Speaker 1: H So where do we get the Bible from? Did
Speaker 1: you even read the cannons?
Speaker 2: There is only one charge. You are in occult.
Speaker 1: You're a gobbling the demon, a bull merchard you saw me.
Speaker 2: I'm your dude.
Speaker 1: Is this your person of the webs? I attended?
Speaker 3: You can't take it?
Speaker 4: So to your boys on your dude, plus one plus
Speaker 4: one equal free.
Speaker 2: It comes out the doll the tree.
Speaker 1: Why do you pray eat the dead people?
Speaker 2: That's the traditions A man new heretic.
Speaker 1: Wow, wow, mr dude, is this your person.
Speaker 5: On a web?
Speaker 6: Cha?
Speaker 7: I need a I can't take it.
Speaker 2: He's little.
Speaker 1: To your boys, I'm your dude, andiic.
Speaker 7: Justification with you.
Speaker 5: I remember when Lofton was engaged in pushing all of
Speaker 5: these stories and especially the idea that there's going to
Speaker 5: be thousands and thousands of Roman Orthodox coming into the
Speaker 5: Roman Catholic Church in the near future. Well none of
Speaker 5: that happened, and rather the opposite happened. We've seen mass
Speaker 5: conversions out of Protestantism and out of Orthodox, out of
Speaker 5: Rome into Orthodoxy, and they are in kind of a
Speaker 5: delusion phase of acting like in gaslighting, that nobody's converted.
Speaker 5: This doesn't exist. It's made up. I remember William Albrecht
Speaker 5: said that there was no Orthodox discord. I didn't have it.
Speaker 5: It doesn't have have twelve thousand people in it. At
Speaker 5: the time it was five thousand. It was all made up,
Speaker 5: doesn't exist. We saw Ibarra not do very well against
Speaker 5: Ubi and his debate. In fact, on the very issues
Speaker 5: of the debate, he admitted, I don't have a sufficient
Speaker 5: answer for that question, and I ain't got one yet,
Speaker 5: didn't I have to get back to your own which
Speaker 5: was one of the topics of the debate, the papacy
Speaker 5: of Virgilius. So now we have a person claiming on
Speaker 5: Twitter who you got it won't come debate, that he
Speaker 5: no longer is Orthodox, he's converted to Rome. And then
Speaker 5: it turns out when people started asking him, were you
Speaker 5: actually Orthodox, he never replies, and eventually it says I
Speaker 5: never said I was your brother in Orthodoxy. I said
Speaker 5: I was your brother in Christ. It's very pious of him,
Speaker 5: but in actuality that's an admission that no, he never
Speaker 5: was Orthodox. But the tweet that is going viral ish
Speaker 5: many viral, two hundred thousand views. I no longer believe Orthodoxy,
Speaker 5: but you weren't Orthodox, you were an e inquir investigator.
Speaker 5: You didn't actually, as far as we can tell, become
Speaker 5: a cdech human. You weren't received into the church. And
Speaker 5: yet he puts up a post, just some random, probably
Speaker 5: twenty year old guy. Maybe he's what does he say
Speaker 5: he is? Zoomer? Oh, I was a Lutheran and I
Speaker 5: listened to Luigi a little bit and now decide I'm
Speaker 5: going to Rome. And then of course there was no
Speaker 5: evidence that he was ever Orthodox, and then he admits
Speaker 5: that he wasn't. And the Roman Catholics is saying, he
Speaker 5: doesn't owe anything to you. He doesn't owe anything to you,
Speaker 5: has nothing. It's nothing to do with owing, has nothing
Speaker 5: to do with the debt, has to do with whether
Speaker 5: or not you're telling the true truth or not. And no,
Speaker 5: you can't just it's just dishonest. But it's weird. I
Speaker 5: think in the gen Z like they don't care about
Speaker 5: this kind of stuff, like it's okay to just be dishonest,
Speaker 5: which is weird because they're hyper moral to but they
Speaker 5: don't really see any problem with pretending and presenting yourself
Speaker 5: as something that you're not. Many of them, for example,
Speaker 5: will claim that they are translators, that they're linguistic translators,
Speaker 5: no degree, no qualifications, They're using AI and they think
Speaker 5: that makes them a translator. They think that they are
Speaker 5: educated on topics because they watched YouTube videos and many
Speaker 5: of them don't even read books. So it's just a
Speaker 5: really weird era to be in when people have really
Speaker 5: no problem with a form of con artistry. Really, if
Speaker 5: you don't have qualifications, if you're not studying a subject,
Speaker 5: you don't front like you are on the internet. But unfortunately,
Speaker 5: one of the downsides of the Internet is that it
Speaker 5: gives everybody the ability to put up a persona that
Speaker 5: they have qualifications and that they know what they're talking about.
Speaker 5: And I mean, thank you. That's just I guess, part
Speaker 5: of the downside of the world of the internet. But
Speaker 5: here we are, so they're all saying, oh. And then
Speaker 5: the other thing that was funny was that he said, oh,
Speaker 5: I never actually listened to any of your content, Jay exactly.
Speaker 5: And then he says, you say dumb things. Well, I'd
Speaker 5: like for him to come defend his position, but he says, no,
Speaker 5: I won't debate. So this is the standard sort of
Speaker 5: just cowardice from people that don't have any actual arguments.
Speaker 5: I bet he was happy to virtue signal though that
Speaker 5: he wasn't a member of my audience. He actually says,
Speaker 5: I actually avoided your content. I watched it sometimes, but
Speaker 5: you said dumb stuff. What's the dumb stuff. I'd love
Speaker 5: to hear what you think was dumb. I love to
Speaker 5: hear a good argument from you as to why we
Speaker 5: should be Roman Catholic, especially given the craziness of Francis.
Speaker 5: But given that he basically lied and admits that he
Speaker 5: lied and says that, well, I wasn't really ever orthodox,
Speaker 5: but I'm no longer orthodox. Should we be surprised at
Speaker 5: any of this? I don't guess we should. It's just
Speaker 5: really I don't know. It reinforces that. I mean, he'll
Speaker 5: do well in Rome. He'll he'll go far in Rome
Speaker 5: with this early track record of deception and lying, and
Speaker 5: maybe he'll find home with his Skittles friends. I'm sure
Speaker 5: he has a lot of Skittles friends. That is probably
Speaker 5: that's people will always overlook, like their motivations for why
Speaker 5: people turn to something like Rome. I mean, sometimes people
Speaker 5: are genuinely looking into the intellectual issues, but in a
Speaker 5: lot of cases it may just be because they have
Speaker 5: a boyfriend, you know, maybe he has a boyfriend in Rome.
Speaker 5: Maybe he has a girlfriend in Rome, And those kind
Speaker 5: of motivations are far more overlooked than the kind of
Speaker 5: identifiers and indicators that we're talking about in the intellectual realm.
Speaker 5: And a lot of times the intellectual things are just
Speaker 5: sort of excuses that people make because really it's something else, right, girlfriend, boyfriend,
Speaker 5: homo erotic tryst, whatever fits the Roman system more appropriately.
Speaker 5: So we're going to open it up today. Originally I
Speaker 5: put Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, but I don't think anybody. I mean,
Speaker 5: last night it was the most pitiful show of Muslims
Speaker 5: I've ever seen. I mean, I couldn't believe that with me, God,
Speaker 5: Logic and Sam Shamun we had that low tier. I mean,
Speaker 5: it was just wild. I've kind of felt sorry for
Speaker 5: the guys calling in last night because some of them
Speaker 5: seem like just normal dudes. But just like with Rome
Speaker 5: and just like with Islam, it really seems like people
Speaker 5: are there's something just about these religions that appeal. I mean,
Speaker 5: they do both have some intellectual people, but there's something
Speaker 5: about these two religions that appeal to not very smart people.
Speaker 5: And I fully understand that it's not all about intellect.
Speaker 5: It's ultimately about you know, do we humble ourselves and
Speaker 5: submit ourselves to truth first and set aside our intellect
Speaker 5: and not let our intellect get in the way. I
Speaker 5: totally understand all that. But at the same time, it's
Speaker 5: like there is an element of intellect that is involved
Speaker 5: in this. And with all those guys that called in
Speaker 5: who were former quote Catholics who become Muslims. Isn't that
Speaker 5: interesting last night if you watch that long strain that
Speaker 5: we did. One of the commonalities that I see amongst
Speaker 5: the people who say leave Rome orly Orthodoxy and become
Speaker 5: Roman Catholic, or who leave Catholicism and become Muslim is
Speaker 5: they leave and become those things for really bad reasons,
Speaker 5: and they might appear to that person to be good reasons.
Speaker 5: And this is where logic and fallacies are so important.
Speaker 5: I mean, you can literally f up your life by
Speaker 5: not knowing basic fallacies. And there's some balance that we
Speaker 5: have to strike here because I'm not saying it's all intellect,
Speaker 5: obviously it's not. But there is an element of critical
Speaker 5: thinking and reasoning that you have to engage in or
Speaker 5: you're gonna get duped. You're gonna believe just stupid stuff
Speaker 5: for stupid reasons that you think are good reasons. Let
Speaker 5: me think of an example of you know, some of
Speaker 5: the common things that we hear between say a Roman
Speaker 5: Catholic or a sam Mormon, is how they feel when
Speaker 5: they prayed this or that Marian prayer. Identical argument that
Speaker 5: the Mormon makes when they talk about the whatever the
Speaker 5: Mormon version of burning in the bosom prayer the Mormon,
Speaker 5: you know, alter call whatever it is. They'll literally say
Speaker 5: something like, well, when I prayed the Rosary, I just
Speaker 5: had this overwhelming feeling of peace. I just had this
Speaker 5: I felt like Mary was speaking to me. I've literally
Speaker 5: heard multiple people, well guys and girls, say this is
Speaker 5: what convinced them of Catholicism over Orthodoxy. And I'm like,
Speaker 5: what would you say to a Mormon who says the
Speaker 5: exact same thing When I prayed the Mormon prayer and
Speaker 5: I felt the burning in my bosom?
Speaker 8: What can't hear you?
Speaker 5: Well, Jamie's saying, maybe they're being given drugs. Well, it
Speaker 5: might have been drugs back in the days of what
Speaker 5: maybe Joseph Smith figured out, you know, some kind of
Speaker 5: drug that he gave people that made him feel good
Speaker 5: or something. But this is a very common experience that
Speaker 5: Mormon missionaries have with people that they're trying to recruit
Speaker 5: in the mission field. Right, Mormon missionaries go out, they'll
Speaker 5: go door to door, and when they find a perspective convert,
Speaker 5: they will do the whole you know, prayer, burning in
Speaker 5: the bosom thing. And then if you feel something, which
Speaker 5: could be anything, right, could be uh, your emotions on
Speaker 5: the on the on the spot. It could be pizza
Speaker 5: that you ate last night, you know, giving you bubble guts.
Speaker 5: It could be a demon, you know, making you feel
Speaker 5: some some kind of way. It could be all kinds
Speaker 5: of things causing a feeling. And so that's why we
Speaker 5: cannot make our religious decisions, our life decisions on the
Speaker 5: basis of feelings. I mean, it could be all kinds
Speaker 5: of things. It's the same as like and even sometimes
Speaker 5: we can have a correct belief that we have bad
Speaker 5: reasons for. We always use example, you know, oh, why
Speaker 5: do you own bitcoin? A whole bitcoin? Oh well, I
Speaker 5: listened to my dreams. Bill Cosby came to me in
Speaker 5: a dream and he said, by the big coins and
Speaker 5: they went up. So therefore I can trust my dreams
Speaker 5: and I can listen to the spirit of Bill Cosby,
Speaker 5: and my dreams tell me to buy bitcoin and see
Speaker 5: bitcoin went up. So let's proof, Well, that bitcoin went
Speaker 5: up does not necessarily connect to your Bill Cosby bitcoin dream.
Speaker 5: So that would be a bad reason for believing in
Speaker 5: something that turned out to be true, that bitcoin would
Speaker 5: go up over time. Right, So you don't just need
Speaker 5: reasons that happened to be correlated with something true that happened,
Speaker 5: or you actually need good reasons, not just any old reasons.
Speaker 5: And I don't think this. I think this guy listed
Speaker 5: a few of his reasons, and shocker, he wasn't familiar
Speaker 5: with any of the argumentation that we do. I mean, already,
Speaker 5: this whole profile just screams like annoying virtue signaler. Anybody
Speaker 5: who puts the picture of Jesus as their profile picture
Speaker 5: and all this religious imagery as their proof, as the
Speaker 5: icons as their profile, they're almost always insufferable virtue signalers.
Speaker 5: It's just a kind of a weird delusion. And so
Speaker 5: he's Jay's talking about me on the stream right now,
Speaker 5: I'm getting spammed by diary he's freaking out right now
Speaker 5: because I'm actually talking about him. Only of reason I'm
Speaker 5: talking about your case is because it's a pattern example
Speaker 5: of the few instances that we've seen where people accept
Speaker 5: Rome and I'm trying to find your bad loft and level.
Speaker 5: They're literally loft in level reasonings I'm trying to find out.
Speaker 5: I thought he had a post that explained there are
Speaker 5: many reasons why, but I will always be your brother
Speaker 5: in Christ. It doesn't work like that, Like you don't
Speaker 5: get to be an acumenist. I guess in Rome you
Speaker 5: to being a cumenist, but that doesn't mean that it's
Speaker 5: consistent anyway. I don't even see his reasons for why
Speaker 5: he became Caligi over Orthodox. People are saying in the
Speaker 5: chat that elsewhere he explains that his reasons are just
Speaker 5: kind of like basic Michael Lofton level kind of stuff.
Speaker 5: And you'll notice in you know, in the Ubie debate,
Speaker 5: the debate over the papal stuff gets nuanced and really
Speaker 5: deep and really historical, and it's unfortunate that it is
Speaker 5: that way. I wish it wasn't a situation where there
Speaker 5: was you know, reading that was necessary and whatnot. But
Speaker 5: really the only reason that all that reading is necessary
Speaker 5: is that people don't pay attention to the obvious. And
Speaker 5: when I say the obvious, I mean if you had
Speaker 5: a basic introduction to the history of the Church in
Speaker 5: the first thousand years, say from Pelicon, or even from
Speaker 5: a Roman Catholic like de Vornik, you would note that
Speaker 5: sentidality collegiality is pretty much universally admitted. Rome admits this.
Speaker 5: Now the idea that the Church was governed in this
Speaker 5: Vatican one paper way is just no longer believed and
Speaker 5: admitted to be true by the Vatican itself. So it
Speaker 5: says we now have the Vatican admitting that this was
Speaker 5: an evolution in the Chiad and Alexandria documents. You would
Speaker 5: think that it would just kind of be obvious, And
Speaker 5: then you would think it would be obvious that when
Speaker 5: people see the insanity of what the the papacy does
Speaker 5: on almost a daily basis of post Vatican two, you
Speaker 5: would think they have discernment. But they don't. And the
Speaker 5: reason that we don't have discernment is because we are
Speaker 5: not number one close to God, because we would have
Speaker 5: discernment were we close to God, we would be able
Speaker 5: to see the true and the false. We would be
Speaker 5: praying and asking for the gift of discernment, which is
Speaker 5: one of the gifts of the spirit. According to Paul,
Speaker 5: we would be able to tell the truth from the false.
Speaker 5: We'd be able to discern the spirits. As John says
Speaker 5: in his letters, and as Paul talks about right just
Speaker 5: understanding and knowing the truth from the false spirits. John says,
Speaker 5: you have an anointing, and therefore you will know the
Speaker 5: true and the false. Well, people that are being duped
Speaker 5: by this stuff, that tells me that they don't have
Speaker 5: the anointing and they're lacking that gift of discernment. And
Speaker 5: I can also say from experience that I've made a
Speaker 5: lot of these same mistakes. So I'm not trying to
Speaker 5: be mean or rude to people that are making them
Speaker 5: the same mistakes I did. But you'll notice that these
Speaker 5: people are not interested in hearing or listening to anyone else.
Speaker 5: It's odd to me that people who make this decision,
Speaker 5: and by the way, it's not common. It's actually pretty rare,
Speaker 5: I would say, And you know this because the Rumancalics
Speaker 5: will trumpet this all over the place. Right, They didn't
Speaker 5: even bother to look into whether this guy actually was Orthodox.
Speaker 5: As soon as somebody says on the internet, like the
Speaker 5: sock puppets of you Know twenty eighteen claiming that Lofton
Speaker 5: was mass converting people to roam from Orthodoxy, nobody actually
Speaker 5: checks into these They just run with the claims. Then
Speaker 5: when you when you actually dig into it, well, he
Speaker 5: wasn't actually Orthodox, he was just e inquiring. Yeah, but
Speaker 5: that doesn't mean you're Orthodox with you if you e inquire.
Speaker 5: But everybody's under this delusion that you can kind of
Speaker 5: just make yourself be whatever you want on the internet
Speaker 5: and then everybody should just accept it. All the Roman
Speaker 5: Catholics in the comments that are replying to me on
Speaker 5: his posts, he doesn't owe you anything. He doesn't have
Speaker 5: to defend himself to you. He just owe you. There's
Speaker 5: nothing to do with own with whether or not you're
Speaker 5: telling the truth or not. And if I was genuinely
Speaker 5: unclear on this topic, wouldn't you want to go to
Speaker 5: the people who are known to be the top defenders
Speaker 5: or debaters on that subject. And so, in other words,
Speaker 5: they're making choices not based on like who actually has
Speaker 5: good arguments, who actually has the best apologetic defense and critique.
Speaker 5: You know, he says in his comments, I don't listen
Speaker 5: to your stuff. I don't really care about you say
Speaker 5: dumb stuff like no examples of it, just some kind
Speaker 5: of lame, low tier jab But no, but they don't
Speaker 5: actually go to the people literally known for being like
Speaker 5: the top debaters. Even if you disagreed, wouldn't you want
Speaker 5: to know what the top debaters in this or that
Speaker 5: field say? And he said, well, I listened to elite
Speaker 5: Luigi for a few months. Now. I'm not dissing Luigi.
Speaker 5: Luigi's a great debater, but I mean, Luigi is not
Speaker 5: familiar with all the pre Vatican two post Vatican two
Speaker 5: dogmatic contradiction material. Maybe he will be eventually. I'm not sure.
Speaker 5: I'm not dissing Luigi at all. But you know, Luigi's
Speaker 5: done really well in his two debates. But luigis is
Speaker 5: also a fairly new convert. Why would you hang everything
Speaker 5: supposedly on Luigi? And now, oh, he's only fourteen years old.
Speaker 5: I don't know people's age. People are publicly saying all
Speaker 5: kinds of stuff, and the whole Roman Catholic world is
Speaker 5: you know, two hundred thousand people now are looking at
Speaker 5: this tweet as if this is some sort of like
Speaker 5: we gotcha, we could have finally owned the Ortho bros.
Speaker 5: Like this is some giant win for all the Roman
Speaker 5: Catholic world, even if he is a fourteen or fifty
Speaker 5: year old dude. That's even worse for the Roman Catholics
Speaker 5: for touting some fourteen year old guy who doesn't know
Speaker 5: the arguments, who hasn't studied this stuff, as if that's
Speaker 5: like a win against the Orthodox. This is all so ridiculous,
Speaker 5: like everything about all of this stuff online, with all
Speaker 5: of this domain and people who pretend to be like
Speaker 5: it's just so ridiculous. I mean, half of the Internet
Speaker 5: right now, half a freaking X thinks drones are aliens.
Speaker 5: This is how stupid everyone is. There's literally I just
Speaker 5: send a message to Tristan like it's literally a drone
Speaker 5: that crashed. People are you can see that it's a
Speaker 5: drone and like people think that this is aliens. I mean,
Speaker 5: I don't know what to say. I mean, people are
Speaker 5: just dumb, dude, They're just totally out to lunch. They
Speaker 5: don't have any discernment. I mean, did anyone hear the
Speaker 5: last night's debate? I mean of the donation sound is
Speaker 5: too loud. Let me fix that alert box. It's supposed
Speaker 5: to be pretty low, so maybe maybe that's better now.
Speaker 5: Half the time this sound resets the on this computer,
Speaker 5: and then I never know what's going on with the
Speaker 5: sound settings. So yep, of course the input volume is
Speaker 5: all the way down in the alert box. Music is
Speaker 5: all the way up as usual, so that should be better.
Speaker 5: Maybe you can hear me better now. I don't know
Speaker 5: why it does that. Just Mac always resets. Oh, I
Speaker 5: know why it is if I go on I know
Speaker 5: what it is. When I go on streamly Ardyard. Stream
Speaker 5: Yard has the auto volume setting, so because God Logic
Speaker 5: does everything on stream Yard, whenever I go on those shows,
Speaker 5: it resets my internal setting because that's stupid estra. I
Speaker 5: hate stream Yard. I don't understand why everybody uses the
Speaker 5: stream yards. It's so annoying. But that's why it always
Speaker 5: does this. Anytime I go on a stream yard stream
Speaker 5: it resets on my audio crap automatically. You can't stop it.
Speaker 5: If you try to change it in the midst of
Speaker 5: a stream Yard st knocks it back down to like zero.
Speaker 5: It's so stupid anyway, and stream Yard tries to make
Speaker 5: you sign in from your Facebook. I mean, dude, who
Speaker 5: is even using Facebook? What kind of boomer crap is
Speaker 5: this stream yard? Nobody uses Facebook? Face boomer maybe sign
Speaker 5: in with Facebook? Is that for uncles uncle's roadster stream?
Speaker 5: I mean, come on, who what Facebook people are streaming
Speaker 5: anyway except your uncle's roadster stream?
Speaker 3: D six engine to nerve, I'm a live stream working
Speaker 3: on my chopper support Israel and Mud.
Speaker 5: Now, somebody sent me three fat super chats here Jen
Speaker 5: Lamp fifty dollars, and then we're going to open it
Speaker 5: up to debate here in a second. Thank you Enigo
Speaker 5: Montoya for your great work. I love you and Jamie's stuff.
Speaker 5: God bless you. Thank you, Jen Lamp fifty dollars. Again,
Speaker 5: here's another part of this donation, and you go buy
Speaker 5: you thank you for everything. But I'm curious what your
Speaker 5: thoughts are on the Voynash manuscript. Also, can you do
Speaker 5: a weekly Billy Corson check in? Well, Billy cart If
Speaker 5: I checked in every week on Billy Corson, he threatened
Speaker 5: to sue me. So I'm too scared. Now I gotta
Speaker 5: I gotta run. I'm scared. Remember when Lofton threatened assuming
Speaker 5: you guys remember the lawsuit, because I said that there
Speaker 5: was soccer accounts that are saying that Lofton was the
Speaker 5: greatest apologists ever, which literally there was like the soccer
Speaker 5: accounts were saying I converted from Orthodoxy to Rome because
Speaker 5: of the beautiful, brilliant work of the greatest apologists of
Speaker 5: all time, Michael loft It was just so ridiculous and
Speaker 5: obviously fake sock accounts that were just created. He's a dog,
Speaker 5: you know, a top talking about lawyer by normal Sue.
Speaker 5: I got the email where he threatens to assume me.
Speaker 5: By the way, Jen lamp here's another donation. Oh, the
Speaker 5: Voyage Manuscript. I mean, the only thing I remember reading
Speaker 5: about that is the chapter in g Hancock's book, like
Speaker 5: ten years ago. What's it called? I forget the everybody's
Speaker 5: familiar with this Graham Hancock, but not the one about
Speaker 5: the Ark of the Covenant, the other one about the
Speaker 5: Pyramids and the lay lines and all that, and I just,
Speaker 5: I mean, it's interesting. I don't know what the real
Speaker 5: story about the Voyenans Manuscript is, but I think a
Speaker 5: lot of that ancient mystical, you know, civilization stuff is
Speaker 5: really fascinating. But once, like one thing, you realize that
Speaker 5: if you start to read about a bunch of that
Speaker 5: is like there's just really no conclusive any you can
Speaker 5: never get anything conclusive about that. It's kind of like
Speaker 5: all these so called UFO videos. It's like, what is
Speaker 5: this blurry light? I don't know and you can never
Speaker 5: figure it out, you know what I mean? What's this
Speaker 5: blurry creature? Who is that bigfoot? How come it's always blurry?
Speaker 5: Like you can never so it never goes anywhere. So
Speaker 5: I don't I haven't thought about the Voyeness manuscript maybe
Speaker 5: ten years, but it is interesting. Jen Lamb says, for
Speaker 5: fifty dollars, sorry, here's another donation for my atonement. Your atonement.
Speaker 5: You don't have to atone. To me, you're thinking of
Speaker 5: the papal system. I'm catching up on all your videos.
Speaker 5: I can honestly say that people just don't want to
Speaker 5: hear the truth. I've tried turning even my friends onto
Speaker 5: your material and they can't take it. That's what I'm
Speaker 5: talking about. We're well, I mean, I guess that means
Speaker 5: we're hardcore over here. People just can't take it. They
Speaker 5: just can't take it. I hope we get some oh,
Speaker 5: he says, I've learned my theology from a lot of
Speaker 5: different theological arguments. Okay, I'm about ready to just block this, dude.
Speaker 5: This is a waste of everybody's time. And none of
Speaker 5: these people are ever gonna come to debate. We know
Speaker 5: that already. They never do. I mean, good grief, dude,
Speaker 5: did anybody here last night's stream? It was just on
Speaker 5: real Whenever you think like you've heard the worst, like
Speaker 5: the can always come through to top everybody in just
Speaker 5: pitiful argumentation. And it's just sad man. Because and by
Speaker 5: the way, it's what we're going to be contending with
Speaker 5: in the future is not Frank and his Skittles cult. Okay,
Speaker 5: that's dying out. And don't believe these idiot Roman Catholics
Speaker 5: who act like it's growing. Frank's Skittles cult is dying out.
Speaker 5: Where we're going to be dealing with is Islam. That's
Speaker 5: what's coming. A few months ago, when Jamie and I
Speaker 5: drove to Las Vegas, which was a huge mistake to
Speaker 5: drive the Las Vegas by the way, what did I
Speaker 5: see all across the country that I've never seen before,
Speaker 5: even on Indian reservations, mosques, Indian reservations now have mosques
Speaker 5: built on them, and the Tate sphere and all these
Speaker 5: goobers and the Mohammed hjabsphere. They're all part of this
Speaker 5: push to convert this country to the idiot religion of Islam,
Speaker 5: and the dumber everybody gets, the more likely people will
Speaker 5: be to convert to that. Gazoro ten dollars? Will you
Speaker 5: ever look into debating Needgod dot net? Is that that evangelical,
Speaker 5: goofy guy that Kyle tried to debate? I mean, anybody
Speaker 5: can hop on these streams and debate if they want
Speaker 5: to at any time. It's always open for him. I
Speaker 5: don't know if I would even I mean, because I
Speaker 5: can already tell you what's gonna happen, Like I'm gonna
Speaker 5: be really, you know, serious and focused and make a
Speaker 5: bunch of arguments, and it's going to turn into I'll
Speaker 5: say something and then his soft evangelical you know, Skittle's
Speaker 5: heart will be hurt, and then it'll turn into how
Speaker 5: I'm a bad person and I'm mean all this nonsense.
Speaker 5: So I don't even know if it's worth it. Blood
Speaker 5: du Boy twenty dollars. Did you see Tim Gordon's new
Speaker 5: video about why he thinks orthodoxy fails. Actually, if we
Speaker 5: didn't get many people popping into the Q and A here,
Speaker 5: I was actually going to respond to that today. I
Speaker 5: might pop over there and check out of that here
Speaker 5: in a minute. By the way, if you want to
Speaker 5: follow me on X, be sure and follow me right here.
Speaker 5: But I mean, if that guy's a fourteen year old dude,
Speaker 5: I don't know if he is. But if he is,
Speaker 5: isn't that like ridiculous? The whole Roman Catholic world's like
Speaker 5: tweeting this kid as if this is like some kind
Speaker 5: of big win, because like he spent a couple of
Speaker 5: months listening to Luigi and Orthodox Kyle, but and then
Speaker 5: he chose Rome. I mean, come on, uh, Kyle already
Speaker 5: talked to need God dot net and the guy didn't listen. Yeah,
Speaker 5: I remember that debate when that happened a while back.
Speaker 5: It was a kind of a goofy debate. Let's see
Speaker 5: where is how long was Tim's stream? I want to
Speaker 5: open it up. I don't know if we want to.
Speaker 5: I don't know if I want to spend Did you
Speaker 5: do a like a two hour stream on orthodoxy? Why
Speaker 5: orthodoxy fails? Let's see it. What's Part one, Welcome to
Speaker 5: rules for retrogrades. I've not seen it yet, but what
Speaker 5: I've heard is everybody says that it's like just like
Speaker 5: loft in tier like low tier arguments, which doesn't surprise me,
Speaker 5: not because Tim's dumb, but if you talk to Tim,
Speaker 5: and if you listen to Tim, he'll always tell you, like,
Speaker 5: I don't know that theology in the Church history that well,
Speaker 5: he'll just say straight up, all I study is aristotomism.
Speaker 5: So it's not surprising to me that if he were
Speaker 5: to say why he's not Orthodox, it would be kind
Speaker 5: of the pop sphere stuff. So it looks like there's
Speaker 5: just two videos thirty minutes.
Speaker 9: Ye help.
Speaker 5: But I mean, I mean I saw a couple of
Speaker 5: the quote minds that Tim put up, and they were like,
Speaker 5: come on, this is like this is weak tier stuff
Speaker 5: that doesn't prove Vatican One. So basically, as you might imagine,
Speaker 5: as many Roman Catholics do, they just quote mind a
Speaker 5: bunch of things about Rome in the first thousand years,
Speaker 5: and then they read into that Vatican One when none
Speaker 5: of those quotes actually address or prove Vatican one claims,
Speaker 5: and they don't deal with the problems to the Vatican
Speaker 5: one claims in the first thousand years, or the contradictions
Speaker 5: involved in the claims of the papacy quote never airing,
Speaker 5: never defecting, never, you know, failing to preserve the faith
Speaker 5: aka as Ubi brings up in the debate, Well, you
Speaker 5: have one pope deposing and excommunicating the previous pope in
Speaker 5: the case of Vigilius. So did Rome air and defect
Speaker 5: when the previous pope was condemned or was Virgilius wrong
Speaker 5: in condemning his predecessor? It was the very thing that
Speaker 5: Ubi asks a bar in the debate, and Eric said,
Speaker 5: I don't got good intro to and uh, I don't
Speaker 5: have to give back to your own debate voice of reason. Bro,
Speaker 5: all these people that everybody's asking, like I've already asked
Speaker 5: all these people debate, he just ignored it. And boys,
Speaker 5: the reason already debated. Luisian lost. So and by the way,
Speaker 5: all these people can come to this stream if they want,
Speaker 5: really want a debate, So why don't they come and
Speaker 5: to hop in my stream they can have all the
Speaker 5: time they want. All right, let's open it up to
Speaker 5: anybody who disagrees. If we don't get I might play
Speaker 5: some of this Tim stuff here and see what his
Speaker 5: arguments against Orthodoxy Warrior, we'll respond to them. Low Pan
Speaker 5: says for ten dollars. This is off topic, but check
Speaker 5: out special Interest, the State and the Anglo American Alliance.
Speaker 5: It is a ruttlish publication. Yeah. Actually I put that
Speaker 5: on my two gif book list. I think thank you
Speaker 5: for that. That was probably you that recommended that. Low
Speaker 5: Pan appreciate it. An emotional appeal. Tim Gordon one dollars. Tim,
Speaker 5: No rigor Gordon needs to be put to rest with
Speaker 5: these bad arguments. I'm tired of all his misleading presentation.
Speaker 5: Well we'll look at some of these then and see
Speaker 5: where he went with it. I guess I do need
Speaker 5: to respond to it. Frankish Melkite five dollars, blessings. Jay.
Speaker 5: I had a question about Orthodoxy and your understanding of imputation.
Speaker 5: You had a debate with an event Jelica one time.
Speaker 5: It was arguing that Romans four said that it was imputation,
Speaker 5: and you said, there is a kind of imputation, but
Speaker 5: in an Orthodox sense. Yeah, in the Orthodox view, there's
Speaker 5: no such thing as a purely legal standing that's not
Speaker 5: based in ontological reality. In other words, you couldn't be
Speaker 5: legally righteous with an imputed covering of righteousness while you
Speaker 5: are in actual reality quote, filthy, rags and wicked. That
Speaker 5: would make God a liar. So anytime there is a
Speaker 5: pronunciation of you being righteous, it is because you are
Speaker 5: in fact righteous. That simple and Protestanism had to have
Speaker 5: nominalism be the case to be the case philosophically for
Speaker 5: there to be a divorce between the pronunciation of being
Speaker 5: righteous and the actual ontological status of being righteous. Literally,
Speaker 5: Protestantism solo fid a doctrine is built on that, and
Speaker 5: if that's not true, then that doctrine falls apart. And
Speaker 5: it also is a historical because nobody in the ancient
Speaker 5: medieval world was a nominalist, the tel nominalism in the
Speaker 5: Middle Ages, so they did not and could not have
Speaker 5: conceived of a purely legal, fictional imputational righteous status that
Speaker 5: does not correspond to actually ontologically being righteous aka having
Speaker 5: the Divine life in you dose Vader, fifteen dollars, do
Speaker 5: you intend to drop Vatican two and the related documents
Speaker 5: to disprove Sam schimun I would be down to call
Speaker 5: in and tell him about Vatican two. Well, if we
Speaker 5: do that, roundtable. Obviously, I'll be bringing up all those documents. Sure,
Speaker 5: I don't know to what degree Sam Shimun is familiar
Speaker 5: with those documents. But I don't think Sam's idea is
Speaker 5: to have him and Allbrech versus me and Ubi. Sam
Speaker 5: claims that it's going to be a roundtable of me
Speaker 5: and Ubi and somebody and yah See and Albrecht or something.
Speaker 5: I think that's what Sam has in money, Robney five dollars. Well,
Speaker 5: are you tried about Christian Christianity and the Christian herishies
Speaker 5: of Syria after the takeover? I mean, I just shared
Speaker 5: Kovork Elmasian's video on that that followed John White for
Speaker 5: shared I've followed Kovork's stuff off and on. I did
Speaker 5: actually realized he was Christian or that his family was.
Speaker 5: Maybe he isn't. I don't know, but I mean, I
Speaker 5: don't I don't know what to say about. I mean,
Speaker 5: I've been talking, we've been talking about Syria and the
Speaker 5: CIA's operations in Syria and all of that geopolitically, going
Speaker 5: back to when I was writing for twenty first Century
Speaker 5: a while with Patrick Henningson in twenty fourteen. So, I mean,
Speaker 5: I don't know what else what what do you want
Speaker 5: me to say? Like, yeah, the CIA and the State
Speaker 5: of Israel support things like isis of course, duh. I
Speaker 5: mean we've been talking about that for years, over a decade.
Speaker 5: So where the apology is for like, you know, me
Speaker 5: talking about this or other people said it was a
Speaker 5: crazy conspiracy theorist for talking about this since twenty fourteen
Speaker 5: Aqi Lara's five dollars. I'm not trying to be I'm
Speaker 5: not trying to be insensitive to you know, Christians in Syria,
Speaker 5: but like, what what are we supposed to do? Like
Speaker 5: you can only go so far on YouTube. I mean,
Speaker 5: I don't know, I don't know what the answer is.
Speaker 5: Maybe the answer is to defeat the heresy of dispensationalism
Speaker 5: so that people in America stop believing this stupid, idiotic
Speaker 5: heresy where whereby they basically think the Nation of Israel
Speaker 5: is the Church, which is just looney bins. But somebody,
Speaker 5: Luigi I think, was calling out one of these evangelical
Speaker 5: pastors who has like the nation State of Israel flag
Speaker 5: and his profile, like he doesn't even have a Christian
Speaker 5: flag in his profile. It's like, okay, so you're actually
Speaker 5: not Christian exactly. It's just it is weird how many
Speaker 5: people believe this dispensationalist heresy, and it's so easy to refute.
Speaker 5: You know, we did this that stream of Jimbo I've
Speaker 5: been polish. I though it turned out to be a
Speaker 5: really good stream. It is long, it's four hours, but
Speaker 5: I mean it took four hours to thoroughly demolish. I
Speaker 5: think every aspect and angle of dispensationalism, from its history
Speaker 5: to its theology, to its deep state geopolitical promotion and implications.
Speaker 5: I mean, we went through all of it. So, I mean,
Speaker 5: I think to have an effect in the Middle East
Speaker 5: requires a change in American foreign policy. To have a
Speaker 5: change in American war policy requires time and effort to
Speaker 5: refute the stupid dispensationalist Premillennials heresy. And so that's going
Speaker 5: to happen for people becoming Orthodox. So I don't know
Speaker 5: what other route to take. Aculars five dollars, Jay, I'm
Speaker 5: a longtime viewer and I'm now at Orthodox kind of
Speaker 5: human things thanks to you. Would you how would your
Speaker 5: Aply somebody says they believe in morals in a higher power,
Speaker 5: but I'm not a Christian. Basically, their deists. How would
Speaker 5: you respond to that? Well, I mean, this is really
Speaker 5: just kind of an empty phrase and statement. I mean,
Speaker 5: what does it even mean to say I believe in
Speaker 5: morals and a higher power? What if I believe the
Speaker 5: higher power Satan and the morals that he gives me
Speaker 5: are to you know, steal, kill and destroy? Right? What
Speaker 5: does Conan say that he can't wait to hit that
Speaker 5: advantation of the women to you know whatever Conan's phrased? Like,
Speaker 5: what if those are the morals?
Speaker 7: Like?
Speaker 5: Why is that wrong? So, in other words, it's not
Speaker 5: good enough to just say that quote there's a higher
Speaker 5: power in morals.
Speaker 9: This is like.
Speaker 5: Alcoholics anonymous level theology, which is basically just meaningless. I mean,
Speaker 5: what does that mean? So you got to have some
Speaker 5: kind of content to who the deity is and what
Speaker 5: the worldview is. So I would just critique the worldview
Speaker 5: at that kind of presubsisitional level. Guy M ten dollars,
Speaker 5: thank you for everything that you do. I looked into
Speaker 5: the early Church and I ended up leaving Calvinism before
Speaker 5: Constant and Nope, I started attending an Antiochian Orthodox Church.
Speaker 5: The liturgy is definitely the biggest event that I've ever attended.
Speaker 5: I can't believe I ever felt for Calvinism. I fell
Speaker 5: for Calvinism. It's okay. I mean, you know, we're all
Speaker 5: going to be making these mistakes. We can't help what
Speaker 5: we were raised with. So we got to be open
Speaker 5: to hearing new information. But also there's a weird balance.
Speaker 5: I don't know what the right answer is, but like
Speaker 5: you know, we're in this era where there's an infinite
Speaker 5: sea of information on the Internet, and we're always going
Speaker 5: to be hearing new arguments, new challenges, new information. So
Speaker 5: there's got to be some kind of balance we strike
Speaker 5: between having an open mind to hear new arguments, new information,
Speaker 5: and not being blown about by every wind of doctrine
Speaker 5: like the New Testament says. So hopefully we can strike
Speaker 5: some kind of balance there. And I think that anybody
Speaker 5: who truly honestly seeks the truth, I think Christ will
Speaker 5: lead them to the truth. Albanian Dude ninety eight one
Speaker 5: dollars Do you think that some UFOs are demonic in origin? Yeah,
Speaker 5: I think there is a demonic element to it. Even
Speaker 5: some of the secular theorists like Jacques Vlaie admit there's
Speaker 5: some kind of sinister, nefarious element to it. Do you
Speaker 5: think the government knows and is in on it? I
Speaker 5: mean to it. I mean I think the government absolutely
Speaker 5: knows about the black ops, you know, alien deception crap
Speaker 5: that they push, and that all the people from the
Speaker 5: deep state, the aviary, you know all these you know
Speaker 5: m J twelve con men, Richard Dody and go watch
Speaker 5: mirage men. That's obvious. Are the drones piloted by demons? No,
Speaker 5: I don't think the drunes are piloted by demons. That
Speaker 5: sounds kind of funny though. Still go a our five
Speaker 5: dollars your name will be more deep Jay, thank you
Speaker 5: for the stream. I'm looking at orthodoxy. I'm a Jewish
Speaker 5: believer in Jesus. I have a question by the influence
Speaker 5: of Hellenism on Christianity and Judaism as a negative or positive. Well,
Speaker 5: I think you have to be more precise, because sometimes
Speaker 5: Hellenism just means Greek culture, Greek language. I don't think
Speaker 5: Christianity would have spread had there not been coin a
Speaker 5: Greek spoke throughout the Empire, which is an element of Hellenism.
Speaker 5: If you talk about Hellenism in terms of like Greek
Speaker 5: philosophy and metaphysics, that's a two edged sword that can
Speaker 5: be a basis for people falling into heresies. Most of
Speaker 5: the heresy arcs in the Seven Ecamenical Councils had some
Speaker 5: kind of Greek metaphysical assumption that they were importing into
Speaker 5: the theology, whether it's areas, whether it's Eunomius who's literally
Speaker 5: a Neoplatonist, whether it's Origin, or even all the way
Speaker 5: up into Severus. Severus himself had Neoplatonic assumption. So I
Speaker 5: mean just depends on what you mean. There's also harmless
Speaker 5: cultural elements of quote Hellenism that are part of the
Speaker 5: Church's tradition little tea tradition. For example, the style of
Speaker 5: the vestiments is not just Hebrew and origin out of
Speaker 5: coming out of the Jewish priesthood, but it also bears
Speaker 5: a Byzantine stamp to the vestiments. And so obviously the
Speaker 5: Church is going to have it's kind of unique history
Speaker 5: that influences the Hebrew origins. So I think there's a
Speaker 5: both and flexibility going on here. But no, we don't
Speaker 5: want the degenerate elements of Hellenic culture, which the Book
Speaker 5: of maccabeeest for example, calls out, you know, like naked
Speaker 5: men and bathroom stalls and naked men wrestling. That's all
Speaker 5: Hellenic Greek cultures, you know stuff. So no, we don't
Speaker 5: want none of that. We don't know. We don't know
Speaker 5: skittle soldiers like the three hundred or whatever. But using
Speaker 5: ideas or toolkits from Greek philosophy can help theology. That's
Speaker 5: part of the Church's tradition. Anonymous, five dollars. We're both open.
Speaker 5: There's a last two super jets. What would you say
Speaker 5: about your use of tag and precept as a substance
Speaker 5: of logic rather than a self evident given from a
Speaker 5: worldview without any transcental justification. What would you what would
Speaker 5: you say that your use of tag and precept is
Speaker 5: the substance of logic? I don't know if i'd say that.
Speaker 5: I would just say that the point of pre subpositional
Speaker 5: argumentation or transcendenttal augmentation is simply to talk about the
Speaker 5: possibility of doing logic, the possibility of knowing at all,
Speaker 5: the possibility of having metaphysics at all. So there are
Speaker 5: arguments about the necessary preconditions. I don't know if I
Speaker 5: would call the necessary precondition quote the substance of logic,
Speaker 5: but I do agree that it is fundamentally opposed to
Speaker 5: the idea of something strictly literally being self evident. I
Speaker 5: think we can have a colloquial sense of something being
Speaker 5: self evident, like does tuplus to equal four? Yeah, we
Speaker 5: kind of intuitively apprehend that without much investments. We don't
Speaker 5: have to investigate every time we add two plus two
Speaker 5: to see if, in fact it does all wes equal four.
Speaker 5: We kind of have this eventual, kind of instantaneous apprehension
Speaker 5: that it is correct. And so, in that limited sense,
Speaker 5: kind of a mundane colloquial sense, you could call something
Speaker 5: self evident, but in a strict epistemic sense, know, how
Speaker 5: could something I mean, anytime people try to argue for this,
Speaker 5: they just really end up missing the point and just
Speaker 5: restating the problem and you know, relying on something else,
Speaker 5: which then makes the first thing not self evident. If
Speaker 5: it's relying on something, it's not self evident. If it's
Speaker 5: self evident, we need to know why it's self evident.
Speaker 5: We need to solve the criterion problem, et cetera. Et cetera.
Speaker 5: Public Cort says, one dollar orthodox that downplay the Eastern fathers,
Speaker 5: who would this be like weird Latin Western right people.
Speaker 5: I don't know the ones that exults. You're talking about
Speaker 5: Western right people.
Speaker 9: Out.
Speaker 5: You just have a sentence. It's not a question, so
Speaker 5: I'm not sure what the question is. Yeah, I'm not
Speaker 5: a huge fan of the Western right, so I don't
Speaker 5: I'm not sure what the question is. Jorda on five dollars.
Speaker 5: I love to stream, yes, what they do with Sam.
Speaker 5: I'm assuming you're talking about that and God Logic. Would
Speaker 5: you do a stream with God Logic on PSA and
Speaker 5: the Protestant doctrines? Sure, I'm always open to any kind
Speaker 5: of chat like that. Nicholas Palomas one dollar. Did you
Speaker 5: see Chris Plants gave up on being intellectually rigorous because
Speaker 5: he did a short video summary of Ubi and Abara debate. No,
Speaker 5: I didn't see. I haven't kept up with what Chris
Speaker 5: Plants was talking about. I'm not trying to be mean,
Speaker 5: but you know, it felt like when we had that
Speaker 5: sort of debate that.
Speaker 10: I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 5: What else to say. All Right, we're gonna open it up.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna get priority to people who disagree. If you're
Speaker 5: a Catholic, if you're a Protestant, if you're Muslim, if
Speaker 5: you're atheist, you go to the head of the line.
Speaker 5: If you have questions about you know, other stuff FAQ questions,
Speaker 5: please save those till later. Uh, don't rush to the
Speaker 5: head of line with you know, questions that literally you
Speaker 5: could get your priest to answer in catechistus. I mean
Speaker 5: not trying to be rude. It's just we always get
Speaker 5: people piling in with you know, what's the problem with
Speaker 5: penal substitution? What is the Orthodox feel and Balmintism. We're
Speaker 5: going to open it up now to let's see inquisitor.
Speaker 5: We got We've got an inquisitor. We got a Spanish inquisitor.
Speaker 5: Queen Isabella has sent our destruction into the chat. What's up?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 5: Got on mute and he ran away? Good job. So
Speaker 5: there's our first Roman Catholic an inquisitor who literally just
Speaker 5: ran away. Now maybe he dropped out, and if he
Speaker 5: dropped out, he's welcome to come back. But I make
Speaker 5: one joke. Here it comes he's back. Come on, inquisitor general,
Speaker 5: what's up? Man, Let's have an auto de fay. Put
Speaker 5: me burn me up, baby, Auto de fay right now,
Speaker 5: got unmute? You have to unmute?
Speaker 11: Oh man, I had to have the power buttons?
Speaker 7: After all?
Speaker 9: Am I being heard?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 5: What's up? What's on your mind?
Speaker 4: Hey?
Speaker 9: J J?
Speaker 7: First and foremost?
Speaker 12: Man, Hey, you.
Speaker 11: Don't want to give you your props. Just generally speaking,
Speaker 11: I think you've been a tremendous course for good. The
Speaker 11: question I have for you, Jay is, you know, I think,
Speaker 11: for like you know, somebody seeking the truth, they're gonna
Speaker 11: end up apostolic, right.
Speaker 5: And I don't know what that means.
Speaker 7: I don't.
Speaker 5: I don't, I mean I don't. We don't accept that
Speaker 5: there are or all of these Apostolic churches that are
Speaker 5: in schism.
Speaker 7: You know there's two ja, come on you trump?
Speaker 5: Well, I mean you that you claim that, but that
Speaker 5: doesn't mean that you are, because once you go into
Speaker 5: heresy you're not Apostolic anymore.
Speaker 11: Well you could trade your churches back to our Lord.
Speaker 5: Wright or once you adopt heresy. And by the way,
Speaker 5: this is actually the traditional Roman Catholic position too, you
Speaker 5: are no longer a member of the mystical body agreed greed?
Speaker 7: Okay, you believe?
Speaker 5: How could you how could you agree to that when
Speaker 5: that is contrary to what you just said?
Speaker 7: What do you mean it's a country? Wait? Wait, the
Speaker 7: only thing that I have.
Speaker 11: Said, Jay, to be clear, is that somebody seeking the
Speaker 11: truth is going to seek for something that you know,
Speaker 11: reaches back to our Lord, a church that our Lord founded.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's just presupposing the Roman Catholic position that apostolic
Speaker 5: means anybody who possesses Apostolic succession. And I just argued
Speaker 5: against that, and that your own tradition doesn't hold that you.
Speaker 13: Could have a put it this way, Jay's made this argument,
Speaker 13: and I was, so you could make uh oh, okay,
Speaker 13: Jay's quantum doppelganger.
Speaker 9: In a multiverse.
Speaker 12: Anyways, So think about how silly this is.
Speaker 10: So a group can become Satanist and as long as
Speaker 10: they you know, and they they skis them out of
Speaker 10: the Roman Catholic Church, but as long as they just
Speaker 10: trace their lineage back like then it's a historic church.
Speaker 10: I mean, this is how absurd the conclusion would get.
Speaker 5: It's not actually absurd. In fact, Roman Catholicism actually says
Speaker 5: that if you've become ordained and you become a Satanist
Speaker 5: that day, you still have Apostolic succession.
Speaker 11: Hey, Jay, I haven't even asked my question, and you
Speaker 11: guys are I.
Speaker 5: Mean, what you said, you're you already said something that's
Speaker 5: simply not true and assumes your position. So I'm not
Speaker 5: sure to be mean to you. I'm just pointing out that, like,
Speaker 5: how do you you're assuming that Orthodox and Catholicism are
Speaker 5: quote Apostolic churches and that's not our position.
Speaker 11: So all right, fair enough, Jay my God coming out
Speaker 11: firing with.
Speaker 7: The with the.
Speaker 5: Well, you're an inquisitor and it says it's a debate stream.
Speaker 11: So I'm a lay inquisitor, not a professional one.
Speaker 7: Well listen.
Speaker 11: But the question that I had for you was, you know,
Speaker 11: I mean going back to this question, which I think
Speaker 11: you already kind of sabotaged the question. But in anyhows,
Speaker 11: you know, but somebody, somebody looking for the truths, they're
Speaker 11: going to land well hopefully they would land on it.
Speaker 11: But the question that I had for you is is
Speaker 11: your heritage east or west of Berlin? And if it's
Speaker 11: west of Berlin, how did you land an Orthodoxy?
Speaker 5: Yeah? This is it's such a mean I'm not I'm
Speaker 5: not trying to be mean to you. It's just so
Speaker 5: many Roman Catholics think this way. I literally have I
Speaker 5: do not understand this thought process. How does the historical
Speaker 5: geopolitical settings of the Cold War or the Byzantine Empire.
Speaker 5: How does that have anything to do with which position
Speaker 5: is true?
Speaker 7: A J.
Speaker 11: I'm not sure if you're looking for a rebuttal, but
Speaker 11: I'm just trying to hear you out, just because I figured,
Speaker 11: you know people, you know men.
Speaker 4: I can understand.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's like you guys almost always think the
Speaker 5: religion is your heritage. It makes no that makes no sense,
Speaker 5: like that's nothing to do with whether it's true or false.
Speaker 7: No, we think it's universal. We think it's universal.
Speaker 5: But you just literally argued that why did I end
Speaker 5: up Orthodox if it's not my uh geopolitical heritage.
Speaker 11: Well, the thing is that I could understand somebody being Eastern.
Speaker 12: European, uh, you know, going back to.
Speaker 11: Orthodoxy, because you know, they kind of trace back and
Speaker 11: that's where they land. But I wasn't sure.
Speaker 9: If you were.
Speaker 5: You want to know the real answer. Their answer is
Speaker 5: because I'm an Eastern European KGB sorcerer. That's why I
Speaker 5: worked for the KGB. Everybody thought we went away, but
Speaker 5: actually redeem Zuomer is correct. Putin is the one that's
Speaker 5: running a giant syop that Orthodox that people are converty
Speaker 5: Orthodoxy in the West, and I'm the head of it.
Speaker 4: Well, I'll say this much. Putin is probably.
Speaker 11: I mean, yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say it.
Speaker 11: I think Putin is probably the most sound and based
Speaker 11: had a state, even though he's not ours, speaking for
Speaker 11: those of us in the US, kind of like some other.
Speaker 7: Uncle might have been in the early thirties.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I have a question for you. I have a
Speaker 5: question for you. Do you think that, let's say, winning
Speaker 5: a giant battle, does that make Catholicism true in your mind?
Speaker 7: No? No, no, no.
Speaker 11: I think the truth is the truth, regardless of one.
Speaker 9: True lost battle.
Speaker 5: Does that have an in truth?
Speaker 9: Are you making fun of my accent?
Speaker 5: I didn't know you had an accent? Are you saying
Speaker 5: you had an accent?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 7: You know I'm Spanish?
Speaker 9: What do you want waiting on from your man?
Speaker 14: Come on, man?
Speaker 5: You called yourself inquisitor. I don't know you. Could you
Speaker 5: call me? You call me an Eastern European? You call
Speaker 5: me an Eastern European.
Speaker 7: I didn't. I was wondering if you were, because.
Speaker 5: I mean, if you're like, can't you tell I'm a Serb?
Speaker 5: I'm Serbian? There you go all right, thank you. I'm
Speaker 5: just joking.
Speaker 7: Western European countries. Uh, many of them were Orthodox.
Speaker 5: Well, that was what he was saying. He's like, I
Speaker 5: don't know, I don't know what that guy was saying.
Speaker 5: That trying me mean to him. But Eli, what's up, dude? Eli?
Speaker 5: What's up?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 5: Don't sit on any don't sit on any walls up high.
Speaker 5: You might fall over.
Speaker 7: Hey man, can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 7: Great? Great? First of all, I just want to say
Speaker 7: thank you for your hard work. Man. I listened to
Speaker 7: you as as much as I can. If you're doing
Speaker 7: the large work.
Speaker 15: Brothers.
Speaker 14: I just wanted to know what I should look for
Speaker 14: when choosing an Orthodox church because I'm going.
Speaker 7: To make UH. I want to cover from being a.
Speaker 10: Protestant to Orthodoxy because of you and Andrew Wilson's So.
Speaker 5: I would say, you know, uh, try to find UH.
Speaker 5: I would visit all the Orthodox churches around you. I
Speaker 5: wouldn't immediately worry so much about what jurisdiction is.
Speaker 2: UH.
Speaker 5: See which one you detect tis the most uh conservative
Speaker 5: types of views, the priest that's the best you know
Speaker 5: person for you personally, and make the decision in that way.
Speaker 5: I wouldn't worry too much about the other subjects, but
Speaker 5: definitely just check out what's around you. Franken Nader, Uh,
Speaker 5: we got a rebellious bastard atheist. He's gonna set us straight.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 5: I got an apparently, I got an honorary serb title
Speaker 5: from some of the people in the chat. Serbs love me, dude. Well,
Speaker 5: serbs are always like reaching out. Have some kind of
Speaker 5: serb kindred. I don't know what's going on?
Speaker 8: What's up? Man?
Speaker 5: Got on you? What's up?
Speaker 9: Okay?
Speaker 7: So that is anthidats he owns the.
Speaker 5: You call me from a toll booth. You call me
Speaker 5: from a phone booth. No, no, it sounds like a
Speaker 5: phone booth.
Speaker 9: Man.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: If it doesn't sound.
Speaker 5: Good, you call him fro nineteen eighty seven on the
Speaker 5: phone booth. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: My question is orthodoxy?
Speaker 12: I told thee of scripture? Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 5: Yeah? Not maybe basically yeah, but not in like the
Speaker 5: kjav only type of mindset.
Speaker 14: Well, just honest questions.
Speaker 16: How do you reconcile the factual?
Speaker 12: Inerrants he's a scripture?
Speaker 5: Well, there are so.
Speaker 16: Diverges from known fact, right, like, for instance, the flood
Speaker 16: that never happened.
Speaker 5: Or hold on, how do you know there was no
Speaker 5: flood when ancient writing Let's say this.
Speaker 7: Hold on, let's say this science says it didn't happen.
Speaker 5: How do you know that science is correct? As if
Speaker 5: science is one entity that speaks with one authoritative voice.
Speaker 5: So you have an assumption that you can.
Speaker 7: Justify verifiable data, right.
Speaker 5: How do you what does that even mean? To verify?
Speaker 5: How do you know that it's verified? Have you actually verified?
Speaker 5: Are you trusting the quote science?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 17: I guess you have to do the best you can
Speaker 17: to understand the size and make your own conclusion.
Speaker 5: Okay, so we all got to get PhDs and engineering
Speaker 5: degrees in every field to know absolutely not.
Speaker 4: You don't have to have a PhD.
Speaker 5: Oh, so you rely on experts. So you rely on experts,
Speaker 5: of course. Okay, so how do you know which experts
Speaker 5: are right.
Speaker 7: The ones that can be verified?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 5: So, well, but you said that we follow the experts.
Speaker 5: That's just you just made a circular argument, So we
Speaker 5: follow the experts.
Speaker 12: Here's what I'm asking. I'm asking if you are basing
Speaker 12: your belief in street sure solely on scripture?
Speaker 5: No, I'm not. I believe that there's logical arguments that
Speaker 5: are prior to science, that I base it on prior.
Speaker 18: Okay, that's my only question.
Speaker 7: I have a question.
Speaker 9: A good thing good.
Speaker 12: There's a lot that don't.
Speaker 2: Do you?
Speaker 10: You do know that science can't even from science, get
Speaker 10: to any knowledge claims.
Speaker 5: How do you figure how does science verify the scientific method?
Speaker 5: Because it works, so anything that works as so anything
Speaker 5: that works. So here we go. So this is a
Speaker 5: people have no idea what they're talking about. It's not
Speaker 5: even worth talking to this guy. It's a waste of time, right, clan,
Speaker 5: see what's up? That's not going to go anywhere. Welcome everybody.
Speaker 5: We're having open for him.
Speaker 7: Hellocan guys here.
Speaker 5: Tom Clinton, So what's up?
Speaker 4: Tom Clancy?
Speaker 14: So I'm new to orthodoxy, so give me some grace
Speaker 14: that this is a bit of a basic question.
Speaker 7: But I have heard you use curse words before, and
Speaker 7: so doesn't the Bible tell us to stay.
Speaker 2: Away from fillow language and profanity.
Speaker 5: Yes, and that's why you should not listen to me,
Speaker 5: and you should go find the pious men that you support. Steven,
Speaker 5: what's up? I'm gonna say a curse worrid poop. Oh,
Speaker 5: I just did it. I just just got wrecked? What's
Speaker 5: up by? Like, where in the Bible are there quote
Speaker 5: curse words they might know? Can you show me the
Speaker 5: verse where there's curse words? Did you know that in
Speaker 5: the King James Bible it says that people piss it
Speaker 5: against a wall? So I'm confused. Is that a curse
Speaker 5: word or what? What is it about the letters s
Speaker 5: h I T that are evil letters? Versus is the
Speaker 5: letters pop which are acceptable letters? Go ahead? Stuff on?
Speaker 5: What's up?
Speaker 6: Man?
Speaker 5: You have to unmute.
Speaker 2: Hi?
Speaker 11: Can you hear me now?
Speaker 9: Yes?
Speaker 12: Sir oh hi, sir h.
Speaker 19: I'm gonna listen to some debates, and it seems like
Speaker 19: a lot of Christians kind of agree on the same things,
Speaker 19: but they may disagree on specifics, like I guess with
Speaker 19: the Orthodoxy when it comes to the Holy Ghost. Now
Speaker 19: my question is it's not exactly about the Holy Ghost,
Speaker 19: but it seems like these debates is like, well, scripture
Speaker 19: says this, and they reconfirmed the scripture with scripture and scripture.
Speaker 19: So I'm kind of curious, like do all verses carry
Speaker 19: the same weight. So let's say, for instance, well, the
Speaker 19: Holy Ghost says this thing and it's backed up, and
Speaker 19: the orthodox will back it up with five scriptures, but
Speaker 19: that the Catholics will say, the Holy Ghost says this,
Speaker 19: but it's backed up with four scriptures.
Speaker 5: Like I mean, it has nothing to do with the
Speaker 5: number of verses or this or that. It has to
Speaker 5: do with the interpretation of the verses. So the verses
Speaker 5: don't like self interpret or self authenticate. You have to
Speaker 5: interpret the verses. So you're talking about a question of
Speaker 5: like piling up numbers of verses and the fact that
Speaker 5: Orthodox disagree with Catholics, Like, none of that has anything
Speaker 5: to do with which positions true or false. So that's
Speaker 5: really I'm not trying to be mean to you. I'm
Speaker 5: just saying that has nothing to do with which positions right,
Speaker 5: who's got more quotes or using more quotes or.
Speaker 19: Whatever, Because it seems like when these debates happen, they're like, well,
Speaker 19: we got all these scriptures to back up.
Speaker 12: What I'm saying, and then I got all these scriptures
Speaker 12: back up.
Speaker 7: What I'm saying.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but that has nothing to do with which positions
Speaker 5: to or false?
Speaker 12: So what Well, I was kind of curious.
Speaker 19: So let's say, for instance, like Jesus says something right,
Speaker 19: but then someone would say, well, Paul and Peter and
Speaker 19: Timothy said this, that kind of contradicts what Jesus says.
Speaker 19: So whose verse or whose word has the most weight
Speaker 19: would be Jesus or three other authors.
Speaker 5: We don't think there's any contradictions between Jesus and his apostle.
Speaker 5: We think that Jesus inspired and taught his apostles what
Speaker 5: to teach and providentially guided them to not teach error.
Speaker 5: So there's no contradiction between Jesus and Paul or whatever.
Speaker 19: I mustn't necessarily saying contradictions, but maybe a little difference.
Speaker 5: Well, I would say, I would say that in the
Speaker 5: Orthodox position, we do take the Gospels to have a
Speaker 5: higher status and honor in the liturgy, but that doesn't
Speaker 5: mean that they're like different than the teaching of Paul.
Speaker 19: Okay, okay, Yeah, So I saw this debate with Trent
Speaker 19: horn In, a Protestant about once say it and always say,
Speaker 19: then they're going to do a scripture, and it's like,
Speaker 19: you know, I see so much people pine on scripture
Speaker 19: on top of each other and stuff, and I just like,
Speaker 19: I agree with you, and that's probably where the church
Speaker 19: comes in.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, I would agree, I would agree with you
Speaker 5: that you can't like, a lot of times these disputes
Speaker 5: are not going to be solved in an evidentialist stack
Speaker 5: them up manner. But Trent Horn is an evidentialist, and
Speaker 5: so he thinks that you just stack up one two
Speaker 5: evidences and then people will just look at the evidences
Speaker 5: and they'll just choose because we're all honest and we're
Speaker 5: all neutral. When I don't think that that's true at all.
Speaker 5: None of that's true.
Speaker 12: Yeah, So that's that's been my big struggle.
Speaker 19: I'm pretty much agnostic, and I've listened to you guys,
Speaker 19: and you guys like totally crushed the choice of becoming
Speaker 19: a Muslim or Jehovah witnesses or Mormon.
Speaker 12: You guys definitely pointed me towards the trinity.
Speaker 5: So well, we crushed the Roman position too.
Speaker 12: Well, I see that too, But I'm going back. I'm
Speaker 12: trying to do my due diligence on the homework.
Speaker 19: And that's why I was thinking, like, well, we got
Speaker 19: these two Christians, you know, having a differential opinion on specifics,
Speaker 19: and I was kind of wondering, well, what does term is?
Speaker 12: What's more specific?
Speaker 19: Pilon on scripture on top of each other, or see
Speaker 19: who which author or Jesus as a word has more
Speaker 19: weight to when they speak. Now, I see what you're
Speaker 19: saying that what Jesus and the apostles are on.
Speaker 12: The same page, So I'm just kind of curious.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, I don't think I actually I understand your question.
Speaker 5: I just don't think either of those things is really
Speaker 5: going to be the solution, because, you know, if it's
Speaker 5: like a debate between an Orthodox and a Roman Catholic,
Speaker 5: usually those debates involve so much history, so much you know,
Speaker 5: biblical material, that they're not going to solve it or
Speaker 5: convince people typically unless they're really low tier lo tier voters,
Speaker 5: low information voters. They're only going to convince those people
Speaker 5: with really low tiers because usually it's going to take
Speaker 5: like knowing all the Bible and knowing a lot of
Speaker 5: the Church fathers. And so that's the difficult part is
Speaker 5: the learning curve that's involved, and most of the time
Speaker 5: people are just kind of approaching these hotly contested issues
Speaker 5: with little to no knowledge at all, and so they
Speaker 5: just oftentimes fall for unfortunately very bad arguments. And what
Speaker 5: you're talking about stack whoever quotes stacks the most proofs,
Speaker 5: but the proofs are only as good as the accuracy
Speaker 5: of the interpretation. I mean, I could stack up a
Speaker 5: bunch of proofs from Muslim and Job's witness websites to
Speaker 5: give the impression that Jesus is subordinate to the Father
Speaker 5: and a creature, but you would quickly find out, as
Speaker 5: if you investigated that, that those texts are misinterpreted and
Speaker 5: not in harmony with all the other texts that talk
Speaker 5: about not just the distinction between the father and son,
Speaker 5: but also the equality between the father and sons. It's
Speaker 5: a both and but a lot of heresies. You're actually
Speaker 5: correct rely on actually picking one verse, and that's the
Speaker 5: lynchpin of everything. Every other verse in scripture hangs on
Speaker 5: their interpretation of you know, classic example, Jesus says, you know,
Speaker 5: no one is good but God, the Father. You know,
Speaker 5: there's one God, the Father, et cetera. So that mess
Speaker 5: must mean therefore that Jesus isn't divine, and that's just
Speaker 5: simply not true. Ten full hat, what's up?
Speaker 7: Man?
Speaker 5: You got it? I'm mute. Thank you guys for the
Speaker 5: super chests. Appreciate that you gotta. I'm mute, man, Frank,
Speaker 5: I mean Fred, excuse me, fred X instead of fed
Speaker 5: X that Fred, do you want to talk?
Speaker 7: All right?
Speaker 5: Fred doesn't want to talk?
Speaker 13: Hello?
Speaker 5: Hello, Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 9: Hey? Hey?
Speaker 20: You don I was just wondering, do you think Orthodoxy
Speaker 20: is Catholicism for hipsters?
Speaker 5: I mean, was it Catholicism for hipsters in the first
Speaker 5: thousand years of Christianity?
Speaker 20: I don't have And also, do you think the drones
Speaker 20: are an attempt to start a cargo cult?
Speaker 5: Start of what cargo cult? A cargo cult? That's funny. Yeah,
Speaker 5: that was a good one. Fada. By the way, we
Speaker 5: got twelve hundred people and three hundred likes. Y'all don't
Speaker 5: like this dream? If you like this dream, why don't
Speaker 5: you like it? I don't understand what what we got?
Speaker 5: Is it all three hundred likers and seven eight hundred
Speaker 5: and twelve hundred haters? What's going on? Fata? What's up?
Speaker 5: I'm you? Why are you raising your hand?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, I'm raising my hand because I'm European, I'm Greek,
Speaker 4: so I tried to be polite. I've been in some spaces, well,
Speaker 4: entering the space Jay. However, I asked in the bubble
Speaker 4: or whatever you call it, the chat, what's the debate
Speaker 4: about I see Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, mostly Matheists versus Jay Dyer,
Speaker 4: and I asked, what's the debate about? Because I couldn't
Speaker 4: figure out. I'm here for fifteen minutes, now are against you?
Speaker 5: The topics that are listed are the topics of the
Speaker 5: churches and their theology and the religion.
Speaker 4: So yes, okay, all right? Then if I may introduce
Speaker 4: another religion of which I'm not part anymore as a church,
Speaker 4: but I'm part of it as a as a person
Speaker 4: who used common sense and show that uh, the observations
Speaker 4: not teachings exactly of that man. That man was Ellen Hubbard.
Speaker 4: You probably know him, and I have been into scientology,
Speaker 4: which is another religion.
Speaker 5: It's an interesting you're the Greek scientology guy. I've be
Speaker 5: called in here before.
Speaker 4: I don't remember if I was here with you before
Speaker 4: I had you as a follower.
Speaker 5: Okay, So why why would we believe a guy who
Speaker 5: comes out of Crowley's colt?
Speaker 4: So sorry, sorry, why would we believe.
Speaker 5: A guy who comes out of Alistair Crowley's cult?
Speaker 4: Because I think that the whole debate here is based
Speaker 4: on on remarks by people and not on actual data.
Speaker 4: Well that that you probably know.
Speaker 5: Okay, so is that is out that I also create
Speaker 5: a cult where it's a grad school to create your
Speaker 5: own cult? Is that true or false?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 4: That's totally false because what I know has nothing to
Speaker 4: do with that Crawley.
Speaker 5: But wait a minute, al Ron Hubbard went through the
Speaker 5: ranks of Crowley's cult and then start his cult. That's
Speaker 5: what I'm saying. Yeah, okay, so it has nothing to
Speaker 5: do with Crowley. I just okay, no.
Speaker 4: But but look, first of all, I just don't want
Speaker 4: to you know, either hijack or the space or whatever.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to mention that scientology is, indeed a
Speaker 4: very more promising religion though it has been.
Speaker 5: How do you know it's true.
Speaker 4: Because I've I've done it for thirty or more.
Speaker 5: Yes, you've done it is the proof that it's true.
Speaker 4: No, No, Look, if you if you want to discuss
Speaker 4: some in the chat topic, if you want to discuss sorry,
Speaker 4: I'm a foreign language speaker, so sometimes I miss some things.
Speaker 4: If you want to talk a little bit slower so
Speaker 4: I can fully do.
Speaker 5: How do you know that it's true? What's the argument
Speaker 5: for scientology being true?
Speaker 4: Funny, Well, it's like it's like I'm asking you, how
Speaker 4: do you know the Bible is true?
Speaker 5: I'm happy to answer that question. I'm happy to give
Speaker 5: an answer that question.
Speaker 9: Question.
Speaker 4: Huh, Well, tell me why? Why is the Bible truth?
Speaker 5: I'll go to that when we when we get the
Speaker 5: answer from you first, all.
Speaker 4: Right, it's not true. An answer to me, why is
Speaker 4: the Bible truth?
Speaker 5: Then I'm happy to address that issue, and I'm going
Speaker 5: to use the transcendental argument. But before we get to that,
Speaker 5: I want to know why scientology is.
Speaker 4: True because for me it has worked. It has worked.
Speaker 5: Do you think you think that's a good argument for
Speaker 5: something to be true? Because it's subjectively what works for you.
Speaker 5: I could say that about anything. I could. I could
Speaker 5: say I could say that the uh, I don't know,
Speaker 5: the motor oil that goes into my car works for me.
Speaker 5: So does that make it true you as a religion?
Speaker 4: Well, I think the metaphor is a little bit shallow.
Speaker 4: So let's let's get a little bit of realistic here, because.
Speaker 5: You well, it's a fallacy, is what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 5: It's a fallacy to say that because it quote works,
Speaker 5: that it's therefore true. Look, yes, I have.
Speaker 4: Done five TV shows on the Greek television.
Speaker 5: I don't care how many TVs like I give a
Speaker 5: ship about how many TV shows you do?
Speaker 4: Could you? Could you listen and not interrupting.
Speaker 5: It has nothing to do with your TV show productions,
Speaker 5: have nothing to do with weather scientology.
Speaker 4: The spaces remind me of the TV show Nobody Can Talk,
Speaker 4: Nobody Can make.
Speaker 5: This is just like crazy person gn what's up?
Speaker 7: Hello, Jack?
Speaker 21: Hey, I sent you some DMS regarding this interesting KI
Speaker 21: theology that people been creating on blockchain, and it's pretty
Speaker 21: heavily funded by a lot of prominent tech investors that
Speaker 21: are getting recent notoriety.
Speaker 7: Because of all the Trump election stuff.
Speaker 12: So I wanted to bring that up.
Speaker 9: But other than that, you check it out.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 21: I have a fortunate of being baptized and raised Greek Orthodox,
Speaker 21: and so it's it's been interesting because I've I've always
Speaker 21: considered it to be the truth daith and I've never
Speaker 21: had to really argue against it. So it's interesting to
Speaker 21: hear the debates and the argument for it. So I
Speaker 21: will appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you, appreciate your information there. I'll check it out.
Speaker 9: Yeah, thanks man, I'm.
Speaker 5: Blocking that boomer Rick. What's up? People that like like
Speaker 5: that like they just they'll just yap the entire time,
Speaker 5: they'll sap all the energy and the whole conversation, and
Speaker 5: that they'll never listen to what you're saying. They have
Speaker 5: no idea what a debate is. They don't know what
Speaker 5: policies are, they don't care. It's just yapping NonStop. What's up?
Speaker 2: Rick?
Speaker 5: I'm mute. I will give him credit. He's the first
Speaker 5: scientologist who's ever come to a space to quote debate,
Speaker 5: even though he didn't want a debate. I'm sorry people
Speaker 5: think that coming to a debate is preaching. What's up?
Speaker 7: Rick? Hey, how you doing well?
Speaker 9: I I was.
Speaker 7: The debate is.
Speaker 20: What Catholic, Orthodox, biasid Muslims and atheists are religions?
Speaker 7: Or which is the best?
Speaker 5: Can you turn your TV down over? I can't hear you, man?
Speaker 9: Oh sure, okay, sorry, okay, yeah.
Speaker 5: The debate. The debate is which of these is correct?
Speaker 5: And people from those positions debating each other. I'm Orthodox,
Speaker 5: so I defend that position.
Speaker 9: Oh okay, well, I got nothing arguing with you about us.
Speaker 18: Okay, right, thanks, Rick, appreciate it. Warren Warren, what's up man?
Speaker 5: Warren? G nay dog?
Speaker 2: War So I just wanted to ask you a question,
Speaker 2: paras time.
Speaker 5: What is the topic of the debate today?
Speaker 2: Yes, but they're really this topic.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you for coming with absolutely nothing wrong of
Speaker 5: my good job. Three d Anton, what's up? Go watch
Speaker 5: my videos on the subject.
Speaker 9: Hey, So I'm not particularly interested in a debate, but
Speaker 9: I I wanted to ask a question. I guess that
Speaker 9: just occurred to me while I was listening. So I
Speaker 9: am a person of no faith, right, and I have
Speaker 9: always had trouble when people want to ask people to, like,
Speaker 9: you know, explain the Trinity, right, because I just don't
Speaker 9: understand it. I think there's you know, like an identity
Speaker 9: claim being made here that just seems incoherent, right and
Speaker 9: any But the problem is, anytime I ask someone to
Speaker 9: explain it to me, they they usually just say like, oh,
Speaker 9: it's it's complicated, go study it or something.
Speaker 5: But what do you mean an identity claim?
Speaker 9: Right? So? I mean the claim that you know, like
Speaker 9: Jesus and Nazareth is identical to God and you know.
Speaker 5: Uh, well, I mean that's the revelation that's given a
Speaker 5: script for us, so right, right.
Speaker 9: So so I just mean, I just mean, this is
Speaker 9: like it seems fairly incoherent to me.
Speaker 5: And so why why is it incoherent?
Speaker 9: Because obviously Jesus has a lot of properties like Jesus
Speaker 9: and Nazareth is finite, he's contingent, he's a human being.
Speaker 5: Well, those are properties that is human nature, so that wouldn't.
Speaker 9: Have a So this is what I mean, though, this
Speaker 9: is this doesn't really make sense to me. How does
Speaker 9: that work?
Speaker 5: Well, that's a fallacy because something doesn't make sense to
Speaker 5: you that it's there for false. That has nothing to
Speaker 5: do with whether it's true fault.
Speaker 9: But this is, this is what I'm asking, though I'm
Speaker 9: not like I.
Speaker 5: Mean, I'm trying to answer, and you keep interrupting every
Speaker 5: time I now here we go. Yeah, So why is
Speaker 5: it a problem to say that his human nature, which
Speaker 5: if something is created as human nature, is it's going
Speaker 5: to have the properties of being a creature? Why was that?
Speaker 5: Why would that be a quote contradiction or contrary to
Speaker 5: divinity taking on and having a both and versus an
Speaker 5: either or So your assumption is that has to be
Speaker 5: either or either Jesus is no longer divine and becomes finite,
Speaker 5: and that it can't be both, and why.
Speaker 9: Because that I mean at that point, you're just not
Speaker 9: You're no longer making the claim that Jesus is identical.
Speaker 5: To God, right if if he has no he's the
Speaker 5: second person of the Godhead, the son taking on human nature.
Speaker 9: How that actually works though? Right? So, so like, are
Speaker 9: you making an identity claim here or are you not right?
Speaker 5: He is the son of God, he is fully divine,
Speaker 5: He's the second person of the Godhead. So you're saying that,
Speaker 5: I guess your argument is that the Trinity itself is
Speaker 5: in coherent.
Speaker 9: Why, Well, this is what I came to talk to
Speaker 9: you about, right, I Like, I'm just saying when I
Speaker 9: ask people about it, usually they tell me to go
Speaker 9: study it is complicated.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm happy to address and make the argument for
Speaker 5: the trinity. So I want to know first why something
Speaker 5: being one in many is? Why is something being one
Speaker 5: in many incoherent?
Speaker 9: Because again that that just obviously seems like a contradiction.
Speaker 5: Okay, because you call it obviously a contradiction. Okay, So
Speaker 5: the numbers, the number, you know, the number three is
Speaker 5: both one and three at the same time. Is that
Speaker 5: therefore a contradiction.
Speaker 9: That I just denied the claim? Like, I don't think
Speaker 9: the number three, number one. I'm not I'm not a
Speaker 9: numerical realist, right, so I don't think the numbers.
Speaker 5: It doesn't matter whether you think that it has objected.
Speaker 5: I didn't even ask you about the ontological status of
Speaker 5: the number. I just simply said, whatever you have, why
Speaker 5: you keep interrupting me when I do? Why do you?
Speaker 5: Because I'm using it as an example. Even if you
Speaker 5: think that it's not an ontologically real thing, whatever realness
Speaker 5: it has or lack thereof, it is both three and
Speaker 5: one at the same time. Likewise, objects in the natural
Speaker 5: world have multiple reality. They have a multiplicity to them
Speaker 5: at the same time as being a unity. So there's
Speaker 5: nothing inherently contradictory about something being one and many.
Speaker 9: So can you give an example of something in the
Speaker 9: natural world that's the appropriate.
Speaker 5: Any object in the natural world has a unit of
Speaker 5: aspect to it to make of that object as well
Speaker 5: as the whole the parts that make it up. So
Speaker 5: all mariology which is partial relationships.
Speaker 9: But usually when I try, and you know, suggest that
Speaker 9: to people who believe in the trinity, that's a harrisy
Speaker 9: called modalism, right or isn't it?
Speaker 5: Or no, I'm not arguing that there's a one to
Speaker 5: one correspondence between the created object and God. I'm saying
Speaker 5: that there's nothing inherently contradictive about something being one and
Speaker 5: many at the same time, right, And so then your
Speaker 5: original contention doesn't work for the trinity being a contradiction.
Speaker 9: Let me let me talk.
Speaker 5: Okay, now, you let me talk. You're on my stream
Speaker 5: and you keep interrupting me every time I give you
Speaker 5: an answer to here you go get what's the problem
Speaker 5: with the one of the many?
Speaker 9: Right? So the issue is when I suggest that the
Speaker 9: relation between you know, the persons of the Godhead and
Speaker 9: the God right, what it might be like the relation
Speaker 9: between you know, a whole and it's compositive.
Speaker 5: There's nothing wrong with that.
Speaker 9: And that's not what they're saying, right, that's a heresy.
Speaker 5: Called motiv No, you're misunderstanding. That's why I just told you.
Speaker 5: It's not a one to one correspondence. I'm saying that
Speaker 5: even in the work that it does, it does know,
Speaker 5: it works to show that there's nothing inherently contradictory about
Speaker 5: something being one and many because it's true.
Speaker 9: In the it's.
Speaker 5: True in the if it's true in the shut up.
Speaker 5: It is like it it's an analogy. You don't know
Speaker 5: what an analogy is. You don't think I can make
Speaker 5: an analogy.
Speaker 9: The analogy, but you just a mission. The analogy doesn't
Speaker 9: work because.
Speaker 5: It's you're not even listening to what I'm saying. I'm
Speaker 5: saying that it's not inherently contradictory in the cre created realm,
Speaker 5: and so therefore you can't say that it's therefore contradictory
Speaker 5: in any other realm.
Speaker 9: That's the point I'm as.
Speaker 5: I just refuted your point. Did you not hear what
Speaker 5: I said? I'm asking can you restate what my argument was?
Speaker 5: Can you restate it? Can you re say.
Speaker 9: That you agreed with me that this is not actually.
Speaker 5: I said, it's an analogy, not one to one correspondence.
Speaker 9: Okay, so then how is that supposed to help me
Speaker 9: understand it?
Speaker 5: Because if it's not a contradiction in the created realm,
Speaker 5: there's no basis to say it's therefore a contradiction against.
Speaker 9: On God, I'm trying to understand the cling, though I'm not.
Speaker 9: I'm not saying that it's a contradiction.
Speaker 7: Right man.
Speaker 5: If the problem of that you did know, now you're
Speaker 5: lying because you said at the beginning. It was a contradiction.
Speaker 5: You said the Trinity was a contradiction at the beginning,
Speaker 5: and I'm showing you that there's no necessity.
Speaker 9: You don't get it.
Speaker 5: You're wasting our time. Yeah, because you're not listening to
Speaker 5: the argument, and you're not addressing what I'm telling you.
Speaker 5: You just keep stating your original position over and over. Yeah,
Speaker 5: he ran away. I didn't block him. He ran away. Joe, right,
Speaker 5: I just want to hear my voice talk and talk
Speaker 5: ARETI believe numbers are real. He argued at the very
Speaker 5: beginning that the Trinity is contradictory and incoherent. By the way,
Speaker 5: if something is incoherent, then by extension it's a contradiction.
Speaker 5: And then he's saying I never said it with a contradiction.
Speaker 5: Itheists are such liars, dude. I can't stand these people.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, But I mean, if you're an atheist or
Speaker 5: is nothing wrong with line?
Speaker 7: Go ahead?
Speaker 5: What's up? Joe Hey?
Speaker 9: Hello? Hello hearing? Yes, Okay, sorry, I was just wondering.
Speaker 15: Obviously you're orthodox anti papists. Inquotation marks the whole first
Speaker 15: millennium Church had absolutely succession of popes from Peter. So
Speaker 15: I'm just I haven't heard your argument as to I mean,
Speaker 15: there's been a valid pope since Peter, Right.
Speaker 5: Maybe it would befit you to actually learn some of
Speaker 5: the basics of the positions before bringing something like that.
Speaker 5: I mean, you don't think that we know that? Do
Speaker 5: you not know that there's three patron seas according to
Speaker 5: people in the West like Gregory the Great? Do you
Speaker 5: know what the three patron seas are? No, So why
Speaker 5: would you come with this kind of argument if you
Speaker 5: don't even know that? Well, not necessarily, it's basic church history, man.
Speaker 4: Okay, So maybe what.
Speaker 5: Three seeds did Peter found? What three seeds did Peter found?
Speaker 15: You're saying the three churches room?
Speaker 12: What was the Antioch?
Speaker 5: Yeah? And the other one Alexandria. Okay, Peter didn't found.
Speaker 9: Yeah, Sorry, I was guessing on that third one.
Speaker 4: But if you could just, I don't know.
Speaker 5: Give me a yeah. I So, if those are all
Speaker 5: petrine seas as late as Pope Saint Gregory the Great,
Speaker 5: you have the burden of proof to tell me why
Speaker 5: I'm supposed to believe the vatican One view of the
Speaker 5: papacy in the first millennium, which the Vatican now admits
Speaker 5: in the chi eighty and Alexandria documents was not the
Speaker 5: view of the first millennium.
Speaker 15: Okay, okay, I see, so I was just trying to
Speaker 15: get you to clarify your position.
Speaker 9: Warm So really the problem is with Vatican one and two.
Speaker 5: Well, the problem is that your church evolved to have
Speaker 5: all these wild claims like in the Middle Ages, when
Speaker 5: the Dictatus Pope and when I'm Sanctum documents claim that
Speaker 5: the Pope is the world emperor and that if you
Speaker 5: don't believe the Pope is the world emperor, you're damned.
Speaker 5: Do you believe that?
Speaker 15: I've been raised Catholic? So yeah, right, we submits to
Speaker 15: the pope.
Speaker 5: And okay, so you think that it's okay for the
Speaker 5: Pope to say you have to believe that I'm the
Speaker 5: world emperor and if you don't believe in that, you're damned.
Speaker 15: Well, I do believe believe that there's one true holy
Speaker 15: as What did.
Speaker 5: I just ask you? Why are you changing the subject?
Speaker 5: You said you do you believe what Unum sucked them
Speaker 5: and Dictatus pape say that the Pope is the world
Speaker 5: emperor and that you must believe that to be saved.
Speaker 9: That's really where I'm at Jay.
Speaker 4: You you are the leading you I am I am.
Speaker 5: Can you not tell me where you believe that?
Speaker 15: I don't know, because that's where I'm at.
Speaker 9: Is what I'm saying is between Catholic and Orthodox.
Speaker 5: Okay, So if you go and read these documents like
Speaker 5: Unum sunk them. I'm not making the argument. I'm not
Speaker 5: trying to be mean to you, but I don't understand
Speaker 5: why Roman Catholics always think I'm saying that that this
Speaker 5: is some argument about whether or not you got to
Speaker 5: be in the Roman calol Church to be saved. No, no, no,
Speaker 5: this is about the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop, which,
Speaker 5: by the time of yeah, that you have to believe
Speaker 5: that he is a world emperor to be saved. That's
Speaker 5: another thing to believe. To be said, that's crazy. Do
Speaker 5: you think anybody in the first thousand years of Christianity
Speaker 5: believed that the pope was a world emperor and that
Speaker 5: you had to believe that to be saved?
Speaker 12: I have I have to agree with you.
Speaker 15: It does seem like the Roman Empire kind of push that, right, Well, it's.
Speaker 5: Not the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire becomes Byzantium. This
Speaker 5: is pushed by the Franco Papal Church of the West,
Speaker 5: not the not the Roman, not the Byzantine Empire.
Speaker 9: Right right now, I see what you're saying there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So what was that?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 5: Two articles Dictatus Pope and unam sunktum okay I will
Speaker 5: and when I'm sang, Tom says that you have to
Speaker 5: believe that the pope is the world emperor to be saved.
Speaker 5: Not just that you have to be in Rome to
Speaker 5: be saved. You must also believe that the Pope is
Speaker 5: King of kings and Emperor of emperors, or else you're
Speaker 5: not saved.
Speaker 2: Jamie, Hello, can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I just had a quick question.
Speaker 16: I was watching one of your past live streams, and
Speaker 16: I think you mentioned something about priests that went to
Speaker 16: seminary at the one in New York.
Speaker 4: I think it's like Saint Vladimir.
Speaker 16: Would you recommend steering away from churches that have priests
Speaker 16: that went to that seminary?
Speaker 5: No, not necessarily. I mean a lot of Orthodox people
Speaker 5: have gone to Sin Vladimir, So that itself is not
Speaker 5: going to tell you anything good or bad. It's just
Speaker 5: that there was a period when they got pretty liberal.
Speaker 5: The last I heard was that they were moving in
Speaker 5: the right direction. But I don't know. I don't keep
Speaker 5: up with Saint Latimir's But no, I would not say
Speaker 5: that that necessarily means that somebody's going to be, you know,
Speaker 5: liberal or something. So today we're looking for who disagree.
Speaker 5: So we've got a lot of people now in the chat,
Speaker 5: fifteen people in line. If you're here for frequently asked
Speaker 5: catechumen questions, please do not do that today. This is
Speaker 5: not FAQ day. I want people who disagree. That's why
Speaker 5: it says debate Kathy arth problem was on atheist, So
Speaker 5: please don't clog it up. If you just want your
Speaker 5: FAQ catechumen questions answered, well, trum be mean to you.
Speaker 5: It's just like this never fails the real JSP. What's up.
Speaker 7: Jay there?
Speaker 14: Yes, sir, so, uh, you can go a couple of
Speaker 14: different ways ahead of it.
Speaker 5: Sounds like we're about to have a fight, and you're like, listen, man,
Speaker 5: it's about to go a couple of different ways. While
Speaker 5: here you're going to get a step up and get
Speaker 5: your ass beat. Now go ahead.
Speaker 14: Well, we can have a theological discussion of more of
Speaker 14: an epistemic one sure, whatever, But so well, first, this
Speaker 14: is really simple. Your boy Dugan claims that Trump is
Speaker 14: the cat coult.
Speaker 7: What are your thoughts?
Speaker 5: How is my boy? How is Dugan my boy?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 14: Well, let's just say that was a throwaway description just
Speaker 14: based on similarities. I've noticed you mentioned him a lot
Speaker 14: and certain things that sounded.
Speaker 5: I mentioned a lot. When was the last time I
Speaker 5: mentioned Dugan? Seven years ago?
Speaker 7: You that often? Oh? No, it's quite more recent than that.
Speaker 7: But oh really do you disagree? Though?
Speaker 5: Where are the examples of me pushing Dugan?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 7: I didn't say you push him.
Speaker 5: You just said I mentioned him quite a lot.
Speaker 14: So yeah, that's not really pushing though, right. Just uh,
Speaker 14: I've seen you at least three times in the past.
Speaker 14: I certainly don't have a yeah, so again.
Speaker 5: Podcasts from twenty seventeen twenty eighteen.
Speaker 7: I'm pretty sure you.
Speaker 14: Mentioned one Jones a couple of times recently.
Speaker 5: No, not sure, Okay, So never mentioned Alexander Dugan on
Speaker 5: Jones that I recall, So what if I didn't mention him.
Speaker 5: I've made multiple times clear where I disagree with Alexander Dugan,
Speaker 5: particularly his gnostic chapters at the end of his book.
Speaker 5: So this is just like low tier, like trying to
Speaker 5: poison the well. Crap that people bring all the time
Speaker 5: where they act like I'm a Duganist, which is just
Speaker 5: dumb because I literal really have like countless live streams.
Speaker 5: I literally have countless live streams refuting gnosticism. So to
Speaker 5: come in here and call me a duganus is just silly.
Speaker 14: I think you're overstating what you know the statement you're
Speaker 14: a boy.
Speaker 7: So do you think Trump catech rightly?
Speaker 5: No, I've never made this argument. No, I don't know
Speaker 5: what you're talking about. Next argument.
Speaker 7: So you and your own Brook had a discussion somewhat.
Speaker 14: I mean Brook kind of misrepresents Ran pretty often.
Speaker 5: But oh, so you're an atheist.
Speaker 7: I am an atheist. I'm former minister. I really want
Speaker 7: to ask you a sincere question. We could talk about
Speaker 7: the like metaphysic.
Speaker 5: That's why you came with the poisoning of the well,
Speaker 5: the bullshitted dugan because you want to ask sincere questions.
Speaker 14: I really think I think you're imputing some ill will.
Speaker 14: I'm more of a curious.
Speaker 5: No, it's a it's a passive aggressive thing that I
Speaker 5: can reckon is right away. I mean I've had this
Speaker 5: a million times. Do you think I can't recognize this
Speaker 5: with your condescending giggles. Yeah, yeah, I'm really insecure. Yeah,
Speaker 5: that's why I'm letting you yap.
Speaker 7: I mean aggressive. I'm trying to have a No.
Speaker 5: You're not. This bullshit doesn't work with me, dude, Come on,
Speaker 5: get to your point. No, enough with the condescending giggle. Dude,
Speaker 5: it's just it's just it's just worthy of being made
Speaker 5: fun of.
Speaker 7: Okay, do you.
Speaker 5: Have an argument?
Speaker 14: I was going to ask you a sincere question.
Speaker 5: Okay, what's the argument?
Speaker 7: What uses your faith given that you will suffer.
Speaker 14: And die under the human condition like every other person
Speaker 14: who ever walked the sirs?
Speaker 5: Is this this is your high tier high i Q
Speaker 5: atheist argument.
Speaker 7: It's a question about why you choose faith.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't. So you don't even understand my position.
Speaker 5: You have no idea what you're talking about. I believe
Speaker 5: that that revelation is so he's not gonna let me talk,
Speaker 5: He's just gonna yap. I believe the divine revelation is
Speaker 5: the ground of reason. So that's totally different from what
Speaker 5: you're arguing.
Speaker 14: So you don't you don't accept that faith? Is it
Speaker 14: a somehow an epistemic justifier.
Speaker 5: No, revelation is the epistemic justifier for logic and reasoning.
Speaker 5: So with the transcendental argument, the very thing I argue
Speaker 5: to your own books in that debate.
Speaker 7: So all right, I'm sorry constraction. Yeah, so you you're
Speaker 7: what does your your faith offer you? What does your belief.
Speaker 5: In Well, for one, it offers a justification for the
Speaker 5: possibility of reasoning at all.
Speaker 14: The possibility of reasoning is not really something that's in
Speaker 14: need of that type of justific case.
Speaker 5: Well, how do you know that? Tell me what episomic
Speaker 5: justification is.
Speaker 7: So which part of it you want to know?
Speaker 5: Well, you said it's not it's not as an apply
Speaker 5: to that, then you would know then what epistemic justification
Speaker 5: is and where it applies. So tell me.
Speaker 14: Yeah, So epistemic justification is about the positive grounds of knowledge, right.
Speaker 5: So what's the positive grounds for believing in reason?
Speaker 14: Well we can go through the relationship of perception to
Speaker 14: abstraction and which one precedes which.
Speaker 5: How do you know that? How do you know that
Speaker 5: perception relates to abstractions at all?
Speaker 7: Because of the logic. First of all, there's a logical relation, but.
Speaker 5: There's also no But I ask you how you know
Speaker 5: there's a relation. You said there's a logical relation. I'm
Speaker 5: asking you how you know that. To tell me there's
Speaker 5: a relation, doesn't tell me how you know that?
Speaker 14: Because you started to discuss self evidence before.
Speaker 5: Oh interesting, So how do we know what's self evident?
Speaker 5: So for me, for you, So it's not universal, it's
Speaker 5: just for you, it's objective.
Speaker 14: No, what I think is the correct term that applies
Speaker 14: to everyone is my premise.
Speaker 7: You know, I think you know the difference.
Speaker 5: How do you know it's self evident?
Speaker 14: So I was gonna say, what is self evident is
Speaker 14: related to direct experience.
Speaker 7: We don't justify direct experience, so I.
Speaker 5: Can disclaim anything. So I can disclaim anything as direct experience,
Speaker 5: and on how to justify it? So God is direct
Speaker 5: experience for men? On how justify it? Would you accept that?
Speaker 14: I would say that the term God is meaningless, that
Speaker 14: anyone who wants to use it as a theoretical object
Speaker 14: would have to lay out their argument.
Speaker 5: Or So what's your answer to hum? Okay? Then then
Speaker 5: what's your answer to human skepticism?
Speaker 9: In what regard?
Speaker 7: You mean?
Speaker 5: Like you're saying that you just follow your perception. You
Speaker 5: follow your perception of the relates somehow to abstractions. What's
Speaker 5: the justification that any perception relates to anything at all?
Speaker 14: My process and my view of justification, it would be
Speaker 14: arbitrary to dismiss the basis of attracted from experience, of
Speaker 14: the relation ship of something to its pattern.
Speaker 5: In other words, that's just begging the question that there
Speaker 5: is a pattern. So that there's a pattern presupposes that
Speaker 5: you're perceiving accurately information in the external world. I'm asking
Speaker 5: for the justification for that. You said it's self evident.
Speaker 7: How do we know that?
Speaker 14: Because there's nothing else to ground it?
Speaker 5: In other words, so that's also a fallacy that you
Speaker 5: claim that you're not aware of anything else to ground
Speaker 5: it doesn't mean that it's grounded. How do you know
Speaker 5: that I know.
Speaker 7: What I'm saying.
Speaker 14: I can go on to say, when we start to
Speaker 14: analyze concepts, if we in fact have a system for
Speaker 14: determining what's a good concept, right, we can see.
Speaker 5: How do you know the system is accurate? You're just
Speaker 5: telling me all these different things, like you're asserting all
Speaker 5: this stuff. What's the system that analyzes.
Speaker 14: Because the reference the content of the words reduced to
Speaker 14: a perceptual reference, and so when have you.
Speaker 5: Ever read Vickenstein? You know't know how Sully? This argument is,
Speaker 5: what's the how do you reduce numbers to perceptions? Where
Speaker 5: where in your perception is the number seven?
Speaker 7: Very simple?
Speaker 14: Very The concept one is synonymous and reduces to the
Speaker 14: concept entity.
Speaker 7: We perceive bounded particulars directly?
Speaker 5: How do you know that you perceive bound in particulars?
Speaker 5: What is the epistemic justification for saying that you that
Speaker 5: you perceive bound in particulars.
Speaker 14: If you in other words, the the epistemic justification must
Speaker 14: terminate in perception because you cannot get underneath that.
Speaker 5: So, in other words, because it must be so. So
Speaker 5: it's a dogmatic assertion that you can't justify. You just
Speaker 5: literally restated the original possession.
Speaker 7: What mean what we mean by existence? Right, we're going
Speaker 7: to stop.
Speaker 5: So you're just making more metaphysical assertions. I want to
Speaker 5: know how that's the case.
Speaker 14: You just keep a certain saying I'm saying that the
Speaker 14: content of any concept.
Speaker 5: Is how do you know that you keep stating some
Speaker 5: metaphysical claim and you don't tell me how you know
Speaker 5: that that's the case.
Speaker 14: So you know, how do I know it's the case
Speaker 14: that existence is primary.
Speaker 5: Any of your assertions that you've made in the last
Speaker 5: five minutes. You just keep asserting things and I'm asking you,
Speaker 5: how do we know that that's the case. What's the
Speaker 5: justification for that? And you said it's still fevident because
Speaker 5: of the perception. Is this is reality? Reality? Is that
Speaker 5: what you're saying? Reality is reality?
Speaker 7: Bro? No, I'm asking you. Let me ask you this
Speaker 7: would No.
Speaker 5: I've been asking you, where's the answer to the to
Speaker 5: the question? You're not you're gonna ask me a question.
Speaker 14: Well, I'm not asserting the positive. I'm not saying that.
Speaker 5: I've asked you for what reasoning is. You're told me
Speaker 5: it's perception. I'm asking you how do you know that?
Speaker 5: And you just keep asserting that.
Speaker 7: I didn't say reasoning is perception.
Speaker 5: I said, well, how do we justify reasoning? You so
Speaker 5: there has to be this grounded out perception of objects
Speaker 5: and abstractions, And I'm asking how do you know that?
Speaker 7: Pretty sure is how you freeze it. But anyway, so, what.
Speaker 14: I'm saying is that when we analyze concepts, if we infect.
Speaker 5: You're begging the question because you're assuming that there is
Speaker 5: a meaningful concept to be analyzed and I'm asking you
Speaker 5: how you know that.
Speaker 14: I told you because I experienced the reference.
Speaker 5: Oh so you're asserting the circle because it's so, because
Speaker 5: I experienced it, because it's there, because it's substrategical. You
Speaker 5: don't understand that's a circle, your very diagram, your your
Speaker 5: PfP is a circle.
Speaker 14: That axioms are irreducibly implicit.
Speaker 5: That that's I'm calling that into question. How do you
Speaker 5: know that that's the case?
Speaker 4: To question?
Speaker 7: You want a question?
Speaker 5: So your argument is there's no way to question it.
Speaker 5: That's that's so dombinude.
Speaker 14: No, no, no, there's no way to question it without
Speaker 14: presupposing its truth.
Speaker 5: That doesn't mean that it's justified.
Speaker 7: So what deny grounds concepts? You have to say? What
Speaker 7: is it?
Speaker 2: Just?
Speaker 5: You saying that it has to be that way doesn't
Speaker 5: make it. So it's not a justification.
Speaker 14: I'm saying that you can't make a statement.
Speaker 5: That doesn't Maybe we can't make statements.
Speaker 7: I mean, that's why you deny axioms. So you either
Speaker 7: have no I.
Speaker 5: Just don't think that there's self evident axioms. So what's
Speaker 5: the answer to the criterion problem? Do you know what
Speaker 5: the criterion problem is?
Speaker 4: I mean, we can.
Speaker 5: Do you know what the criterion problem is?
Speaker 7: The criterion for what?
Speaker 5: In epistemology. It's one of the most famous problems in epistemology.
Speaker 5: Do you know what it is?
Speaker 14: I don't know exactly you're referring to, but if you.
Speaker 5: Want to know, I'm asking you variations on the criterion problem.
Speaker 5: So I'm asking you if you even know what the
Speaker 5: problem is.
Speaker 7: I don't. I don't know what you mean by the criteria.
Speaker 5: Okay, so you have been You've been sitting here yapping
Speaker 5: and you don't even know the basic questions I'm asking you,
Speaker 5: which shows that you don't understand the problem. Yeah, right,
Speaker 5: I made it up, right, it's one. It's a pistemology.
Speaker 5: Want on when I made it up?
Speaker 14: I'm saying, I can't know what you mean if if
Speaker 14: I don't, if I haven't experienced before.
Speaker 7: So if I go to Japan a guy is talking
Speaker 7: about green, no, it just.
Speaker 5: Shows me that you don't know the discipline in the
Speaker 5: in the arena that you're trying to speak to.
Speaker 7: So does that mean I won't be able to answer you?
Speaker 5: If it does? Yes, it does, because if I don't
Speaker 5: if if modern secular epistemologists haven't solved this. You just now.
Speaker 7: Learning it or not fealous. I'm not just not learning
Speaker 7: it just because.
Speaker 5: Wait a minute, you said you didn't know what it was.
Speaker 14: Now you do saying, oh, you mean if you explain
Speaker 14: to me what you mean by the criterion problem that
Speaker 14: I won't be able to answer a question related to it.
Speaker 8: Dude, This is stupid, Josh, Dude.
Speaker 5: If you explain it to me that I'll know what
Speaker 5: it is and I'll be able to answer It's a fallacy.
Speaker 5: If you say that I can't answer it? What is it?
Speaker 5: The t dun't level stuff. I'm you.
Speaker 7: Hey, Jay a lot.
Speaker 17: I watched all your shows and uh, your boomer impressions
Speaker 17: are hilarious. My questions kind of related a little bit
Speaker 17: to the prior speaker, but I'll.
Speaker 2: Try to do the best I can.
Speaker 17: How do how does it Christian or Orthodox Christian or
Speaker 17: Catholics solve for solesism? I know you say that the
Speaker 17: starting point for knowledge has to first begin with God's
Speaker 17: existence and his divine revelation.
Speaker 5: Solism is self refuting. You use knowledge is not possible
Speaker 5: in a sense of justifying it if solvetism is true
Speaker 5: and if solcism is true. You could never know that
Speaker 5: it's true because if Solvetism is the case, and everything
Speaker 5: that you're learning is also part of the mental illusion
Speaker 5: fantasy world, dream world, whatever, and so therefore it's not
Speaker 5: quote true.
Speaker 9: So is it this might be ignorant question?
Speaker 4: Is it possible? For is it possible that.
Speaker 17: A Christian is just making this all this up in
Speaker 17: his mind?
Speaker 5: What I just said is that if that's the case,
Speaker 5: then you couldn't know it, and the knowledge of that
Speaker 5: claim is also unjustifiable. So it's a defeater for the
Speaker 5: possibility of knowledge if Soltism is true. Not trying to
Speaker 5: be rude to you, I mean to you, but go
Speaker 5: look up the critiques that I've done of the Kogito
Speaker 5: or whatever Aiden al Doorbana five dollars. You should look
Speaker 5: up the channel YouTube scripture tradition by Father j M.
Speaker 5: He's Catholic, but he's trying to convert Juice to Christianity
Speaker 5: while he's wasting his time. Because Francis says not to
Speaker 5: converge jus as did the other Vatican Two documents. They
Speaker 5: had a huge row of Francis said multiple times, not
Speaker 5: too what's up man, Aiden? I just bought your metad
Speaker 5: there his book. I'm looking forward to reading it. Thank you, man,
Speaker 5: I appreciate that. James VEGGI five dollars. I was going
Speaker 5: to request you to debate, but like a hero, you
Speaker 5: came through for the people. Thank you. It looks like
Speaker 5: Aiden's having a hard time connecting, so maybe pop back out,
Speaker 5: pop back in. We'll go back to you, Tony. He's
Speaker 5: got a picture of David Hume, so I'm sure he's
Speaker 5: going to set it straight.
Speaker 2: Hello, yep, hold a, I can't hear you anymore?
Speaker 5: Sorry?
Speaker 7: Hello?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Oh wait, okay, I hear Can you hear me? Oh?
Speaker 6: Okay? So I have some several questions I would like
Speaker 6: to present to you regarding tag and so specifically, why
Speaker 6: like can we question divine revelation?
Speaker 2: Because you say that divine revelation.
Speaker 6: Is the ground for epistemology, you know, metaphysics and ethics
Speaker 6: and reason itself.
Speaker 2: But can we question it certain?
Speaker 5: I mean you can. There's nothing stopping you from existentially
Speaker 5: questioning everything.
Speaker 6: Uh So, like if I ask you, how do you
Speaker 6: know divine revelation is like actually reliable or true? Would
Speaker 6: I still have to present like a justification for that?
Speaker 6: Or because I don't. I don't get how Like you
Speaker 6: say that divine revelation is the ground is the justification
Speaker 6: for our epistol homology, right, But then when we try
Speaker 6: to justify God using the transcendental argument, we're using vison itself.
Speaker 5: So I feel like that's a category error. The fact
Speaker 5: that you're using something doesn't have anything to do with
Speaker 5: whether it's justified or not.
Speaker 6: No, but like, okay, the justification for God is the
Speaker 6: transcendental argument.
Speaker 5: Correct, It's not a justification for God. It's a justification
Speaker 5: for the possibility of knowledge.
Speaker 2: Okay, justification for the possibility.
Speaker 5: Of God is the only type of being that could
Speaker 5: ground the possibility of knowledge.
Speaker 2: Okay. So another question I probably would ask is I.
Speaker 5: Mean I could make a transcendental argument from a pencil.
Speaker 5: That doesn't mean that God's existence relies on a pencil.
Speaker 5: It doesn't matter what object that you choose to argue
Speaker 5: up from, Like the thing itself is just a thing
Speaker 5: that you're picking. It doesn't mean that it has ontological priority.
Speaker 5: So using red doesn't mean that reasoning comes before God.
Speaker 5: It's just logical ordering is different from metaphysical ordering. That's
Speaker 5: why it's called a category error. If I make if
Speaker 5: I make an argument from time, that doesn't mean I
Speaker 5: think that time is superior to God because I'm putting
Speaker 5: it first in an argument.
Speaker 2: Oh, I see, all right, thank you.
Speaker 6: Also another question would be, like, because I know you
Speaker 6: mentioned about identity over time for objects, what is the
Speaker 6: orthodox position of that, because I know Aristotle's theory is like,
Speaker 6: you know, objects are matter and force.
Speaker 5: I mean, yeah, we believe that God created things with
Speaker 5: natures and that they there are secondary causes, and that
Speaker 5: you know, humans have natures. Animals have the natures that
Speaker 5: they have, so that's why they have identity over time.
Speaker 5: But in philosophy, the problem of identity over time is
Speaker 5: in the domain of metaphysics and epistemology. And that's why
Speaker 5: David Hume called it into question on the basis of
Speaker 5: a pure empiricist philosophy. If pure empiricism or naive empiricism
Speaker 5: is true, there's not a justification for identity over time.
Speaker 5: We don't have that problem because we're not radical empiricists, Okay.
Speaker 6: And so my last two questions would probably be it's
Speaker 6: another objection to tag it says that it only proves
Speaker 6: conceptual existence instead of ontological existence because like.
Speaker 5: Well, number one, if you prove that something existed conceptually,
Speaker 5: that's still also a metaphysical statement. You're saying that it
Speaker 5: has the metaphysical ontological status of conceptual existence, so it's
Speaker 5: still metaphysical. But no, the argument is not just arguing
Speaker 5: for conceptual things. The argument is about worldviews. And that's
Speaker 5: why I always make the worldview argument.
Speaker 6: Oh I seek oh, because like universals must have an
Speaker 6: ontological existence and therefore something.
Speaker 5: That you're just picking one thing. I mean, you can
Speaker 5: make the argument from pencils, from universals, from math. It
Speaker 5: doesn't matter like which thing you pick. Like, it's ultimately
Speaker 5: an argue for a holistic worldview. It's not an argument
Speaker 5: for universals. Okay, it's an argument for the Christian paradigm
Speaker 5: explaining universals. It's not an argument for universals.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, thank you, thank you, jam.
Speaker 5: Those are great questions. I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's one more.
Speaker 6: It's Laurence Bonjours rational a priory insights. Why can't an
Speaker 6: atheist like whenever you ask them, can you what's the
Speaker 6: justification for logic metaphase? Like you present the problem with
Speaker 6: the criterion, right, like what's your epistemic criteria?
Speaker 2: Why can't they just say.
Speaker 6: That they have like a rational a priory insight to
Speaker 6: it that justifies it.
Speaker 5: Well, just just asserting a rational a priori just insight
Speaker 5: isn't a justification, and that's an assertion. So we need
Speaker 5: to know why and how that's a justification. And also
Speaker 5: how does that actually solve the criteria problem by asserting
Speaker 5: that to be the case.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Bonjour says, it's like a rational force that you know,
Speaker 6: like we have to grasp the necessary truth.
Speaker 4: Well maybe that's problem.
Speaker 5: Why do we have to do that? I mean it
Speaker 5: so who I mean again, it's just it's really I mean,
Speaker 5: I'm not saying that you're wrong for bring it up,
Speaker 5: but it's kind of not addressing the question because it's
Speaker 5: quite like if we think about the for those that
Speaker 5: don't know the audience, if we think about the criterion problem. Basically,
Speaker 5: the idea is just this, if I say that I
Speaker 5: have knowledge of something, it doesn't matter what I haven't.
Speaker 5: I have knowledge that I think is true, justified whatever,
Speaker 5: just what true belief? And that also assumes some criteria
Speaker 5: of knowledge, right, because to say that you have true
Speaker 5: knowledge versus false knowledge requires some kind of criteria to
Speaker 5: adjudicate between them. But if I say that I have knowledge,
Speaker 5: it's assuming a criteria knowledge. But how do I have
Speaker 5: knowledge without their criteria? But if I say that I
Speaker 5: have the criteria first, that's also a knowledge claim. And
Speaker 5: so it's a seemingly irresolvable problem. That's the criteria problem.
Speaker 5: That's what I was asking. That goofy atheist guy had
Speaker 5: no idea what it was.
Speaker 6: Earlier, Pat sure Roderick Chisholm said that methodism in particulars
Speaker 6: they both beg the question, no matter.
Speaker 5: What, Yeah, exactly there you are. So that's what the
Speaker 5: problem is. And what I'm saying is that when you
Speaker 5: say to try to solve it something like well we
Speaker 5: just kind of have some kind of a priori force
Speaker 5: or whatever, but like that doesn't tell me that that's
Speaker 5: the case, And it also begs the question because that's
Speaker 5: another knowledge claim.
Speaker 2: I see. Oh, okay, thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Sure No, there's a great question. Appreciate it. Thank you, Xenodrome.
Speaker 5: That's a cool name. David Atlas ten dollars mer Christmas Jay, Hey,
Speaker 5: thank you, David Adlas. Appreciate that mery, Christmas to you too.
Speaker 5: Jingle Jingle, jingle,