catholicism. But I mean
Speaker 4: for me, that was a really long process throughout my twenties.
Speaker 4: So I became Roman Catholic in twenty three when I
Speaker 4: was like twenty one, two thousand and three, when I
Speaker 4: was like twenty one, and then maybe maybe twenty three
Speaker 4: somewhere in there, and then for most of my twenties
Speaker 4: I was like, you know, hardcore Tomas Catholic tradcat going
Speaker 4: to Latin Mass, and then the Vatican two issues were
Speaker 4: a big thing, and then I just kept you know,
Speaker 4: going deeper and deeper into reading Danzinger, reading the papal documents,
Speaker 4: reading the encyclicals. And I left Rome I would say
Speaker 4: about two thousand and seven or eight. I was still
Speaker 4: iffy about you know, I wasn't ready to go to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 4: I wasn't ready. I didn't want to go back to Protestanism.
Speaker 4: So I was just kind of in a limbo state
Speaker 4: for a while for a few years. But it was
Speaker 4: a process of you know, reading and reading and reading
Speaker 4: and also seeing Rome on the ground and you know, seeing.
Speaker 3: Like in person, like just constant gay priests, gay orders.
Speaker 3: The Dominicans are all gay.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just like when you see it on
Speaker 4: the ground, it's way worse like going to you go
Speaker 4: to hip hop masses, you go to like clown masses,
Speaker 4: and you see it's just like you got to see
Speaker 4: it on the ground. Sometimes people don't believe until they
Speaker 4: go see it and then and then you know, contrast
Speaker 4: just just the worship I think was a huge one too,
Speaker 4: because you know, Francis has been persecuting the Latin Mass.
Speaker 4: It was even under rat singer. It was so hard
Speaker 4: to find Latin masses to go to, so I was
Speaker 4: going to the SSPX Mass and then you go to
Speaker 4: an Orthodox Church service and it's like, well, this is
Speaker 4: like reveren, Why can't the Roman Calloy Church even maintain
Speaker 4: their liturgy? If they're like, if this is the true church,
Speaker 4: they should at least be able to maintain just the
Speaker 4: basic divine liturgy.
Speaker 25: Yeah.
Speaker 61: Yeah, I go to Latin Mass on Sundays, but then
Speaker 61: during the week I perish near me. It's a very
Speaker 61: good parish. I somewhat insulated. I understand what you're saying
Speaker 61: about getting on the ground and like the gay priests,
Speaker 61: and I guess like when I get online, I see
Speaker 61: some of that stuff and it just.
Speaker 47: Makes my stomach turn.
Speaker 61: So I really appreciate you.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't mean to say that like the decision
Speaker 4: was based on like who has more gay priests, because
Speaker 4: there's corrupt, evil priests and bishops and the Orthodox Church too.
Speaker 4: Now for me, the decision was literally all based on
Speaker 4: the theology and the argumentation. I'm just saying that when
Speaker 4: I was roaming cats, like, I really was, you know,
Speaker 4: committed to it. But the on the ground world of
Speaker 4: Roman Catholicism really eventually beats you down and you get
Speaker 4: really dejected about it, and that was part of what
Speaker 4: got me looking into other options. But I'm not saying that,
Speaker 4: oh I converted because there's gaybris No, that's not my argument.
Speaker 61: Yeah, no, that's interesting. I mean I'm committed.
Speaker 5: I'm not.
Speaker 61: I don't have plans to good Orthodoxy, though it seems
Speaker 61: that very cool right now, but I just like learning about,
Speaker 61: you know, Orthodoxy, all religions.
Speaker 4: But uh, well, look, I would say here's three easy contradictions.
Speaker 4: And I mean Roman Catholicism is premise that on the
Speaker 4: idea that dogma can't contradict. And I can give you
Speaker 4: three explicit dogmatic contradictions. Number one, unam Sanctum teaches that
Speaker 4: you have to submit to and believe in the temporal
Speaker 4: supremacy of the Roman bishops, which means that he is
Speaker 4: also a world rule and can call standing armies.
Speaker 3: Et cetera.
Speaker 4: That belief was necessary up until Vatican two, and it's
Speaker 4: no longer a necessary, but that to me is a
Speaker 4: dogmatic contradiction. Number two, Francis has changed the Roman Cathoity
Speaker 4: churches teaching on the death penalty, not just to get
Speaker 4: away with it, but he actually says that it is
Speaker 4: contrary to the Gospel. Yeah, the Roman catholt Church saw
Speaker 4: the death penalty for you know, countless from the beginning
Speaker 4: pretty much.
Speaker 3: So those are contradictions. I would also argue that.
Speaker 4: Even within Catholicism, like the giving of a blessing to
Speaker 4: gay couples, and I know that it's not gay marriage,
Speaker 4: but the blessing of a gay couple is the opposite
Speaker 4: directive that the Holy Office gave in two thousand and
Speaker 4: three under rat Singer.
Speaker 3: So those are direct contradictions.
Speaker 56: Yeah, I do get that.
Speaker 61: And I have some friends who are actually way more
Speaker 61: traditional than I am, and they basically just say, like, look,
Speaker 61: Vatican two is invalid, and also Francis is the anti pope,
Speaker 61: so we're just gonna wait it out, like we are
Speaker 61: the ones your church.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I have a talk on that. It's called a
Speaker 4: set of a contism for his orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: So I look it up. I would say, watch watch
Speaker 3: that talk because I deal with that whole.
Speaker 44: Look it up.
Speaker 61: Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. Great questions, Doctor Thomas Raspberry Gotta I'm mute.
Speaker 62: You had a quick question in regards to the previous
Speaker 62: caller and trying to figure out what the temporal nature
Speaker 62: of the paper is. He so claimed was at the
Speaker 62: beginning of the first near the beginning of the first millennia,
Speaker 62: I know that the papal states were a thing, and
Speaker 62: I was wondering maybe if that statement from that particular
Speaker 62: pope was in regards to his control over the papal
Speaker 62: states and his getting the Holy Roman Emperor in line.
Speaker 10: And you know how he says, as the.
Speaker 62: Moon reflects the light of the sun, so too, there's
Speaker 62: a Holy Roman Emperor reflect you know, the divine light, Yeah,
Speaker 62: shown on the pope or something like that. I don't
Speaker 62: know exactly what the words are, but it's something similar
Speaker 62: to that. So is that particular to the time when
Speaker 62: the papal states existed?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean the papal states that have an existence
Speaker 4: prior to when I'm signed them. But the issue is
Speaker 4: not you know, and the Church, you know, have large
Speaker 4: elements of property in this kind of stuff. If you
Speaker 4: look at the Canons of Chalcidon, it's forbidden in the
Speaker 4: canons for a cleric to have a civil role, and
Speaker 4: so this is a fissure of a separation between Church
Speaker 4: and state, even in the situation of Symphonia. And the
Speaker 4: problem is that if you read the Papadocus Mayandorf book
Speaker 4: on the rise of the papacy from one thousand to
Speaker 4: fourteen hundred in the West, they argue that there's a
Speaker 4: whole bunch of things that pop off in under the
Speaker 4: Gregorian reforms that are distinct even beyond.
Speaker 3: The notion of a papal state.
Speaker 4: It's one of those, for example, is the military monastic
Speaker 4: orders that fight for the pope.
Speaker 3: That's something that's completely new.
Speaker 4: It never existed, and they rightly point out that clearly
Speaker 4: there was a geopolitical motivation for the papacy to do
Speaker 4: this under the Gregoing reforms and to approve those orders. Now,
Speaker 4: I understand that there they would argue, well, this is
Speaker 4: part of the to Holy Land and all that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: But the problem is that even if there might have
Speaker 4: been extenuating circumstances, it goes against canon law in terms
Speaker 4: of what monastics are allowed to do. Monastics do not
Speaker 4: engage in fighting in battle. And then beyond that, the
Speaker 4: Dictatus pope document is the first explicit extreme statement about
Speaker 4: the pope being a world ruler. No, this is not
Speaker 4: just large scale property or even defense of his property.
Speaker 4: This is the papacy being able to call standing armies,
Speaker 4: go to war and excommunicate princes that don't fight in
Speaker 4: his defense. That's all totally foreign to the first millennium.
Speaker 4: And it was also backed up, by the way, with
Speaker 4: some of the forgeries, so you had the usage of
Speaker 4: the donation of Constantine to back up some of this.
Speaker 4: And if you read when I'm Sanctum, the argumentation is, actually,
Speaker 4: it's not even so much about like warfare and battles.
Speaker 3: It's really absurd.
Speaker 4: It's like it just cites Jeremiah about I have set
Speaker 4: you above all kingdoms to read out and to destroy,
Speaker 4: and the papacy says, that's about us, because we're the
Speaker 4: head of the world, and if we're the head of
Speaker 4: the church, and if the church is superior to the rulers,
Speaker 4: then we're the head of all rulers, right, So it's
Speaker 4: just preposterous, you know, logic there. And the argument is
Speaker 4: that even if you could justify that like historically, and
Speaker 4: even if we gave the papacy an excuse for all that,
Speaker 4: Vatican too has like discarded that. So that means there's
Speaker 4: a change in dogma. If you read it when I'm sunktum.
Speaker 4: It's not just saying no salvationals the church. It's saying
Speaker 4: you must also believe.
Speaker 3: In the temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop to be saved.
Speaker 62: Right, all right, thanks so much.
Speaker 3: I appreciate it. Thank you, doctor Thomas. Appreciate your your
Speaker 3: presence and your good question.
Speaker 4: Emmanuel, Adrian Emanual whoever can connect, I guess nobody can connect. Balance.
Speaker 4: We've already done your questions. Is not trying to be
Speaker 4: rude to you, but we want to move on to
Speaker 4: some other people.
Speaker 3: We've got a long drive, so I mean, do a
Speaker 3: little bit more. We've been going for a good while.
Speaker 4: Any questions, challenges, discussions regarding Calvinism, processes with Catholicism, Islam, atheism.
Speaker 4: I mean, if you're a Muslim coming up, know that
Speaker 4: we already kind of are aware of the arguments, so
Speaker 4: you don't have to walk us through saying we know
Speaker 4: that you think the Koran is the word of all lot.
Speaker 3: We know all that. And I'm going to ask you
Speaker 3: about the Islamic dilemma, so know that ahead of time.
Speaker 3: And if you can't restate what the Islamic dilemma is
Speaker 3: just don't even come up.
Speaker 4: It's not worth anybody's time because we don't want to
Speaker 4: go through this whole process of like explaining it to
Speaker 4: you and then you don't know what it is, and
Speaker 4: then you just keep repeating what the Koran.
Speaker 3: Says, which is not a debate. If you can restate
Speaker 3: the Islamic dilemma, even if you disagree with it, if
Speaker 3: you have the capabilities to restate it, I will welcome you.
Speaker 4: Up to the microphone. You can come and be first.
Speaker 4: We still got what well, we got more people than earlier.
Speaker 4: We got over three hundred, three hundred and thirteen people.
Speaker 4: And that atheist guy was something else. And it's always
Speaker 4: like the thing that it's annoying too when people won't
Speaker 4: debate their actual position.
Speaker 3: That's annoying when they're like, oh, well, I'm not going
Speaker 3: to say what my position is, but I'm going to
Speaker 3: argue in bad faith from all these other positions.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, it is a debate room, but kind
Speaker 4: of the assumption here is that you're going to debate
Speaker 4: the actual position you have, not pretending to have a
Speaker 4: bunch of positions. And atheists love to do that too,
Speaker 4: because they can like jump between positions. When they get refuted,
Speaker 4: they can just switch to another position that they don't
Speaker 4: actually have.
Speaker 3: So it's a kind of a classic bad faith tactic.
Speaker 3: By the way, Muslims are doing this too.
Speaker 4: When we were on the God Logic extreme debating, all
Speaker 4: the Muslims, a bunch of them were doing this too,
Speaker 4: where they act like they're Orthodoxic inquirers or they're interested
Speaker 4: in some position, or they'll say they're atheists, and then
Speaker 4: they start arguing Islam just to get in there to
Speaker 4: argue their stupid positions. It's like, it's just a weird
Speaker 4: thing to want to bad faith argue a position that
Speaker 4: you don't have. But it's actually a tactic because it's
Speaker 4: a way to just change your position mid debate. Well,
Speaker 4: I don't know actually believe that. And that's exactly what
Speaker 4: that guy did. You notice how snaky that was, right?
Speaker 4: He was like he was all cordial and it's like, oh, well,
Speaker 4: I'm a Christian, but is the Son of God really
Speaker 4: essential to Christianity. It's like, well, wait a minute, I
Speaker 4: thought you were a Christian, so you were an atheist
Speaker 4: like ten minutes ago. Well, I am a Christian, but
Speaker 4: I'm not going to argue much field, Well you sound
Speaker 4: like an atheist, so like what so see, this is
Speaker 4: a this is a thing where we were kind of
Speaker 4: ahead of the game when you know, people were saying
Speaker 4: we were being quote mean and really heavy handed on
Speaker 4: this stuff.
Speaker 3: Like it doesn't take long to figure out when people
Speaker 3: are not really being a good faith debater and to
Speaker 3: god logics credit Like he spotted that Muslim dude within
Speaker 3: like ten seconds, He's like, no, he's not.
Speaker 4: He's not really atheists. He's a Muslim. So this kind
Speaker 4: of stuff doesn't really work.
Speaker 3: At least not with us.
Speaker 4: I think we can like sniff this stuff out within
Speaker 4: no time. But if you have an actual position that
Speaker 4: you'd like to discuss or defend, you're.
Speaker 3: Welcome to come up. I will bring you up. We've
Speaker 3: got over three hundred people in here, and that's great.
Speaker 3: These spaces used to get a hundred. Now they get
Speaker 3: sometimes four hundred, five hundred.
Speaker 4: So anybody want to discuss Calvin hasn't protestism with alicism,
Speaker 4: Islam atheist them.
Speaker 3: We have a shout out to Father Degan and Ias.
Speaker 4: We have a beautiful Tristanna, our favorite trans individual on
Speaker 4: the chat. Some people think that she's the Antichrist. I
Speaker 4: think that's a little overboard. A lot of vegans are beginning.
Speaker 3: To think this.
Speaker 4: Uh, there's not really hard evidence for this, but I
Speaker 4: support her. Even if she is the Antichrist, she would
Speaker 4: be the first female trans antichrist. Trans transit transity christ
Speaker 4: and Shout out to Rachel's in the chat. Shout out
Speaker 4: to slowboly white Board. Shout out to Jubb, Shout out
Speaker 4: to Melkite, Shout out to not Chase Haggard, who I'm
Speaker 4: sure is all is literally not Chase Haggard. Shout out
Speaker 4: to Vaklav, Shout out to ac. We've got a bunch
Speaker 4: of our friends in the chat. What's up, Father Degan,
Speaker 4: and I as what's on your mind?
Speaker 3: You got to unmute. I'm mute, dude, FDA, you gotta
Speaker 3: ut if you want to talk.
Speaker 8: Oh, I didn't really want to talk, but just your
Speaker 8: ummute dude, I'm unmuted.
Speaker 3: Oh, I thought you wanted to You requested to speak,
Speaker 3: You requested to speak to not speak? Yeah, that you
Speaker 3: got me.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm just waiting for some good questions and debates.
Speaker 8: And uh, I'm sorry I missed the atheist guy.
Speaker 63: I don't know what his argument was, well, uh, it's
Speaker 63: actually something you pointed out before, where you know a
Speaker 63: lot of atheists will kind of like not say their
Speaker 63: position so that they can hop into a bunch of
Speaker 63: different positions.
Speaker 3: Oh interesting, have you noticed that?
Speaker 8: Well don't they actually even say to you, I don't
Speaker 8: have a position? Atheism is not a position? Yeah, pretty
Speaker 8: much the onus is on you. Remember that was even
Speaker 8: uh Stein tried that move on Bonnson in the famous debate.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, he did.
Speaker 8: You're right, Yeah, which is fine.
Speaker 25: I mean.
Speaker 8: That you could say atheism itself is not position, but
Speaker 8: it entails positions. So let's look at those, like, you're
Speaker 8: not positionless, So what's what's your position?
Speaker 4: Do you think that goes along with assumed neutrality like
Speaker 4: they actually think, no, I'm just actually super neutral.
Speaker 3: I have no position, no.
Speaker 8: Com Yeah, well I think Stein pointed that out too,
Speaker 8: because he made a bunch of positions about what qualifies
Speaker 8: as evidence and proof and stuff like that, and uh.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 8: Boson's response was, yeah, well it depends the way that
Speaker 8: you verify history versus you know, that was the crackers
Speaker 8: in the pantry fallacy. But you obviously do have pre
Speaker 8: commitments and certainly your atheist worldview will inform that. I mean,
Speaker 8: that's crazy to Actually it's it's not crazy, it's disingenuous.
Speaker 6: Actually, well the.
Speaker 3: Guy, that guy was pretty pretty honest about being disingenuous. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I'm not going to debate my position. I'm going to
Speaker 3: debate a bunch of other posiness. No, we don't really
Speaker 3: do that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean if you take debate class, you know
Speaker 4: they'll make you, as part of your course, argue the
Speaker 4: positions that you don't hold and so that you learned
Speaker 4: to Steelman. Well, that's not really what we're doing here.
Speaker 4: Do you ever do you ever do that with students
Speaker 4: where you tell them like, Okay, you're gonna argue for
Speaker 4: the sake of argument a position that you don't hold,
Speaker 4: so that you learn you know their position and how
Speaker 4: to steal man.
Speaker 3: It sort of.
Speaker 8: I mean, we don't really have that much time in
Speaker 8: the semester to actually do like debates itself. But what
Speaker 8: I what I do try to do when we steal
Speaker 8: man an argument, we're just going over a queus and
Speaker 8: it's harder for the first year like freshmen, they're just
Speaker 8: they're just blank stares, like they don't know how I
Speaker 8: think a lot of it's they're insecure, they're afraid to
Speaker 8: say something. But what I try to get them do
Speaker 8: is like, well, what would you say, Like, let's what
Speaker 8: would a counter argument be to this? And how would
Speaker 8: you respond to I try to give them to do that.
Speaker 8: It's like you don't actually have to believe that, but
Speaker 8: you should be thinking like, well, if I was the opponent,
Speaker 8: I would say this.
Speaker 3: And occasionally.
Speaker 8: Students like freshmens will get you know, upperclassmen get that
Speaker 8: real well, they've taken philosophy classes and stuff, and so
Speaker 8: they'll try to formulate counterposition and then a response to
Speaker 8: that and stuff like that. But I mean, that's philosophy.
Speaker 8: Even when you're writing papers, right, you try to think like, okay,
Speaker 8: we would be the best objection to this, and how
Speaker 8: would I formulate that? Yeah, it's just dialectics.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is a but it's a really difficult skill
Speaker 4: or thing for a lot of people. A lot of people,
Speaker 4: I guess just maybe out of laziness, like they don't
Speaker 4: want to actually deal with the other positions best argument.
Speaker 4: It's just a lot easier to straw man it or
Speaker 4: you know, make it sound like it's something that is
Speaker 4: not to knock down, you know, a fake thing, farm boy?
Speaker 3: What's that meant? I'm you.
Speaker 56: About the word theosis and where that word from, as
Speaker 56: in the etymology, how did the Greek and Eastern Church
Speaker 56: arrive at that word versus our English word sanctification. Curious
Speaker 56: about that, particularly if that word's in the Greek New
Speaker 56: Testament and where it ultimately comes from.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: It's a good question. Off the top of my head.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure if the New Testament ever uses the
Speaker 4: word theosis. It does talk about us partaking of the
Speaker 4: divine nature. It talks about us being like God. We
Speaker 4: will be transformed into His into the likeness of his
Speaker 4: glorious body.
Speaker 3: You know, we will partake of his glory. Paul talks about.
Speaker 4: Dunamus and inner gaya, But I don't know if Tom
Speaker 4: had a p if the I mean, you can just look.
Speaker 4: You could google it really quick and see if the
Speaker 4: New Testament ever uses the word.
Speaker 3: I don't think it does. Says that it does not, Yeah,
Speaker 3: just checked it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm not sure which Greek father would have been
Speaker 4: the first to use it, maybe Theophilis or Athanacious something
Speaker 4: like that. But it just became a term that sort
Speaker 4: of encapsulates the participation in divine life that we undergo.
Speaker 4: And I mean that, you know, you'll find the terminology
Speaker 4: of sanctification use sanctified, made holy set apart.
Speaker 3: In the patriistic writings. But I think probably by the
Speaker 3: by the.
Speaker 4: Controversies relating to first Ephesis and the nature of Christ
Speaker 4: at Ephesus and the Eucharist, because Cyril uses the Euchrist.
Speaker 3: As an argument against Nestorians, and then.
Speaker 4: By the time of the Sixth Council, when Maximus is
Speaker 4: debating about the deification of christ human body, the Sixth
Speaker 4: Council uses that terminology where they say that in the incarnation,
Speaker 4: the human nature of Christ is fully deified. That in
Speaker 4: the six Council, so it becomes kind of concilier dogma
Speaker 4: by that time, although it's pretty pretty normal even prior
Speaker 4: to that time.
Speaker 3: So, but I don't know the I'm not a you know,
Speaker 3: a linguist, so I'm not sure.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, apotheosis was used, and
Speaker 8: obviously we distinguish theosis from that. But in Greek antiquity,
Speaker 8: obviously they had a concept becoming divine. It just was
Speaker 8: heretical because they didn't have the energies doctrine, so obviously
Speaker 8: I'm imagining the use of it derives, you know, from
Speaker 8: antiquity and the concept from apathiosis.
Speaker 56: Okay, thank you, And you said apathiosis that word is
Speaker 56: in the Greek New Testament.
Speaker 3: No it's not.
Speaker 56: Okay, I'm misunderstand you.
Speaker 8: Sorry, it's in antiquity. I'm trying to remember how far back,
Speaker 8: if maybe even in Homer.
Speaker 5: I'll have to look.
Speaker 8: But it's not a foreign concept, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 44: And so.
Speaker 8: Just like when Saint Paul on the arapegis speaking to
Speaker 8: the philosophers, uses their language and says, well, you know,
Speaker 8: this is whom your poets even speak of, and whom
Speaker 8: we live and have our being, I imagine the fathers
Speaker 8: use those kinds of concepts, like say Gregory theologian says,
Speaker 8: when speaking to philosophers, speak philosophy, they may win the
Speaker 8: philosopher over. So they probably what I'm saying is the
Speaker 8: concept obviously existed back then, and so they pulled from
Speaker 8: that and showed the Christian version. But like Jay said,
Speaker 8: this is probably not fully articulat until you get kind
Speaker 8: of more of these controversies. When you get to the
Speaker 8: power might sends, and you might have it in Saint Basil.
Speaker 8: I'm gonna have to look, like Jay said, I don't
Speaker 8: know off the top of my head.
Speaker 3: I got you could I ask a follow up question, Yeah, sure,
Speaker 3: what's up?
Speaker 46: Do you.
Speaker 56: Do you feel like the English word sanctification misses some
Speaker 56: meaning or doctrine understanding or anything like that when dealing
Speaker 56: with the Orthodox.
Speaker 3: Well, the problem really is just that it's kind of
Speaker 3: like the word transferstantiation. When we were discussing that in
Speaker 3: it earlier. You might not have heard that. But it's
Speaker 3: not a problem with the word itself. It's just that,
Speaker 3: like if the.
Speaker 4: Translation of John Demouscus that we use from the Catholics
Speaker 4: uses the word transubstantiation, it's not a problem. It just
Speaker 4: doesn't require us to bring along all the metaphysical baggage
Speaker 4: of the Scholastics and exoperate operato and all that other stuff,
Speaker 4: because the word just means a change of substance, which
Speaker 4: is fine in the same way like sanctification usually has
Speaker 4: this Protestant connotation where Protestants when they hear that word
Speaker 4: just like penal or just like substitution, like they import
Speaker 4: all this theological baggage to it. That they have and
Speaker 4: they hear sanctification, they think, oh, that's the distinguished from
Speaker 4: glorification and distinguished from justification. These are the three stages
Speaker 4: that are clearly distinguished in scripture. When they're not right,
Speaker 4: so Protestants will read into that the Protestant doctrine of sanctification,
Speaker 4: which is strictly distinct from justification and glorification, and that
Speaker 4: would immediately be in contradiction to like Orthodox ideas because Paul,
Speaker 4: for example, says the glorification is something that we can
Speaker 4: have even in this life. When he talks about Second
Speaker 4: Prithian's three that we see Christ face to face now
Speaker 4: and we see that saying glory and we pass from
Speaker 4: glory to glory. Well, I'm sorry, that means that we
Speaker 4: have glorification now and that violates the uh, you know,
Speaker 4: ordo salutis of the Reformation tradition. So the problem is
Speaker 4: not the words. It's just sometimes people bring a lot
Speaker 4: of baggage, and I mean it's kind of inescapable. I
Speaker 4: think everybody kind of brings an interpretation to the text.
Speaker 4: It's inescapable. But it's more so a question of you know,
Speaker 4: to put it in the words of Jordan Peterson. Depends
Speaker 4: on much to me, Right, it's not the word transpnentiation
Speaker 4: or the word sanctification, the word justification.
Speaker 3: It depends on what you mean.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think that there's probably some rhetorical wisdom when
Speaker 8: to use it, because, like you said, a lot of
Speaker 8: these words they're contaminated from other heresies and stuff like that.
Speaker 8: So your audience may think that you're meaning something different
Speaker 8: when you use the word or oh, they're like us,
Speaker 8: they believe Mormons are famous.
Speaker 5: For doing this.
Speaker 8: Oh yeah, oh yeah, yeah, well we believe the same thing.
Speaker 8: I mean, they they know you don't mean the same thing,
Speaker 8: and you know that they don't. And so you're playing
Speaker 8: this stupid game for an hour, like and so sometimes
Speaker 8: you just got to choose, like, Okay, depending on my audience,
Speaker 8: what sort of words would I use? But yeah, the
Speaker 8: word itself is not problematic.
Speaker 56: Okay, thank you guys.
Speaker 64: Hey, Jay, I just wanted to piggyback off of something
Speaker 64: that you said earlier. I'm Orthodox now, but I grew
Speaker 64: up Protestant. And it's interesting when you talked about earlier
Speaker 64: about steelmanning somebody's position, I was immediately reminded of not
Speaker 64: too long ago when all those performed Protestants were coming
Speaker 64: out and they were so adamant that Orthodoxy was wrong.
Speaker 64: But when you saw what they thought, we believe they
Speaker 64: didn't even know the basics of Orthodox theology. And that's
Speaker 64: what I was reminded of today when James White was
Speaker 64: sending his tweets saying that he didn't want to debate
Speaker 64: you r whatever. In some guy in his comments was like, oh,
Speaker 64: Jay didn't show the fruit to the spirit, And I'm like, okay, anyway,
Speaker 64: that I just thought it was really funny, just how
Speaker 64: the irony in that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they'll they'll debate all day about tone policing, they'll
Speaker 4: debate about debating and not actually debate the topics. It's
Speaker 4: really it's kind of just it's like a passive, aggressive, weird, effeminent.
Speaker 64: Thing, right anyway, thanks for bringing me up, Yeah.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I agree. I mean it's weird too because
Speaker 3: back in the day, like in the two thousands, like
Speaker 3: Calvinists and Catholics were way more like intellectual about the debates.
Speaker 4: And this is something because I remember, like I was
Speaker 4: in Messing that you know, from two thousand and one
Speaker 4: two three, I was all about internet. Catholic Protestant debates, right,
Speaker 4: because I was Calvinists and I was arguing with the
Speaker 4: Catholics all the time.
Speaker 3: On the internet.
Speaker 4: There wasn't really an Orthodox presence much on the Internet
Speaker 4: in terms of apologetics or websites, so it's kind of
Speaker 4: like just default Protestant versus Catholic. And one thing that's
Speaker 4: interesting is like back when it was the blog wars
Speaker 4: of those two thousands era, you know, exchanges and even Facebook, like,
Speaker 4: it was a lot more you know, because you have
Speaker 4: to write out stuff, So those are a lot more
Speaker 4: I think thought that went into it. And now that
Speaker 4: everything is audio, video and speech oriented, it's less intellectual
Speaker 4: and it's a lot more. I mean, it's not that
Speaker 4: oral debate is inherently deficient or anti intellectual. It's just
Speaker 4: that the loss of the tendency to debate in a
Speaker 4: written form has allowed a lot more goobers and goofballs
Speaker 4: to just you know, whine and fuss and act like idiots.
Speaker 4: And people don't even know how to have like a
Speaker 4: formal debate, so people bitch about me like being quote mean, well,
Speaker 4: if I'm interrupting people on an informal, open debate space,
Speaker 4: that's not a formal debate. If I'm doing a formal debate,
Speaker 4: most of the time, I'm pretty reserved. There's been a
Speaker 4: couple of times, yes, where I will interrupt. I interrupted
Speaker 4: the Muslim Lantern debate because he was being dishonest and
Speaker 4: not representing what I said. He was misp I think,
Speaker 4: intentionally misrepresenting what I said. But I mean, in most
Speaker 4: of the formal debates, I'm pretty much abide by the rules.
Speaker 4: And even if you don't quote abide by the rules, like,
Speaker 4: that's the job of the moderator to.
Speaker 3: Call you out.
Speaker 4: Most people don't know how to moderate a debate, so
Speaker 4: they suck at moderating debates and they don't ever call anybody.
Speaker 3: Out when they violate the rules.
Speaker 4: But even if you violate the rules a little bit
Speaker 4: and interrupt, I mean, it's not the end of the world.
Speaker 4: It's just the moderator calls you out, and you know,
Speaker 4: like muti or whatever. That's the way it ought to operate.
Speaker 4: But on these open spaces here like this, like when
Speaker 4: we had you guys heard the atheist guy in here
Speaker 4: right totally arguing it in bad faith being a sophist, Like, no,
Speaker 4: I'm going to interrupt that person this is not a
Speaker 4: formal debate.
Speaker 3: I don't owe anyone a formal debate. I don't owe
Speaker 3: some rando dude a formal debate.
Speaker 4: And again, in the case of James White, I tried
Speaker 4: to debate him for years, and I offered to debate
Speaker 4: him on the trinity and that he had a faulty
Speaker 4: concept of trinity as any indistinction, and he for years said,
Speaker 4: you know, no, I don't have time to learn Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: I'm not interested in any of that.
Speaker 4: And then here we are, like six years later, and he,
Speaker 4: you know, tweets about how he doesn't understand my profile,
Speaker 4: which is super boomer, which is funny, and then he says,
Speaker 4: I want a debate when I drive my RV in
Speaker 4: a year. I mean, to me, it just sous like
Speaker 4: It's like, I'm kind.
Speaker 3: Of surprised that he sounds like a comedian.
Speaker 4: And he was saying, I'm I'm a comedian, but he
Speaker 4: doesn't think I'm a comedian, but he's actually an unintentional
Speaker 4: comedian because it just sounds like this just sounds like
Speaker 4: a bunch.
Speaker 3: Of like made up clown stuff. It's just weird.
Speaker 17: Uh.
Speaker 4: And then he said, why would I debate a person
Speaker 4: who has a green picture on their profile of themselves?
Speaker 3: Is he a green person? That was his retort.
Speaker 8: Like, what, by the way, I just following up you
Speaker 8: said back in the day, like you said, debating online
Speaker 8: wasn't really a big thing. There weren't that many people
Speaker 8: there went a bunch of goobers.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Right, This is probably prior to even like Facebook. You
Speaker 8: didn't have Twitter acts and all this stuff, and so
Speaker 8: you could kind of people knew what they were doing.
Speaker 8: For the most part, you can kind of get it,
Speaker 8: and there was kind of reputation within those circles. Now
Speaker 8: everybody and their moms online can just challenge you, know you,
Speaker 8: and so it's a matter of like wasting time, Like
Speaker 8: sure the person might be right, but there's a million
Speaker 8: people all challenge you. There's no way that you're going
Speaker 8: to waste your time writing out a formal debate and
Speaker 8: written format for every single person who's challenging you. So
Speaker 8: the best thing is to it's a different Yeah, the
Speaker 8: best thing is just to open up a space where
Speaker 8: there's a dedicated time. And I think that's even better
Speaker 8: if people got you know, get upset when they get
Speaker 8: the block on X. But the fact of The matter is,
Speaker 8: if you don't block people, these stupid arguments will go
Speaker 8: on forever endeavor you can't get on with your life.
Speaker 8: So isn't it better just to say whatever your criticism is,
Speaker 8: whatever your argument, Well, here's a space dedicated you can
Speaker 8: come on and make your argument, but you're not owed anything.
Speaker 8: You're not owed and on not to be blocked and
Speaker 8: an endless back and forth of stupid tweets.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, the positives of debate are oral.
Speaker 4: Debate is that people don't get the trick of relying
Speaker 4: on AI, which is what a lot of them want
Speaker 4: to do when they say I only do written debates, Well,
Speaker 4: you didn't have AI back in two thousand and five
Speaker 4: when you were doing written blog debates and now you do.
Speaker 4: So No, it's not going to work to let you
Speaker 4: just like sit there and type out and who has
Speaker 4: the time to do this.
Speaker 3: Anyway.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to type out twenty pages argument with
Speaker 4: some random dude. That's what was going on today. There
Speaker 4: was a Calvinist guy saying I will only debate you
Speaker 4: in a written blog format. I'm like, dude, it's not
Speaker 4: two thousand and three, man, what are you talking about.
Speaker 8: The other thing you figured out there was another group
Speaker 8: of people that were challenging tag the kind of the
Speaker 8: pseudo intellectuals. Most of them would never come into a
Speaker 8: voice chat debate, and what we figured out is basically
Speaker 8: what they were doing is they were taking these into
Speaker 8: other servers and working them out and taking them to
Speaker 8: philosophy professors.
Speaker 3: Yea like Appy and Right, So you're not actually debating
Speaker 3: that guy. You're debating like a buddy, You're a debating.
Speaker 8: Yeah, grad students And two of the best atheist philosophers
Speaker 8: are Appy and what's the other guy with my blanking on.
Speaker 3: Oz and Ozzy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's the guy that coaches Della Hunty when Della
Speaker 4: Hunty gets scared.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So they just take it and they work these things.
Speaker 8: So it's like, well, just no, I'm not going to
Speaker 8: waste my time going back and forth and text with
Speaker 8: a whole crew of.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you're supposed to debate like, uh, you know, a
Speaker 4: discord of fifty atheists.
Speaker 3: Or you're scared? Right, ultravol kool Aid?
Speaker 41: What's up, hey, Jerry Camyred.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I'm actually local in Phoenix and I used
Speaker 2: to go to Apologia Studios and I've studied under James
Speaker 2: White for a while before I started learning about Orthodoxy,
Speaker 2: and I just wanted to say that when he promised it, saying.
Speaker 38: Like, oh is this him?
Speaker 30: I don't know.
Speaker 2: He knows full well who you are. He made responses,
Speaker 2: he's talked about it. Yeah, he's talked about you, So
Speaker 2: I don't know how he was trying to start that with.
Speaker 8: Like, Oh, who's this guy.
Speaker 2: He's made claims about you before and he knows farewell
Speaker 2: who you were, so like, I think it was just
Speaker 2: dishonest how he started the interaction trying to claim like, oh,
Speaker 2: is this the guy people who have been talking about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was being silly, so I agree. But yeah, again,
Speaker 3: let's like.
Speaker 4: It's the same kind of thing that William Aulbrick would do,
Speaker 4: where it'd be like you'd be trying to set up
Speaker 4: a debate for years and he would say, Okay, in
Speaker 4: six months it'll be live. And then it's like he's
Speaker 4: expecting you to set up a live venue and you're like, well, now,
Speaker 4: let's just do it on the internet.
Speaker 3: I don't do that. I do it live. Do it
Speaker 3: live right, like O'Reilly or something.
Speaker 4: It's like everybody in the world nowadays does internet debates.
Speaker 4: What do you mean setting it up in person in
Speaker 4: six months and then six months goes by and it's like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 4: a lot going on, let's do it live in another
Speaker 4: six months. It's just so stupid. It's like you could
Speaker 4: literally hop on this stream. And by the way, haven't
Speaker 4: you been told defending Calvinism for thirty years? Why do
Speaker 4: you need a year of preparation to debate and defend
Speaker 4: your Calvinist stuff. You've been debating for like thirty your
Speaker 4: whole life.
Speaker 3: It's just it's just stupid. Eli, I went's up by
Speaker 3: the way.
Speaker 4: By the way, I don't know if maybe Wes Wes
Speaker 4: Hoff might be more popular than James White now right.
Speaker 4: So it's like we're already trying to set up a
Speaker 4: debate on tim cast with me versus I don't I
Speaker 4: don't know if I'll have a companion or not, but
Speaker 4: me versus. It was supposed to be Michael Knowles originally
Speaker 4: and Tim Poole, and then I don't think Michael Knowles
Speaker 4: will do it, so I was like, well, you better
Speaker 4: get Tim Gordon because Michael Knowles will rely on Tim Gordon.
Speaker 3: And then they were like, oh, we need Protestants too,
Speaker 3: and so I can't stand.
Speaker 4: I don't know who's I guess James White's worse than
Speaker 4: Doug Wilson. So I have less distaste for Doug Wilson
Speaker 4: than James White. But I mean, isn't Wes Huff kind
Speaker 4: of the hot topic right now? So what did he
Speaker 4: be better than all these boom Boomer gen z old
Speaker 4: fogies that nobody really cares about.
Speaker 3: So I'd prefer it be like west Off.
Speaker 6: But I don't know.
Speaker 5: You.
Speaker 65: Oh hey, Jay, I had a quick question on the
Speaker 65: topic of confession. I don't know if you don't want
Speaker 65: to answer that or well.
Speaker 3: Father Diacon probably be able to better answer that than me.
Speaker 9: Okay, perfect, perfect.
Speaker 65: Uh So the reason why I'm asking is because I
Speaker 65: was talking to a Protestant family member of mine and
Speaker 65: we were talking about confession, and she was saying, why
Speaker 65: would why would she go confess to a priest when
Speaker 65: she can just guess confess it between her and God?
Speaker 65: Because if the idea and I'm not fully well versed
Speaker 65: on confession yet, but basically saying, wouldn't you be constricting
Speaker 65: God's power of forgiveness if you have to go to
Speaker 65: a priest? Chester forgiveness for even like the smallest things,
Speaker 65: or like what would be considered a small sin.
Speaker 6: I guess in her words, well, I think that in.
Speaker 4: The Old Testament it was already kind of an element
Speaker 4: of this, because you brought your sacrifice to the temple
Speaker 4: based on in many cases the type of sin that
Speaker 4: you had committed.
Speaker 3: So that was kind of an implicit confession. And then
Speaker 3: sometimes we see this.
Speaker 4: We even see the tradition with John the Baptists, where
Speaker 4: it says that they came to him repenting and confessing
Speaker 4: their sins and being baptized.
Speaker 3: So even with John the Baptist, that occurs.
Speaker 4: Jesus says in the Gospel John that he breathes on
Speaker 4: the disciples, and he says, whoever sins you, they're remitted.
Speaker 4: Whoever sins you retained, they're retained. And so we think
Speaker 4: that there really is this principle of the notion of
Speaker 4: the Body of Christ having the ability through the ministers
Speaker 4: to actually remit and retain sins. So there's a real
Speaker 4: power that's there that you know, is not in the
Speaker 4: Protestant world.
Speaker 3: But it's not a bad thing. It's actually a good thing.
Speaker 4: And because we're bodily creatures who are not just you know,
Speaker 4: minds floating around or ghosts floating around. We have a body,
Speaker 4: and our body then interacts with another body, which here's
Speaker 4: our confession, and which then pronounces, you know, absolution. So
Speaker 4: that bodily aspect to absolution I think is a mercy
Speaker 4: from God that allows us to actually feel and sense
Speaker 4: that we have been forgiven, beyond just praying to God,
Speaker 4: which of course you can do, but I think it's
Speaker 4: a lot it's better if we understand and see oral
Speaker 4: confession as a gift rather than some sort of punishment.
Speaker 3: It's it's better understood in my view. Oh okay, that
Speaker 3: makes sense.
Speaker 65: So I guess from what I understand is while technically
Speaker 65: you could still be forgiven of your sense if you
Speaker 65: were to confess it to God, it would be best
Speaker 65: to document.
Speaker 3: Of confession helps us have an assurance of forgiveness, and
Speaker 3: that's the positive part of it. So that's a good
Speaker 3: thing in my view, I mean especially.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so Christ establishes the way to confess, the way
Speaker 8: to pray, a lot of these different things, and you
Speaker 8: can always say, like, well, couldn't we do it? Apart
Speaker 8: from that, Yeah, but he didn't prescribe. He didn't prescribe that. Now,
Speaker 8: of course we do in our prayers we confess to God.
Speaker 8: But we're told it's a both and that. But you
Speaker 8: need to to pray this way, you need to confess
Speaker 8: this way. You need to do these things. And like
Speaker 8: Jay said, it has both spiritual and practical benefits. As
Speaker 8: a Protestant, when I confessed just to God, I didn't
Speaker 8: get better. I still did the same sense.
Speaker 3: Because I wasn't.
Speaker 8: Accountable to anybody. And so we learn accountability to God.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a good point.
Speaker 8: By making ourselves accountable to other people. The way that
Speaker 8: we practice obedience to God is obedience to our hierarchs
Speaker 8: and our elders and stuff like that. In this case,
Speaker 8: the priests.
Speaker 3: The way that we.
Speaker 8: Practice all these things is here and now, so God
Speaker 8: knows that this works. And the other way if it
Speaker 8: was just well, I can just go straight to God.
Speaker 8: It doesn't do anything practically and psychologically, one typically continues
Speaker 8: in their sin. But and also to have like a
Speaker 8: real relationship with a priest who's counseling you, well, why
Speaker 8: do you think that you did this? Let's talk about
Speaker 8: this and let's go forward on how to make you better.
Speaker 8: You don't get that in Protestantism.
Speaker 43: Mm hmm.
Speaker 8: And also it follows on the scriptural thing having a witness,
Speaker 8: like you're required to have a witness in these things
Speaker 8: like where's your witness? And oh, I confess to God?
Speaker 8: So the priest acts as a witness. You're confessing to
Speaker 8: God in the confession, and the priest is the witness
Speaker 8: to that and has given the power to then as
Speaker 8: being the witness also to announce the absolution or retaining
Speaker 8: the sins.
Speaker 3: What's up? Are you there? We can't hear you, dude,
Speaker 3: Are you there? I don't know. Your microphone doesn't work.
Speaker 3: Then sounds like static, So it's open for him. We're
Speaker 3: still here. I've still got a little more energy. If
Speaker 3: anybody wants to hop up on the panel.
Speaker 4: Topics, So are Calvinism, Protestantism, Catholicism, islam, atheism. If you
Speaker 4: would like to discuss, if you would like to debate,
Speaker 4: if you would like to offer an argument, Alexander, go ahead, yes.
Speaker 3: Sir, all right? Cool.
Speaker 54: I had a question when talking to Calvinists and they
Speaker 54: start playing the that's not what we actually believe game.
Speaker 3: What do you go to look at?
Speaker 54: Because a couple of times I've talked some and they've said, oh,
Speaker 54: that's not what we actually believe, that's not what Calvin Todd,
Speaker 54: and I look it up and that is what Calvin
Speaker 54: Todd kind of like how I went and sat down
Speaker 54: and read all the Vatican two after getting tired of
Speaker 54: Catholics doing the same thing.
Speaker 3: What do you recommend?
Speaker 54: What do you recommend reading as far as refuting Calvinists
Speaker 54: when they start doing that.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I mean, well there's there's different, you know,
Speaker 3: groups of Calvinists, so they're all going to kind of
Speaker 3: have their pay their favorite sort of peteologians. I mean,
Speaker 3: you can't go wrong in Calvinism with the fifteen to
Speaker 3: fifty nine institutes, the Westminster Confession, Charles Hodge, John Murray,
Speaker 3: I mean, those are all kind of the you know Luminaries,
Speaker 3: Francis Puritan. I mean, those are all pretty well known
Speaker 3: representatives of Calvinism. Okay, you know, put that on the
Speaker 3: reading list. There's also Bavving systematic theology as a classic.
Speaker 54: Okay, yeah, I'll get around to it eventually, but mostly
Speaker 54: I'm just going to try not to talk to Calvinists.
Speaker 4: Well, i mean, the Westminster Confession itself, might be the most,
Speaker 4: you know, because it's intended to kind of be their
Speaker 4: confession of faith and.
Speaker 3: It's not that long. It's just like, I don't know,
Speaker 3: twenty nine or thirty paragraphs. But it does have a
Speaker 3: catechism with it, so you could have the Westminster Confession
Speaker 3: or the Westminster Catechism would be the classical Calvinist confession.
Speaker 3: What's up, job, Yes, sir, Yeah.
Speaker 4: When I was a Calvinist, we used the Westminster Confession
Speaker 4: and Catechism all the time. That was kind of our
Speaker 4: If people converted that they would use that as catechism.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, man, what's up?
Speaker 26: I wanted to ask a question about vicious circularity and
Speaker 26: how if you or Father Deacon could help define it
Speaker 26: for me.
Speaker 3: He's probably the best for this.
Speaker 26: So I've heard like vicious circularity as opposed to or
Speaker 26: being virtuously circular as opposed to vicious circularity, and I've
Speaker 26: been trying to like study this just to give like
Speaker 26: a clear definition on it.
Speaker 3: So he.
Speaker 4: Argues that circularity is just a loaded term, and that's confusing.
Speaker 4: So he argues that at a paradigm level, at the
Speaker 4: base level, worldviews are self referencing, are recursive, and that
Speaker 4: that might help avoid the confusion over the fallacy of
Speaker 4: circular reasonings.
Speaker 10: Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 8: Yeah, obviously, so it's typically vicious circularity. And I don't
Speaker 8: even use virtuous circularity because it's confusing, so but yeah,
Speaker 8: typically vicious circularity is where the the argument's conclusion is
Speaker 8: basically one of the premises. So what supports the conclusion
Speaker 8: the premises. The premises support the conclusion. And this can
Speaker 8: be done in a different way where you slightly reword it,
Speaker 8: or you go through a chain of reasoning that goes back, well,
Speaker 8: this is true. If this is true, this is true,
Speaker 8: which goes back to the first stuff like that is
Speaker 8: is typically what's considered premise circularity or vicious circularity. But
Speaker 8: obviously not all circularity is bad. I mean, if you
Speaker 8: draw a circle on a paper, it's is that a fallacy,
Speaker 8: right right?
Speaker 26: I heard an atheist talk about tag like, oh, this
Speaker 26: is viciously circular because premise one God's the necessary condition
Speaker 26: for knowledge is basically just being restated and the conclusion
Speaker 26: therefore God exists. And my understanding is that, no, that's
Speaker 26: not viciously circular because premise one is in fact not
Speaker 26: identical to the conclusion, right, and so vicious circularity would
Speaker 26: it be that it would be viciously circular if God
Speaker 26: is the necessary condition for knowledge, we have knowledge. Therefore
Speaker 26: God is the necessary condition for knowledge.
Speaker 8: And that's not the only art. I mean, I could
Speaker 8: just plug whatever I want it in and it's like, well,
Speaker 8: it makes it true. God's true because I assume He
Speaker 8: must be the necessary conditions. If it was simply that,
Speaker 8: obviously that is vicious circularity. But the support for that
Speaker 8: is twofold one is impossibility of the contrary and number
Speaker 8: two which is the indirect account, and number two is
Speaker 8: the positive account that for the entire paradigm. So it's
Speaker 8: not simply we're playing in a word, we mean something
Speaker 8: very specific by the term God, which includes the conception
Speaker 8: of the Trinity, is articulated in the Orthodox Faith, and
Speaker 8: so it's God's revelation to mankind is preserved in the
Speaker 8: Orthodox Faith, and that the Orthodox Faith provides all the
Speaker 8: sufficient conditions for the necessary conditions for the possibility of knowledge,
Speaker 8: and nothing else does that. So I mean, if it
Speaker 8: was just while I plug the terman and therefore I
Speaker 8: assume God to prove God, I mean, yeah, that's vicious circular.
Speaker 8: So there's straw man in the arguments, but that's not
Speaker 8: the argument, right. I mean there's a series of kind
Speaker 8: of different arguments that even when I put it in
Speaker 8: the most opponents, there's kind of steps, like, first of all,
Speaker 8: do you even understand what a transcendental deduction is at
Speaker 8: the so we're kind of the logical, metapistemological level, and
Speaker 8: you put it in a form and then there's further
Speaker 8: arguments and support for that. Otherwise, Yeah, it would be
Speaker 8: simply PREMI circularity. I assume God to prove God, and
Speaker 8: I prove God because I assumed him, Like nobody makes
Speaker 8: as far as I know, that argument.
Speaker 3: Thank you for that question, Joe. Appreciate all the time
Speaker 3: stamping and hard work that you do. Wi Fi. What's up?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 31: Hey?
Speaker 5: Jay?
Speaker 3: What's up? So?
Speaker 66: I'm pretty new to the debate scene, and I've been
Speaker 66: debating some atheists, so I've been eager to take more debates,
Speaker 66: and i've kind of I've taken them maybe a little
Speaker 66: too hastily. I'm debating some guys who may be bad
Speaker 66: faith or sophistry maybe the right term.
Speaker 8: I think he debated one of them.
Speaker 66: His name is Korn's and I just I guess wanted
Speaker 66: your opinion on how to deal with these types of
Speaker 66: people in debate.
Speaker 3: Well, honestly, I would have waste my time with debating
Speaker 3: bad faith debaters.
Speaker 4: I just think it's a massive drain. And a lot
Speaker 4: of people are a lot of people internet a board
Speaker 4: and they're just kind of like wandering around looking for
Speaker 4: something to do, and they'll just debate for the hell
Speaker 4: of it, adopting positions that they don't hold.
Speaker 3: So I would just not waste my time.
Speaker 4: I would be catechized in Orthodoxy before debating, and and
Speaker 4: to go that rout peep the sheep.
Speaker 3: What's up? Hello? Yeah?
Speaker 5: What's up? Man?
Speaker 3: Wait? Am I on?
Speaker 6: You are?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 67: I didn't expect to get on this early, kind of
Speaker 67: trying to think about what I want to say, but
Speaker 67: I just want to say I'm a big fan. I
Speaker 67: just tuned in, so I read the topics and I
Speaker 67: guess you're debating, you know, the different denominations and whatever.
Speaker 30: So where up again?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 67: Yeah, So I'm a Protestant. I grew up in the
Speaker 67: South and basically discovering your content, uh just made me
Speaker 67: realize that it was a bunch of you know byes honestly,
Speaker 67: and it was di y and kind of just being
Speaker 67: stuck in that circle and then hearing all about all
Speaker 67: the solo fide and so like solo scriptore and all
Speaker 67: that stuff, Like I never heard about any of that
Speaker 67: stuff in my life, and then you introduced me to that,
Speaker 67: and I bought an Orthodox study Bible, and I've been
Speaker 67: watching a lot of your content for years. Actually found
Speaker 67: you on f wars. But basically, okay, so yeah, I
Speaker 67: know you want a debate. You don't really like people,
Speaker 67: ah coming on here asking you questions about Catechism and
Speaker 67: all that stuff. Uh So, a couple of things I
Speaker 67: was thinking of that I've heard you mentioned before, but
Speaker 67: I'd never really felt where fleshed out completely is.
Speaker 3: Let's see, so.
Speaker 67: The it's kind of ambiguous because of uh I forget
Speaker 67: the terms that you said, but you said that basically
Speaker 67: scripture can be described and is it three or four
Speaker 67: different ways like ontological. I'm a bit of a slow boy.
Speaker 3: So bear with you.
Speaker 4: But no, no, no, that's that's not that. It's called
Speaker 4: the fourth senses of scripture. Yeah, talking about the literal,
Speaker 4: the literal, the spiritual, allegorical, the tropological.
Speaker 67: And the anagogical Yes, yes, yes, and that's the first time,
Speaker 67: Like I said, like, you open my eyes to a
Speaker 67: lot of that stuff.
Speaker 8: And because growing up Baptist, you know, you got.
Speaker 67: To remember a couple of verses and go to church
Speaker 67: every now and then and say that you're you know,
Speaker 67: you're moral and this and that and that's pretty much it.
Speaker 67: But I do believe what you say is true, you know,
Speaker 67: like there's a history to it and there's a reason
Speaker 67: you follow certain canons and scriptures and all that stuff.
Speaker 3: So I do agree with that.
Speaker 8: But oh yeah, So the the question I have is
Speaker 8: how do you know when to apply one of those.
Speaker 5: What was it again?
Speaker 3: I forget?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, right, So these are this is called hermanudicts,
Speaker 4: which is the interpretation of the scriptures. Okay, so hermanudicts
Speaker 4: is not like there's principles and rules, but there's no
Speaker 4: hard and fast uh way or science necessarily that's going
Speaker 4: to tell you automatically when to interpret which text, just
Speaker 4: on the basis of that principle of the fourth senses.
Speaker 4: So for example, exa Jesus means reading the text, looking
Speaker 4: at the language, the context, and figuring out what the
Speaker 4: original language means and what the writers were intending to convey.
Speaker 4: So actually Jesus is just understanding the meanings of the
Speaker 4: words and the texts in a raw sense, but hermeneuticts
Speaker 4: is interpreting the text and looking at the different deeper
Speaker 4: senses and meanings that might.
Speaker 3: Also be there.
Speaker 4: So you can kind of go crazy with this like
Speaker 4: Origin did, where he over allegorized everything. But you can
Speaker 4: also be too extreme in the other direction of being
Speaker 4: a literalist or focusing on only the grammatical historical context,
Speaker 4: which is just the first layer or level of scripture.
Speaker 4: But it doesn't necessaridate that every single verse has quote
Speaker 4: four senses.
Speaker 3: It's a little more nuanced.
Speaker 4: Than that because some, you know, passages of scripture are
Speaker 4: just straightforward. They're just meant to be, for example, proverbs,
Speaker 4: although some proverbs do have a deeper spiritual significance, like
Speaker 4: you know, in the first few chapters of Proverbs, when
Speaker 4: it talks about lady Wisdom and the seven pillars that
Speaker 4: she's built her house and she brings bread and wine.
Speaker 4: That's obviously a type of the church. But a lot
Speaker 4: of the proverbs are just you know, basic wisdom, avoid wickedness,
Speaker 4: be righteous, you know what I mean, it's like, there's
Speaker 4: not four sensits of that, it's just kind of what
Speaker 4: it is. But you have to, I think, be very
Speaker 4: familiar with the Biblical literature and also different types of
Speaker 4: literature in the scriptures, such as if you're reading you know,
Speaker 4: poetic literature, prophetic literature, liturgical literature like the Psalms, historical
Speaker 4: accounts like the Book of Kings like so you got
Speaker 4: to understand the different types of literature in the Bible
Speaker 4: as well. And if you if you go to seminary,
Speaker 4: if you go to Bible school, you'll learn all this stuff.
Speaker 4: This is all just kind of basic and and all
Speaker 4: that stuff's not even unique to like Orthodoxy, Like every Protestant,
Speaker 4: Catholic Orthodox seminary will teach you all that same stuff.
Speaker 3: Job, what's up? And just had to show, I mean
Speaker 3: to boot you out how you were done?
Speaker 26: Oh no words. And this is different from about the
Speaker 26: vicious quilarity thing. It's just kind of about the first
Speaker 26: order verse second order thing. I wanted to refresh my
Speaker 26: memory on. So is it correct to say that first
Speaker 26: order statements are constitutive of second order statements?
Speaker 3: So like.
Speaker 26: If someone says God does not exist, right, like this
Speaker 26: is the whole like old j Mike thing. He likes
Speaker 26: to ask people like, does the proposition God does not
Speaker 26: exist entail a contradiction? And I was thinking about this
Speaker 26: and I think it absolutely does, because in the light
Speaker 26: of the Christian paradigm, if God does not exist, then
Speaker 26: that would destroy the possibility of knowledge to make any
Speaker 26: second order statements about first order?
Speaker 3: Yeah, is that correct?
Speaker 8: And first order is usually it's the second order our statements.
Speaker 8: First orders are Jim believes the tree is green, then
Speaker 8: Jim makes a statement I know the tree is green,
Speaker 8: or the Jim makes a statement the tree is green,
Speaker 8: which implies those are second order statements. So typically the
Speaker 8: first order is just being in the mental state of
Speaker 8: knowing something.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense? Right?
Speaker 26: First order is a knowledge claim, right, Yeah.
Speaker 8: But I want to make the difference that it's really
Speaker 8: statements are usually it's a second order beliefs that you
Speaker 8: believe something and it qualifies as knowledge as a first order.
Speaker 8: Does that make sense? So not your statement about what
Speaker 8: you believe? Those are second order?
Speaker 26: Okay, Okay, I didn't.
Speaker 3: I didn't get that, but.
Speaker 8: I would add, yes, it does entail contradiction because once
Speaker 8: you prove that God's a necessary condition uniquely, so the
Speaker 8: possibility of knowledge. They already assume the a necessary condition
Speaker 8: for the possibility knowledge because they're making knowledge statements. Then
Speaker 8: you show that it's God, but they deny God. So
Speaker 8: they're both affirming and denying the necessary condition for the
Speaker 8: possibility knowledge, which is a contradiction.
Speaker 26: Correct. Yeah, that's that makes sense.
Speaker 3: All right, thank you job. I want to go on
Speaker 3: next to Isaiah. What's up?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 3: Can you assume me? Yes, ma'am?
Speaker 44: All right.
Speaker 60: So I'm new here and lovely rooms.
Speaker 8: Hello everyone.
Speaker 60: So I had two things I'll try to be quick.
Speaker 60: The first, so the father was speaking about the freshmen
Speaker 60: being hesitant. I guess you'd say, to deal with a
Speaker 60: quinas and have those arguments. And I had the same
Speaker 60: experience myself when I was a freshman dealing with a quinas.
Speaker 60: And we were given an exercise which was interesting, where
Speaker 60: we all came up with our own arguments, and then
Speaker 60: the room was split to where half of us steelmanned,
Speaker 60: and then half of us would argue against it, and
Speaker 60: it took away like the fear of dealing with such
Speaker 60: a seminal work. And then after that no one was
Speaker 60: like deer in the headlights anymore, so maybe helpful, I
Speaker 60: don't know, but yeah, so just the thought and then yeah,
Speaker 60: in terms of you mentioned ex of Jesus, and my
Speaker 60: question for you gentlemen, as you seem to be well
Speaker 60: versed on the Greek and I've just begun getting into Greek,
Speaker 60: what do you guys think are the most interesting or relevant.
Speaker 60: I don't want to say mistranslations, but mistranslations where like
Speaker 60: things don't translate exactly into English that kind of stick
Speaker 60: out to you.
Speaker 4: I'm not a linguist and I'm not a Greek scholar,
Speaker 4: not a textual scholar, so I'm not familiar really with
Speaker 4: textual issues in translating certain terms. I mean, I know
Speaker 4: that does exist, but I don't think it really is
Speaker 4: detrimental to the overall message. I think God is able
Speaker 4: to communicate in every language the basics of the message.
Speaker 4: But there are certain languages like Greek, for example, that
Speaker 4: allow for philosophical metaphysical distinctions that languages like Latin don't have.
Speaker 4: Doctor Bradshaw, for example, argues that the essence entergiesstinction did
Speaker 4: it make sense even in the Latin language, whereas in
Speaker 4: Greek theology and philosophy.
Speaker 3: It made perfect sense.
Speaker 4: And so that's one of the reasons why the Western
Speaker 4: Latin Church fathers did not develop in the sense of
Speaker 4: explication being the center distinction that theology that the Eastern
Speaker 4: Church did. But I'm not a linguist and a scholar
Speaker 4: of texts.
Speaker 60: Okay, Yeah, I was just curious. Again, I've heard you
Speaker 60: speak of a few Greek phrases in your knowledge of them.
Speaker 60: You know, like the word sin, for example, is like
Speaker 60: the actual verb to sin is you know, it means
Speaker 60: to throw a spear and miss the target, and like
Speaker 60: that is a big difference, you know, just in the
Speaker 60: actual meaning. And so I think I think you're correct,
Speaker 60: and you know, the the application of the metaphor is
Speaker 60: obviously the same. But yeah, I was just scurious. Thanks
Speaker 60: thanks for letting me speak.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 4: I mean, a lot of the Orthodox world uses a
Speaker 4: lot of terminology from the heritage of the Church and
Speaker 4: from the New Testament, but I don't know the Greek.
Speaker 4: I know the Greek alphabet, and I know a lot
Speaker 4: of the theology terms and their usage of meaning, but
Speaker 4: I do not know uh.
Speaker 3: E elect elect electorum, I Q.
Speaker 43: Are you there?
Speaker 3: Illustrationist yep, and that's me.
Speaker 5: I had.
Speaker 68: Let's see, at first, I had a few questions about predestination,
Speaker 68: but I think the orthodox understanding of predestination is pretty straightforward. Actually,
Speaker 68: you know what, I'd need some clarification because I've always
Speaker 68: had a Calvinist predisposition. So what would your the orthodox
Speaker 68: understanding of predestination be.
Speaker 4: Alright, so we already addressed this pretty extensively in the
Speaker 4: first I don't know hour, so I would just say,
Speaker 4: this is a recorded space, so you can go back
Speaker 4: and rewatch that.
Speaker 3: I don't have the energy to rehearse all that. Do
Speaker 3: you have another question, Yeah?
Speaker 9: Sure.
Speaker 68: My other question would be about essence energy distinction. I
Speaker 68: saw a clip of you being interviewed by Michael Lofton
Speaker 68: and you said something to the extent of the essence
Speaker 68: of God subsists within his energies.
Speaker 3: What's that all about? I didn't.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so the energies proceed from the essence, I said.
Speaker 4: God is fully present in his energies because his actions.
Speaker 3: So just like if I build a.
Speaker 4: House, I'm fully present in my action of building a house.
Speaker 4: The action of building a house is an action proper
Speaker 4: to my nature as a human being. It's a human act.
Speaker 4: It's an act by my will. But my will and
Speaker 4: my act of building a house are not identical to
Speaker 4: or reducible to the person Jay nor my nature. So
Speaker 4: the action proceeds from my nature, but it's a personal
Speaker 4: act that I engage in in terms of the mode.
Speaker 4: So does that make sense that the person, the nature,
Speaker 4: the will, the energy, and the effect are all distinct?
Speaker 4: And if you read John of Damascus on the Orthodox
Speaker 4: Faith Book three, chapter fifteen, the very first thing he
Speaker 4: says is nature, person, will, energy and effect are all distinct.
Speaker 3: Literally the opposite of chemism.
Speaker 9: Got it?
Speaker 68: And one last thing, I know there are a lot
Speaker 68: of Protestants out there, and with the Internet, a lot
Speaker 68: of people are looking towards the Apostolic faith.
Speaker 8: Do you have any advice for anyone who's.
Speaker 3: I'll be blunt.
Speaker 68: I'm kind of attending a church that doesn't believe that
Speaker 68: the Communion is the real body and blood of Jesus,
Speaker 68: and I've had doubts about that, and as a result,
Speaker 68: i haven't been partaking of the symbolic Communion, and frankly,
Speaker 68: I don't know how to put my faith into practice.
Speaker 3: I'm kind of in this gray zone. Any advice to
Speaker 3: the Orthodox Church is only true church, so where you're
Speaker 3: at not a church. That's my advice. All right, appreciate it,
Speaker 3: thank you. Yeah, I would go check, you.
Speaker 4: Know, go visit Orthodox church and you will see that,
Speaker 4: you know, the liturgy at least is reverent and organized
Speaker 4: such that they believe that it is.
Speaker 3: The real presidence, or at least that's the profession of
Speaker 3: the faith.
Speaker 4: Hence the reverence and the beauty there, which does not
Speaker 4: exist in the Protestant world.
Speaker 59: Actually, jam, yeah, hey, is it all right to ask
Speaker 59: a question about the Divine Light and Saint Simeon the
Speaker 59: New Theologian.
Speaker 3: I've read two of the volumes. I haven't read all four,
Speaker 3: but I can comment on.
Speaker 59: What I know, Alrighty, So I was reading. I wasn't
Speaker 59: actually reading Saint Simeon. I planned to do that later,
Speaker 59: but I came across a quotation that where he seemed
Speaker 59: to be saying that unless one has seen the Divine Light,
Speaker 59: he can't presume to think that he knows Christ, or
Speaker 59: that he has Christ within him, or that he will
Speaker 59: be saved. And so this was concerning because I don't
Speaker 59: think anyone I know has ever seen the Divine Light,
Speaker 59: nor could I imagine myself becoming holy enough to actually
Speaker 59: receive the physical, sensory perception of the divine light.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that.
Speaker 4: I mean, I need to say the contact, because first
Speaker 4: of all, he was thrown out of his monastery because
Speaker 4: he said that this was available to everyone, and then
Speaker 4: that it was not a thing that was only for
Speaker 4: a chiritual elite. So this doesn't this would this would
Speaker 4: seem to contrast with his arguments because he argued that
Speaker 4: if you argue that the the parlemism was for a
Speaker 4: spiritual elite, he said it was a return of the
Speaker 4: heresy of the missallions. So the comment sounds like it
Speaker 4: would be contrary to the very thing that he dealt
Speaker 4: with in his life, and he seems to speak otherwise
Speaker 4: in the in the books. But and there also might
Speaker 4: be a situation where he's saying that something like, well,
Speaker 4: if you think you have assurance of your salvation, you
Speaker 4: would only be assured of that if you've seen the
Speaker 4: divine light.
Speaker 3: And you know hardly anybody has seen the divine light.
Speaker 3: And so I would need to I would need to
Speaker 3: see the.
Speaker 4: Context to see like what he's saying, because it doesn't
Speaker 4: sound like because I mean he he railed against Missallianism,
Speaker 4: and what you're saying sounds like Missallianism.
Speaker 59: Okay, okay, yeah, I I need to get him and
Speaker 59: read some more of him, but thank you, and I'll
Speaker 59: probably come.
Speaker 18: Back after i've read something.
Speaker 3: Do you know where that quote is?
Speaker 59: If I'm not mistaken, I think it might have been
Speaker 59: in the Saint Vladimir's publish publishing of the of his
Speaker 59: h Now that's the that's.
Speaker 3: The four volumes. But do you know which are the
Speaker 3: four volumes?
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 59: I'm gonna have to read it because I came across
Speaker 59: it all nine but I don't have the money to
Speaker 59: buy it right now.
Speaker 18: But once I do, I'm gonna give it a read.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well, DM me about it, because I'd be curious
Speaker 3: to go and look it up. But like I said,
Speaker 3: I only have two of the four volumes. I ever
Speaker 3: read them all?
Speaker 59: Alrighty, sure thing, I'll get back with you.
Speaker 3: I mean, And also, I might just not know what
Speaker 3: he's talking about, so I know some of you might
Speaker 3: doubt this, but like I've not read all the books.
Speaker 3: So what's up, Brian?
Speaker 9: Up?
Speaker 5: What up?
Speaker 3: Just real quick?
Speaker 69: I just wanted to add something regarding the communion. Jesus
Speaker 69: said very clearly in the Bible, if you read in
Speaker 69: the King James.
Speaker 6: Or the older versions.
Speaker 69: On top of that, that you're to receive food and
Speaker 69: water and wine, and I guess beer and other things.
Speaker 69: With Thanksgiving supposed to pray over your food. You're supposed
Speaker 69: to pray over your water. My kids they pray over
Speaker 69: you know, certain law enforcement officials or politicians, or kids
Speaker 69: or teachers in their lives, and they earnestly and honestly
Speaker 69: before they receive their food or their drink, you know,
Speaker 69: they put blessings on it.
Speaker 41: And I think that's what communion it really is about.
Speaker 41: I am a Protestant, but I'm a non church going Protestant.
Speaker 41: I used to be in Christian ministry very college, and
Speaker 41: I realized real quick how corrupt these buildings are. So yeah,
Speaker 41: pray over your food, thank you for your time, appreciate
Speaker 41: you guys.
Speaker 4: Well, I think it's way more than that, because it's
Speaker 4: the institution of the Lord's Supper. Even in Paul's epistles,
Speaker 4: it's more than merely praying over food. If you read
Speaker 4: the Book of Hebrews, it's the fulfillment of the Old Testament,
Speaker 4: alter and temple sacrifice, and Paul says in Hebrews thirteen
Speaker 4: that we have an altar from which the people who
Speaker 4: serve at the tabernacle have.
Speaker 3: No right to eat.
Speaker 4: So right away you have a sacrificial element. You have
Speaker 4: a ministerial element of the Melchizedekian priesthood from Hebrews seven,
Speaker 4: all of which suggests that this low church idea of Protestantism,
Speaker 4: that it's some mere meal, misses the whole point of
Speaker 4: what was established, which is a feast that deifies us.
Speaker 3: A wolf.
Speaker 14: God.
Speaker 29: I'm you, thanks for taking my call. Yeah, I wanted
Speaker 29: to talk about atheism. I'm not an atheist, but I
Speaker 29: think atheists are kind of weak with their arguments, and
Speaker 29: I kind of want to help them because they don't
Speaker 29: seem to want to tell the truth about being an atheist.
Speaker 29: Let's say I was an atheist and I wanted to,
Speaker 29: you know, little mind exercise. Why would I even care
Speaker 29: about anybody's morals? Why would I just not care about
Speaker 29: just planning my seat and my children and then letting
Speaker 29: them take off and do whatever they're going to do
Speaker 29: and make sure that they live to take over. It's
Speaker 29: like murder, rape or whatever. It seems like they don't
Speaker 29: have the guts to admit the truth.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I think that's actually a very for set the point
Speaker 4: about atheists that atheism is a intellectual pretended position, but
Speaker 4: they don't really usually live it out.
Speaker 29: Yeah, not to say that I feel that way, but
Speaker 29: I just can't understand if I did, I can't understand
Speaker 29: why they wouldn't just tell the truth like the books
Speaker 29: done and stuff. I would want to guarantee my seed
Speaker 29: rules the world, you know, if if I.
Speaker 3: Had exactly wandven what's up, Caleb?
Speaker 15: Oh, sorry, I've this is the first time I've done this.
Speaker 15: I was muted, so I am Pentecostal. I even went
Speaker 15: to Bible College for a little bit, but I found
Speaker 15: it to be very disorderly. And I've been interested in
Speaker 15: Orthodoxy for a long time because everything seems to be
Speaker 15: pretty ordered out on what we need to do for
Speaker 15: every specific thing.
Speaker 3: And I went to a.
Speaker 15: Orthodox church in my town recently, just a couple months back,
Speaker 15: to see how things were. And I'm not exactly a
Speaker 15: total iconoclast, but I was. I was a little bit like, WHOA,
Speaker 15: this is real different. But none of that is exactly
Speaker 15: why I was confused. I just talked to a priest
Speaker 15: in training. I don't know if his official title was
Speaker 15: a deacon or something like that. I'm not familiar with
Speaker 15: a lot of the language, but he told me, and
Speaker 15: I don't know if this is the official outlook of
Speaker 15: the Orthodox Church, that the Book of Revelation, due to
Speaker 15: some historical issue or something that I don't understand or
Speaker 15: can't remember, isn't treated as total canon. Or maybe it
Speaker 15: was canon and they just don't use it often. I
Speaker 15: just don't remember.
Speaker 3: I just what is that about. I'm not quite sure
Speaker 3: I understand that.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: I think that's just simply he was just simply incorrect.
Speaker 4: Some of the old, older lists do not list the
Speaker 4: Book of Revelation, and so he might be just looking
Speaker 4: at one of the older lists, to say, from the Canons,
Speaker 4: the Apostolic Canons Canon eighty five, but eventually by the
Speaker 4: the Ecumenical Council, when it lists the canon, it does
Speaker 4: include the Book of Revelation. So some people just look
Speaker 4: at different lists that are older, and I think he
Speaker 4: was just misinformed.
Speaker 15: Okay, well, thanks, I'll go ahead and try it again
Speaker 15: and just see how it is. Because I was very interested.
Speaker 15: I was just real put off because it was like, well,
Speaker 15: if we can't trust the Bible, what are we doing?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 3: I didn't it was yeah, thank you. I don't think
Speaker 3: it's an issue of not trusting the Bible.
Speaker 4: It's just that the Book of Revelation was a very
Speaker 4: hotly debated text for many centuries. If you look on
Speaker 4: my wall right now, you can see the I retweeted
Speaker 4: the Baptist scholar Lee McDonald where he's talking about Athanasians
Speaker 4: having to convinced the bishops in Rome that Revelation was canonical.
Speaker 3: So it has a debated history. But some people might
Speaker 3: just think that the Apostolic canon eighty five, which is
Speaker 3: from about the three hundreds, they might think that that's
Speaker 3: the quote right list, but actually the Ecumenical Council is
Speaker 3: the right list, which later does include Revelation.
Speaker 15: Okay, all right, well, thank you very much. I appreciate
Speaker 15: your time. Thanks again, have a good day.
Speaker 3: Yeah, anytime. Last one, mkg.
Speaker 47: Heja and pray all as well. I had a question
Speaker 47: actually about something you touched on two calls ago regarding
Speaker 47: an counterargument. So when I'm explained the monarchy of the
Speaker 47: Father and essentially saying that the word and the Spirit
Speaker 47: come from him, that is his word, his spirit. What
Speaker 47: do I do when someone accuses me of modalism.
Speaker 4: Well, when you've had early church fathers like Turtullian, and
Speaker 4: I think even the Cappadocians, when they use the analogy
Speaker 4: of word and spirit, it's just an analogy. It's not
Speaker 4: equated to intended to give you, like the full meaning
Speaker 4: of hypostasis and nature.
Speaker 3: So it's like an analogy. So in other words, people
Speaker 3: can read too much into the analogies. That makes sense, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I guess, I just.
Speaker 47: I guess I had a good structure in my mind
Speaker 47: for how to relate to the Trinity, and when I
Speaker 47: explain it, that's the only counter that I'm having a
Speaker 47: hard time justifying.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean even word in spirit though, Like the
Speaker 4: analogy is used to explain how something can be one
Speaker 4: and many at the same time. Right, So I'm a
Speaker 4: person and I have you know, a word that I speak,
Speaker 4: and then there's a breath that accompanies the word, and
Speaker 4: so it's a limited analogy that's intended to explain an
Speaker 4: eternal action of spiration and generation. It's not an analogy
Speaker 4: intended to explain that there's only one person in God
Speaker 4: and that word and spirit are actions, so the analogy
Speaker 4: would be confusing action or energy with person or hypostasis.
Speaker 4: So do you see how these these kinds of analogies
Speaker 4: are very limited?
Speaker 47: Yeah, no, that makes sense that the final point that
Speaker 47: you made that click for me. Can I ask one
Speaker 47: more question? So I'm actually writing a paper and I
Speaker 47: wanted to know if you had some primary sources in
Speaker 47: mind regarding the schism and specifically regarding the whole philioque thing,
Speaker 47: if you knew of any primary sources, not secondary, that
Speaker 47: I could look to.
Speaker 4: I don't know what the primary sources would be, Like
Speaker 4: ancient excommunication documents between Rome and the East.
Speaker 47: What do you mean like of the time you know,
Speaker 47: of the time of the schism basically you know, Father's
Speaker 47: writing about it and their issues with it, and the
Speaker 47: counter arguments of the West. Basically, not a secondary source
Speaker 47: if you had any mind.
Speaker 4: I don't know off the top of my head what
Speaker 4: the primary source would be. I'm sure there's ancient Vatican,
Speaker 4: you know, excommunication documents or something like that.
Speaker 47: All right, well, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Oh that's it. Thanks, Yeah, it's all good. Yeah,
Speaker 3: what's up? Pedro? You gotta arm youre man? What's up, hey, Pedro?
Speaker 3: You gotta ut man? All right?
Speaker 4: Well, Pedro's not gonna say anything, so I guess we'll
Speaker 4: just call it a night. Thank you, guys, a lot
Speaker 4: of fun, good conversations. I didn't think James White would
Speaker 4: show up, but that's okay.
Speaker 3: Oh here he is just right behind you. Look out,
Speaker 3: he's behind me in person here in New Orleans.