Speaker 1: A model Roman Catholic call right there. Why can't all
the Roman Catholics be like that guy? That was cool?
I'm determined to find this freaking Bitcoin Island video that
I watched. I watched the whole video and now I
can't find it. It's not even in my history. I
didn't remove it from my history. In fact, I think
I saved it because I thought this is kind of cool.
Actually I might am I gonna moved to Bitcoin Island
one day if.
Speaker 2: Things get if they get really crazy, I'm gonna move
to Bitcoin Island. Let me see. I'm still looking for it. Uh,
watch later. I probably put it on their watch later.
Let's see.
Speaker 1: Now it was something like was it Nicaragua, Bitcoin, bitquain City,
Nicaragua something. It wasn't El Salvador. I know all about Ol Salvadors.
This just videos popped up though. It was crazy, So
I bet this is it?
Speaker 3: Here it is, I found it, Okay, pull it.
Speaker 2: Up for you guys here.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: This is to address the libertarian discussion earlier. So Business Insider,
I guess did this profile on bit quain City in Honduras,
not Nicaraga. Couldn't think of where it.
Speaker 2: Was, so.
Speaker 1: This is like some small community, uh, and they have
like it's I think going for the libertarian idea of
everything's voluntary.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have like.
Speaker 1: A private security force that's gonna maintain order you opt
into it and all this stuff. And I mean a
lot of it sounds pretty cool. The only thing is
like it sounds like it also sounds kind of uh,
not as libertarian as you think it is initially because
it's almost.
Speaker 2: Like a super corporate h O.
Speaker 1: A type of setup where you gotta you gotta sign
onto all this crap and like you're gonna you're basically
governed by some kind of corporate board. And I'm like,
is this I guess this? I mean, is this a
libertarian I guess it is. It's like, well, you have
to opt into it, but if you don't, so what
happens if I don't? So if I don't opt into it,
do I not get the security force coming to my
house to protect?
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't. I don't know how this is
gonna work. But I mean, I guess is we're moving
in the right direction. I guess.
Speaker 1: Let's see what this says here about city life here
in Bitcoin.
Speaker 5: City, the normal public services you'd expect in a city
aren't exactly there. For safety, the city relies on a
security guard service.
Speaker 1: So as just this one dude sitting here in the
sitting in this wooden crate, Like, here's your security for us.
Speaker 2: It's just this guy. I mean, maybe he's really good.
I don't know. I'm just saying.
Speaker 5: There's one private Montessorian elementary school that charges five hundred
and fifty dollars a month for tuition. Around one hundred
and twenty businesses had registered here as of January twenty
twenty three.
Speaker 6: In Andreas, it will take you somewhere around six months
or more to get the proper licenses to operate your business,
and here you can get your business to an operational
stage and listen two weeks.
Speaker 5: The new companies include a gene therapy startup, a dive shop,
and a bitcoin education center run by Duzan Matuska, who
moved from Slovakia. So here is where we pay.
Speaker 1: So like, obviously this is not really operating yet, but
maybe this is I don't know, maybe this is the
way of the future.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: So they have they have a legal system, but it's
like judges through Skype.
Speaker 2: It just sounds funny. I watched this so that this
is fantasy island, but.
Speaker 1: Like there's nobody there yet, so maybe maybe you want
to be first a fantasy island, like Tattoo is not
even there yet, so you could you could even beat
Tattoo to fantasy perhaps if you got bitcoin.
Speaker 2: Did you say bitcoin? I've been telling you. You didn't
listen to me.
Speaker 1: You thought crazy internet goofball didn't know what he's talking about,
but I knew what I was talking about.
Speaker 5: The most controversial part about the city state is the
judicial system. Prospero has set up its own online court
to settle disputes.
Speaker 2: Many prosper.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 2: I guess the the wealth.
Speaker 1: Tier is intended to keep bad actors out, but there's
a lot of rich people that are bad actors.
Speaker 2: So I don't know. I just don't know this.
Speaker 1: I mean, there probably already is some Galt gulch somewhere.
Maybe they're trying to make El Salvador into golf's culture.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what
the answer is.
Speaker 1: But one thing there could happen is that if El
Salvador or Bitcoin City or whatever, if these things are
really actually successful and they work really well, which I
think some of them probably will. They might be examples
for other countries to say, hey, we want to do
like that. Like they're actually building communities that actually work.
They're not you know, socialist hell holes, democratic blue city nightmares.
Let's set one of these up or something, and then
it becomes like a light to the nations, right, something
like that maybe. But I don't know, Gabriel, what's up?
Somebody said this sounds like a front. That's also possible.
This could be some kind of a CIA front.
Speaker 2: It could be some kind of a it could be
a cult. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I would definitely want to like have spent
time here, have like due diligence research before I moved
into like some kind of cult community where I'm being
my control.
Speaker 2: But I don't, you know, like who knows? What's up?
Speaker 7: Man?
Speaker 2: I'm you Joe Jay.
Speaker 8: Can you hear me, sir, man, I'm a huge fan.
I have a couple of questions. It shouldn't take too long, Okay,
all right? So my first question is if the Earth
is old, is that disproved the Bible or no.
Speaker 1: I just don't think you can prove that the Earth
is old. So I don't see how you prove that
without assuming things that wait, the data or the instruments
already assuming the date right, like, for example, well, the
red light couldn't come here unless there was a big bang.
And it's like, well, but if God created the universe,
then the red light was already here. It didn't have
to come here from the big bang. So in other words,
the argumentation assumes a big bang in the case of
the red light coming from the stars or whatever. But
that's the thing in question, So how do you prove
how do you I don't understand, and like, well, well,
let's look at the rock layers and the.
Speaker 2: Geology or whatever.
Speaker 1: But you're attributing age to what you see what it
had to take millions of years for that layer to
form that, And then we see counter examples where there's
a fossil or a tree that extends between these geological
layers that are supposed to millions of years. So I
just don't see how you prove the old age. Even
carbon dating, well, even carbon dating does the exact same thing,
where it oftentimes assumes that, well, we know that for
this to decay at this rate, it takes billions of years.
But that's the thing in question again, how do we
know it takes billions of years?
Speaker 9: All right, Okay, that makes sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's just my skeptic take on a lot of
that stuff.
Speaker 1: And again, I'm actually a skeptic on the things that
most people are not skeptics on, and I'm actually an
argument for certitude on the things that most people think
aren't certain and don't know about. So, in other words,
I flip it. The philosophical stuff I actually think is
certain and theoyant stuff is actually not certain. And that's
I think something that people oftentimes misunderstand about this stuff
that I argue and where I'm coming from, Matt, what's up, yore?
Speaker 2: Y'all?
Speaker 10: Hey, Hey, just a quick question.
Speaker 11: I had the unfortunate mispleasure of watching the Alex O'Connor
and Cliff Connecting You or whatever his name is debate.
Speaker 2: I've been hearing about this. I haven't watched it yet.
Is this something I should watch?
Speaker 11: Not unless you want to stick two pencils in your eyes?
Speaker 4: Is it?
Speaker 12: Ah?
Speaker 10: This is horrible.
Speaker 11: I mean I gave up evidentialist apologetics a long time ago,
and I think I sort of was leaning towards presup.
But then when I listened to your arguments on TAG
and FDA, I couldn't really come up with anything to
kind of refute it. But in saying that, one of
the things I point to in this debate is the
problem of suffering for animals, which I thought was just
not really a good point anyway. But I wanted to
ask if you have heard of well you probably have,
but about Angelic for Theodyssey. And let's just assume that
you know they're not going to argue get into the
pre sup game, right, but would you say the Angelic
for theodssey is a good argument for the problem of suffering,
especially in light of like C. S.
Speaker 9: Lewis and also J. R.
Speaker 11: Tolkien with his work on the Cymarillion, that kind of reasoning.
Speaker 2: Maybe I'm not familiar with that specific thesis. Can you
lay it out for me? What is this idea basically?
Speaker 4: And I think it can tie in.
Speaker 11: With logos and the LOGI was that the angels were
created first and then when we read and it's almost
kind of similar to gap theory where the angels have
ready for all in Genesis one. So whoo, who you know,
the chaotic mess and God is actually restoring the creation,
and that because the angels have left their heavenly abode
and the responsibilities that they were given, Creation has already fallen.
Because God doesn't say it's perfect, he said it's good,
and so kind of Genesis talks about the kind of
I suppose the garden as being that I suppose that
rescue mission of the creation, which was purpose always in Christ.
Speaker 4: But you know, Adam is the first one.
Speaker 10: And so we have suffering.
Speaker 11: With you know, animal death or suffering simply because Creation
has already suffered a fall through the angelic beings who
were in charge of all of these different areas.
Speaker 1: So the immediate problem I would see with this is
the Orthodox view posits the timeless Aon, which is where
the angels are. And so because the Aon is a
timeless created eternity, the angels either continued in grace or
fell in an instant, so it's timeless. So their immediate
choice determined whether they were angels or demons, and so
that caused a kind of fall, you could say, in
the spiritual realm. But as Orthodox we couldn't say that
that angel fall affected the created realm, because that doesn't
happen until Adam consents, and that's why Adam is the
basically the high priest and steward of all the created order.
So that's why when Adam falls, according to Romans eight,
that fall then affects all the created order, whether it's
entropy on the moon or whether it's Hamster's dying, all
of that's a result of Adam's fall. But the angelic
fall only affects the spiritual realm for us.
Speaker 9: Okay, good, all right, thank you sir.
Speaker 2: That's a great question, you'd say. Man, yeah, that's a
great question. I've never had a I can't.
Speaker 1: Remember the last time we had our like a deep
angel type of question. But if you want a good
passage on the Aon, if you get Vladimir Lawski's book
Dogmatic Theology, there's a really good four page explanation of
the Orthodox view of the timeless Aon and the reason
that matters in theology.
Speaker 2: John Deamascus mentions the a on two.
Speaker 1: But the reason it matters in theology is that it
actually distinguishes us from Platonism. Not not many people know this,
but so for Platonism you have time and eternity, and
really that's it. There's just those two, and eternity is
really equated ultimately with the forms or the one, and
there's no.
Speaker 2: Kind of there's nothing in between.
Speaker 1: But in Orthodox Christianity, there's not just God, the uncreated
and man.
Speaker 2: And then in the.
Speaker 1: Temporal realm there's also the timeless created a which is
where the angels are. So there's this other realm uh
and hence the you know, God creates the worlds or
the realms and so forth. So we in that in
part when you read Maximis and other people who talk
about it, it's it's another angle by which we are
distinguished from the Platonic view. There is no created, timeless
alon and Platinism pop by Daddy, what's up?
Speaker 7: Hey?
Speaker 13: I had a quick question on the view on the
Orthodox Church on Eastern Catholics.
Speaker 9: What's the view?
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 13: Like what like do you guys see do you guys
see it as heretical or that.
Speaker 9: Since we communion with Rome?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, ultimately, unfortunately, even though you guys should
a lot of our theology, we do not believe that
entering into communion with Rome makes it still it's no
longer Orthodox.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 14: But also with the philioque if we change or they
say they can use through the sun instead of from
the sun.
Speaker 1: That yeah, but that would just be to admit that way.
But that would just be to admit that you're part
of a church that has two creeds.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's only one creed. There's not two creeds.
Speaker 1: So even if there's a theological explanation for two different creeds,
merely having two different creeds I think is a pretty
good argument that that's not the true church.
Speaker 2: The church has one creed, It's always had one creed.
And beyond that, it's like Rome used to say that if.
Speaker 1: You, you know, believe the theology of Palamas, you're excommunicated.
Oh but now it's cool since John Paul the Second,
you know, revered Palamas or whatever. And oh, by the way,
Eastern Catholics, by the way, you can use the same
festial manion, and you can you know, Revere Sergius or
Ratinees and all these, you know, people that are supposed
to be schismatics. I mean, I just read Kantate Domino,
which says, if you die at a communion with Rome,
you're damned. Oh but not anymore, because the pope says
that Russian Orthodox Saints are cool now, Like, it just
doesn't make sense.
Speaker 13: Also, do you know if like I'm like just studying
into Eastern Catholics right now, but do you know if
Eastern Catholics can say the philioquick Creed too, is it
allowed or not?
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't see why you couldn't, because technically
you're supposed to accept everything that room teaches, all right,
But Eastern Catholics are basically in a like double mind,
double thing position because many of them say, well, we
don't accept all this papal stuff, like the Malchi Catechism
says we believe in seven ecumenical councils. There's no there's
no Roman Catholic position that allows you to only believe
seven ecumenical councils. That's just crazy, It's ridiculous. It's not true,
which shows that it's not actually about the theology, it's
about political geopolitical stuff.
Speaker 13: Also, can I get your thoughts on CCC two forty eight.
Speaker 9: It talks about the Eastern tradition.
Speaker 13: How the father is the first of origin, and the
Western tradition expresses it like the father and the son
has the.
Speaker 9: Same consubstantial essence, like go. I'm not sure, but it's
I have to look at it.
Speaker 2: But so it's the catechism.
Speaker 1: Well on catechism, I don't have it, I have the
I have Denzing, or I don't have the current Catholic
Catechism in front of me.
Speaker 2: What is the.
Speaker 15: Number forty eight?
Speaker 2: The outset.
Speaker 1: The Eastern tradition expresses the father's character as the first
origin of the spirit by confessing the Spirit as he
proceeds from the Father. It affirms that he comes from
the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses the
first constitential community between the Father and son by saying
that those spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
It says this legitimate and with good reason, for the
eternal order of the divine persons of their consubstantiality. Consential
communion implies that the Father, as the principle without principle,
is the first origin of the spirit, but also as
the father of the Son, he is with the Son,
a single principle from which the Holy Spirit precedes. That's
the line that Orthodox would have a problem with, because
that's from Florence, and that that's granting a special type
of unity that shared between the Father and the son
that the spirit lacks. And if you read the Cavedocians,
they all are pretty unanimous that there's no property that
two persons have that one lacks, because in the trinity,
you either say something that's a hypostatic property proper to
one person, or it's an actual property that all three have.
So for example, love, love is a common attribute of
property that all three persons in the trinity share, being
cause that's the hypothetic property that picks out the father,
and it's non communical and not shareable. So the Cappadocians say,
and this is the teaching of constantin nomber one. Everything
that the father has the son has, except being the cause.
That's directly in contrast to what the Council Florence and
Roman Catholic theology says.
Speaker 13: All right, thank you those basically it appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Also, you might want to read from the Vatican the
I think it's from the nineties. It's called the Vatican
Clarification with philia O Clay, because even though it's a
Vatican document, basically it just admits that these views are
still intention over that very point, whether or not the
hypesite property the father could be something shared by another person.
So even the Vatican's minist minded documents admit these two
views are still intention. So even if we even if
the Vatican concedes points about proceeding through or eternal manifestation
and that many Eastern brothers teach Eastern Father's teach manifestation,
the views are still still intention on that point. From Florence,
all right, let's see, let me read a few. We're
still going where I need to read a few, super chess,
because we've got quite a few here. I didn't read
the rest of sincere hypocrite. Excuse me, he said, Uh,
what didn't Dick Todd? Is Pape and Vatican one make
it impossible for a pope to be judged by a layman. Yeah, absolutely,
and not just those as many other statements.
Speaker 2: See de legas of pious. We just pulled this up
the other day see de legas.
Speaker 1: This actually a dreat us is in the Roman Catholic
Church lay theologians, So this is actually above random internet
goobers trying to judge the pope.
Speaker 2: This is actually.
Speaker 1: Literal like lay PhD people, and the whole it basically
says that, yeah, that's cool that you're a lath theologian
or whatever. But you have no authority in the church
and it doesn't really matter. So there's many documents that
basically point out that no Roman, no Rando guy gets
to decide Francis is orthodoxy. Does this prove that they
are Protestants in practice? Absolutely? And that is pretty much
the thesis of this stream for the first hour, mean
gene three dollars, no goofy gubers all out up in here. Well, actually, tonight,
everybody's been super cool. We haven't had any goofy gebers.
It's all been pretty much high tier. Maybe I should
go back to doing evening streams because the reason I
started doing the afternoon streams was that I noticed that
the YouTube is super high from like two to five PM.
That's like the for whatever reason, that's like the most
traffic on YouTube. So we were doing that and we
were getting pretty consistently like thirteen hundred. I think I
was even getting like fifteen hundred, almost two thousand live
for a few times, and we got up to one
thousand tonight, which is cool. But maybe the quality callers
are in the evenings and the fair Isle foaming at
the mouth goofy goobers are during the daytime. Haiti's Undead
fifteen dollars, shorter videos and more concise information addressing FAQs. Yeah,
I've been actually thinking about doing this, and you know,
they don't actually get that.
Speaker 2: Many more views.
Speaker 1: One or two of them can, like I think, like
my Pope when Francis said, all the religious lead to God.
This one got four one thousand views, which for a
twelve minute video on my channel is pretty good. The
Dogmatic Contradiction video that's eighteen minutes got twenty four thousand.
I do think that the long form stuff is actually
hurting the potential viewership, just because so many people are
much more likely to click my twelve minute video than
the five hour videos.
Speaker 2: But here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Guys like I make a living doing this, and when
I got demonetized, there was no incentive to make the
short videos except to make them concise. So here's part
of the solution. And I don't care if you guys
monetize your clips channels. We've gotten now about probably four
or five dudes out there that have been making clips
channels using my stuff, and they monetize it. I mean,
it's not going to be like a lot of money.
But I don't care. If you guys do that and
you can monetize it, go for it.
Speaker 2: So and we've got obviously Kyle does it with the
dire clips. I don't care if Kyl does that, he
can do it. We got a new guy who's been
doing it. He's doing really good clips. Where's going at?
Where is that one? It's an Orthodox guy? Where's it at?
Speaker 1: Anyway, it's on her somewhere. Maybe I passed the scroll
past it. But we got orthodox dude. Another Orthodox dude
that's doing them. Job was doing them for a while.
Those were getting a lot of views. I guess he
got tired of doing it. Anyway, long story short, I
don't care if you guys clip and go for it
because actually, you guys, remember.
Speaker 2: The way that Tate blew.
Speaker 1: Up back in twenty twenty was because of his stupid
Hustlers university stuff. Was like telling all these dudes to
clip his videos and you get like free access to
hustlers or whatever his thing is. And this actually blew
up his chance like his stuff, right, That's how he
got so famous, was doing all this like online marketing
through telling other people to promote the stuff and clip
it be my guest, Dude, go for it, clip all
of it, start a clip channel, monetize it.
Speaker 2: I don't care, go for it.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to see anybody clipping my stuff because you
know what, I spend half of my day doing uploading
and clipping, and I don't like doing it.
Speaker 2: It's no fun.
Speaker 1: It actually detracts from all the mental time and energy
that I want to put into actually reading books and
actually doing content.
Speaker 2: But I have to spend half of my day.
Speaker 1: Clipping and uploading crap, and honestly, I get sick of it.
But if you want to make some side cash and
monetize my stuff, I don't care.
Speaker 4: Go for it.
Speaker 2: Or coma.
Speaker 16: Have any people who disagree, Hey man, thanks for taking
my call a big fan.
Speaker 10: We're talking earlier about the age.
Speaker 17: Of the Earth, you know, hold Earth versus Young Earth,
and it just.
Speaker 18: Made me get to thinking, what about like the size
of the cosmos and the size of the universe and
the fact that we as a human species, as an
orthodox believer right, as an orthodox Christian.
Speaker 17: And following Father Star from Rose and demons and everything,
how does that play into our belief of if the
size of the universe is what scientists say they are say.
Speaker 4: It is right.
Speaker 17: Of course, you have to believe that in the first place,
But if you humored death for a second, how would
that have an effect if there were others out there?
Would there be other humans that would have the same
concept salvation?
Speaker 1: Are you talking about, like this argument that the universe
is so big that there's got to be alien life
out there.
Speaker 17: Yeah, that's just something I've been thinking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's stupid.
Speaker 1: In fact, if you listened to a lot of my
recent alien analysis podcasts, we've been addressing that argument. I
think that's just a really I mean, it literally relies
on the Big Bang, you know, infinite universe narrative that well,
if the universe is infinite, then it stands to reason
that there would be life evolving on other planets. I
think it's old, just nonsense, and yeah, I would just
say go listen to some of those pods. I just
I don't think that the universe is infinite. In fact,
it was an esoteric goober. Giordano Bruno was one of
the first people to start arguing that the universe was infinite,
and he did that on the basis of a bunch
of weird esoteric philosophy had nothing to do with quote science.
It was just like he's like the early he's an
early proponent for multiple worlds Bruno, and he got to
he didn't I don't know if he explicitly says multiple worlds,
but he get to that from infinite universe. And there's
a whole nerdy rabbit hole that you can go down
from theories of space and time after the Enlightenment. So
Newton and all these different characters is like, it's this
really neat rabbit hole. It's so nerdy that nobody really
cares about it except for like physics astronomy nerds, which
is like one percent of this channel. So it's not
really even any point going into that stuff. I don't know,
I mean know a little bit about it. Because we
had a class on this modern European philosophy class. We
spent some time on different theories of space, and some
of these philosophers, for example Kant, consider space to be
a transceittal category. But then other philosophers around that time
were positing that the universe was infinite.
Speaker 2: So what you start to notice is that.
Speaker 1: They take divine attributes and no longer are those divine
attributes transcendent, they're actually smushing them into the created realm.
So now the universe becomes infinite in Bruno, and I'm
not joking about it. Like this literally leads like a
few generations later to some of the early multiverse proponents who.
Speaker 2: Are getting it from the.
Speaker 1: Weirdo Giordano Bruno, who was explicitly an esoteris by the
way he influences Hegel. Let me show you what I'm
talking about. I've got a couple books on this that
are pretty cool, but but nobody cares about this. This
is just like super nerd stuff.
Speaker 2: Dude.
Speaker 1: So this guy who's a complete weirdo, if you look
him up, I'm looking for Stanford Encyclopedia philosophy, not this stuff.
Speaker 2: Here we go.
Speaker 1: So yeah, see you'll notice right away a lot of
this is pretty esoteric stuff, right Like this is platonics,
the universal soul, universal matter, universal intellect.
Speaker 2: This is like Platonic stuff, the hidden God.
Speaker 9: Hmmm.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well this is like Crole not just Crowley is
way late, but like Hegelian stuff. Who's that other medieval
mystic who's has the same Eckhart meister Eckhart stuff, panpsychism.
Speaker 2: Let's see Bruno mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Verse Giordano Reno positive the universe was infinite and populated
with many worlds. So here is yeah, here we go,
universe infinite.
Speaker 2: That's what I meant to go to the first time.
Speaker 1: So notice that this is coming from like by the
Copernicus was also a neoplatonic chrometic thinker too. If the
heavens are infinite, then the outermost regions would revolve infinitely,
and this would be an infinitely revolving cosmos like an onion.
It said it was an infinite homogeneous expanse popular by
an infinite number of solar systems. So now we're getting
to infinite worlds from these guys, right. So notice multiverse
was always from esoteric occultic people. I'm not saying it's
fault because of that. I'm just saying that you do
have to know the origins of it, that it really
has nothing to do with anything in terms of like
biblical theology. It's literally just esoteric occulta chrometic stuff anyway.
Speaker 2: So let's get down to where Bruno says. But you'll
notice that he is taking divine attributes and.
Speaker 1: Just smushing them into the creative order. Bruno's explanation of
how bodies you're composed has proved outright the dominant risk
telling view that the universe was infinitely divisible. It also
just proved atomism. The universe is infinite and comprised of
an infinite number of finite, indivisible atoms. So it's just
getting it's getting pretty wild. And then it goes into
like just straight up like full on Plato stuff, universal
sole sole, universal matter, universal intellect. And I think it
wasn't Bruno at the time condemned by the papacy. I
think that's true. And then the this is the clips
channel guy that's recently started doing clips over here. Shout
out to him. His name's Orthodox Clips. He's used a
bunch of mind videos. The only thing I would recommend
is if you do start a clips channel, just please
do link back.
Speaker 2: To my video. Otherwise you can do whatever. It's fine,
all right.
Speaker 1: So we went down the Jordano Bruno rabbit hole. Osmotic
twenty five dollars. Why do Protestants pray the blood of
Christ over you?
Speaker 2: What does that mean? I think they just think that
it's kind of like a like a supercharged prayer. If
they do that right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess because the Bible does mention in
many places the blood of Christ. But I also think
that Protestants don't ever think about the Blood of Christ
actually having reference to the Eucharist, like to the actual
wine in this Like you know, when you read chapters
in like Romans where Paul talks about, you know, baptizing
to his death, and Paul mentions, you know, in other
places that the blood of Christ, you know, does this
and that, and the protest of mind that's just this
sort of ethereal thing that you call upon, and they
don't think about it being embodied in the actual Eucharist.
And I think, no, Paul's actually talking about the Lord's
Supper when he says the blood of Christ redeems you
and all this kind of stuff, like they just think
of it as divorced from the sacrament.
Speaker 2: Michale three dollars, Merry Christmas. I don't tune in much,
but I appreciate what you do. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Off topic, if you looked into this character, Ammon Hillman,
his claims are disturbing. I mean, I just kind of
think it's so sometimes people are really out there in
their claims that it's almost not really worth addressing, you know,
like Jesus. Other people say, oh Jesus is a vast
Jewish conspiracy. Really, I mean, come on, oh Jesus was
actually gay? I mean, is it really worth It's just
kind of crazy? Jv Free five dollars?
Speaker 2: Jay? Why? Jay?
Speaker 1: Or Jay why? I don't know what you're whying? Vane
five dollars Merry Christmas? What do I need to read?
The refute universalism? Well, three ecumenical councils refute Originism in Toto,
including his entire system. At the six Ecamenical Council, the
Confession of Saint Sophronius is a four page full refutation of.
Speaker 2: The entire system of origin.
Speaker 1: Those combinations are repeated at the seven Ecumenical Council and
in the Sonoticon. So those things reputed, but in a
metaphysical theological sense. David Rhan's video is still a classic
on this topic, which is pointing out that if you
don't have the nature person distinction in anthropology, it also leads.
Speaker 2: To the universalists conclusion.
Speaker 1: So, for example, David Bentley Hart correctly understands that when
Christ assumes universal human nature, he's going to universally restore
and resurrect all human nature. He then concludes that that
must mean that all human beings are saved. No, no, no,
it means all human beings are saving this since their
nature is restored. But how each individual hypostasis uses that
nature is what determines the experience of the escoton. So
look up David Rhan and it's actually not even a
very long video, but it's probably still a good easy
reputation of David Bentleyheart on this point, because usually people
are thinking of David Biley Hart when they come to
this conclusion.
Speaker 2: Here it is right here, short reputation of universal. There
are many people, and he makes the point that you
hear me making here.
Speaker 1: So I'll link you that video right there. Who's debating
in the chat?
Speaker 4: Here?
Speaker 2: Is there a Roman Catholic debating in the chat? You
need to come on the stream dog where y'all hiding it?
Speaker 1: Anyway, we got a lot of we got good ninth
twenty three people. We've never had twenty three people requesting
to debate. That's crazy. Where did all these people?
Speaker 4: So?
Speaker 1: I guess I need if I want to really want
people coming into debate. I didn't do it at night
let's get some of these people at the end. David A,
what's up?
Speaker 2: David? Ah, what's up? Young Newton?
Speaker 9: Hey day?
Speaker 4: What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 4: Love it?
Speaker 2: M Uh well, I gotta I got a couple.
Speaker 9: Uh h, I want to thank the Maybe you know what.
Speaker 2: About I can't hear? Can you speak like it's super muffled?
Speaker 9: Can you can be better?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 2: Not really? But what's the question?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 2: The question is that there are difference between.
Speaker 10: Rogue and.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So they're different jurisdictions. Ro corp is Russian Orthodoxy
and Greek orthodox are Greek jurisdiction. So appreciate your question. Uh, Colin,
what's up?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 2: Looking for people who disagree to get it today. Guys
mean Jeane, I'm mute. You are muted. Three dollars you're mute. Boomer,
I'm mute, mean Jane, we can't hear you. I'm your mute.
I'm muted, dude. One dollar. I'm mute, dude.
Speaker 1: Yes, I did fall prey to my own critiques because
the stupid little button that you have to hit to
mute when I play a video, I have to mute
me and it does not always register when you unmute
it because there's so many programs running that it just
doesn't register what's up.
Speaker 7: Hey, Jay, I had a question about epistemology. I watched
a couple of videos you made about it, and I
think you were talking about like the parapateetic axiom and
how like that is bad and like you can't like
really know anything, and I was wondering how you like
how the orthodox position gets around that.
Speaker 1: Well, the parapateetic axiom is from Aristotle and it says
that there's nothing in the intellect that's not first in
the senses. So I believe that a lot of things
must be in the senses before they're in the intellect.
But the problem with the paradetic axiom is more fundamental
than that. It's just that if you have that paradigm,
or if you're going to be an empiricist, the parapatetic
axiom itself is not in sense experience, and so it's
self refuting. So it's kind of like an empiricist who
says that all knowledge comes from sense data, Well, how
do you know that all knowledge.
Speaker 2: Comes from sense data? Because that's a universal claim which
is not found in sense data. Does that make sense?
Speaker 7: Yeah, you said that, I believe that you said, like,
your knowledge is ultimately grounded in God, can you?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, but I also don't accept the belief that
all knowledge, that everything that's in my mind was first
in my senses. I don't believe that there's all kinds
of things that are not in sense data that are
that can be in the mind. Abstract concepts, love, numbers, universals.
I mean, all of these things are not technically in
sense data, meaning the meaning and a proposition that's not
in sense data, that's not found in the physical God
is not typically in the physical domain. So obviously God
is in the intellect, but he's not in the sense
You see how this goes along with tomism, right, and
tomism You know God by the creative effects. Well, God
is not in my immediate sense.
Speaker 2: Data, so how is he in my intellect?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 7: I like, I definitely, I'm just not understanding.
Speaker 4: I will try to watch more of your videos and stuff.
Speaker 2: Hold on, So what are you not understanding?
Speaker 4: I don't understand how you.
Speaker 7: Like get to knowing God exists without your using your
sense data, Like, I know he doesn't first.
Speaker 1: But that's not what I'm doing. So I'm not getting
to God without sense data. It's rather that empiricist approaches
don't work to prove the thing that they're trying to prove.
So I'm happy with saying that everything in sense data.
Speaker 2: Point to and testifies to God.
Speaker 1: But that's not what the empiricist or a parapatetic axiom
is trying to say. It's starting from a finite human
perspective and then trying to say that anything that I
know or that's in my mind has to first be
in sense data.
Speaker 2: And I'm saying we don't even have to go to.
Speaker 1: Theology in God's existence to show that that's not true,
because just the proposition itself is not in sense data.
The parapatetic axiom itself is not in sense data, so
it's self refuting as a starting point for epistemology. So
Thomass thought that it was a good idea to use
Aristotle as a starting point for religious epistemology, and I'm
just pointing out why.
Speaker 2: That doesn't work.
Speaker 1: So if I'm an Orthodox person, I can use insights
from Aristotle or from whoever.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to.
Speaker 1: Adopt an Aristotelian epistemology as the first starting point for
my theology.
Speaker 2: That's the stupid thing.
Speaker 7: Okay, and I have one last question, sure, Like with
your pismology, how do you know that what you're experiencing
around you is real?
Speaker 9: Like that the external world is actually real?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not an empiricist, so I don't begin my
worldview or my belief system from my immediate sense data.
Speaker 2: If I was an.
Speaker 1: Empiricist, I would end up in a David Humian's skeptical
type of position, where I couldn't necessarily know with justificable
with justified true belief certitude, that the external world exists,
or that the past exists, or that objects of identity
over time, all of those things would be very difficult
or impossible for me to know or prove. But as
Orthodox Christians, we are not empiricists as a school of thought,
So there's not a problem with empirical sense data. But
my theology, my worldview does not begin with mere sense data.
I begin with divine revelation and the totality of that
worldview as my presupposition. That's what grounds my belief that
God has made a world where my senses are generally
speaking reliable, and so I don't have good reason to.
Speaker 2: Doubt the external world and I have good.
Speaker 1: Warrant to believe that there is an external world based
on God's promises to my providence, the metaphysical structure of
the world, etcetera. All those things are the reasons I
would believe in the external world. And precisely because I'm
not a naive empiricist, would I be in some sort
of skeptical trap.
Speaker 4: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.
Speaker 7: I think I understand more and I want to say
thank you. I used to be a project for a
long time, and your videos on like the transcendental argument
in like other church history things made me like I'm
converting right now.
Speaker 4: I'm in the catechumen process.
Speaker 2: That's great.
Speaker 1: I would say if you're looking for a good readable
book on just that topic specifically, not so much theology,
but the WJ. Woodbook Epistemology Becoming Intellectually Virtuous. This book,
it's a really really good book that's very readable and
from a Christian perspective on epistemology.
Speaker 2: So I would recommend checking out that book. Nikki, what's
up man?
Speaker 9: Hey Jay?
Speaker 10: Can you hear me?
Speaker 17: Yeah?
Speaker 16: I kind of want to talk about philosophy, religion, science,
constitutional republic. And then I thought I might hit on
a few of the rejections as science that you've been
going through, and.
Speaker 9: Actually some of it.
Speaker 16: If you would not reject science, it could actually further
your cause. So I guess we could start there. I'll
just go straight on to it on.
Speaker 1: So, first of all, I don't, strictly speaking quote reject science.
I made some posts and made some jokes about how
I don't believe in science. That was a joke, But
I do believe that the scientific method does enable human
beings to hypothesize and master and learn the natural world,
and that they can create refrigerators and computers.
Speaker 2: Based on science.
Speaker 1: I think science is properly speaking, things like engineering. But
I don't believe that everything that quotes science in terms
of some academic exercise at the top, people like at
the Lancet or Harvard, that climate science and gender science,
like all the things that are now called science, I'm
generally skeptical of. So you need to be more precise
and exactly what you think I'm rejecting.
Speaker 10: Okay, so first of all, I agree with you.
Speaker 16: I think there's a lot of Gaelian dialectics out there,
and I think one of them is that religion is
separate from science. I think if you operate with I
think you can learn from the empiricists, the rationalist and
the Enlightenment thinkers with the same presupposition that there is
divine providence and a divine revelation.
Speaker 2: So then you can use I don't disagree with any
of that.
Speaker 16: Yeah, then you can use those as secular tools that
reveal what the creation is and how it's created, you know,
et cetera.
Speaker 2: Well, so when you say divine revelation, what are you
referring to it? What does that mean?
Speaker 16: Well, I mean, you know a lot of people point
to things like sacred geometry, the Fibonacci sequence.
Speaker 2: Are you a Mason? Are you a free Mason.
Speaker 10: I've never been in a temple.
Speaker 16: I've read a lot of manly Palmer Hall, I've read
all kinds of stuff.
Speaker 10: So what you're.
Speaker 2: Giving is kind of like a Masonic perspective.
Speaker 16: Right, it's influenced by that. Sure, Yeah, I'll confess to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I don't deny that there's sacred geometry or any
of that. But I mean I think that the problem
I would have with that kind of take is like
that ends up really just being deism and no.
Speaker 2: Clear idea as to what the divine revelation is.
Speaker 1: So, you know, if I read Morals and Dogma, you know,
Albert Pike says, basically, all the religions are kind of
generic revelation, and really they're teaching you the secret principles
of geometry, and ultimately it's neoplatonism. And so basically it's
not really any divine revelation.
Speaker 2: It's just deism agnosticism.
Speaker 1: And if we're at the point of like deism, that's
a logical step before atheism. So why what do you
even mean by divine revelation? There's no content to that.
Speaker 16: Well, I have not read Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma,
but I've read a lot of other texts, so I
can't speak on that.
Speaker 2: Well, Well, I mean I would imagine Maley Palmer.
Speaker 1: I mean I've read some Maley Pee Hall, and I
mean he, you know, in Secret Teaching, he basically says
kind of the same type of stuff as Albert Pike.
Speaker 16: So, I mean I read a lectures on Ancient Philosophy.
I didn't read The Secret Teachings of All Ages. I
read the companion book to it, Lectures on Ancient Philosophy.
Speaker 1: Okay, anyway, whatever they think. The point is just that, like,
what does it even mean to stay divine revelation?
Speaker 16: Well, I guess what I'm referring to when I say
that right now is I'm speaking of you know, when
you talk about physics and geology and stuff. Let's go
back to Gabriel's question for a second. Is the world
old or new? It's like, why not both? And so
what I mean by that is, you know, we as humans,
we're operating with either a geocentric or a heliocentric worldview.
Speaker 9: But who's to.
Speaker 16: Say God is you know, we at least know there's
a galaxy and a universe. And then who's to say that,
you know, if there is a heaven, which you know,
when they talk about a heaven, it's like, who's to
say there's not a warden of this universe Jesus or
you know, God or something that that decides whether or
not you can go to heaven? And so what if
heaven is the multiverse where you you understand the laws
of natural law and you have to apply to principles
of natural law. And maybe maybe there's also people you know,
with informed consent, maybe you know they can visit each
other in heaven.
Speaker 10: I don't know.
Speaker 19: I don't really know.
Speaker 2: What what.
Speaker 10: I'm talking about is.
Speaker 16: Like, all these different denominations of Christianity are very confusing
to me on what their worldview of the afterlife is.
Speaker 15: I don't even know what it is.
Speaker 16: And most of them are just making stuff up.
Speaker 2: And That's what I'm talking about, Okay, Like, look, I agree.
In the multiverse, the Demiurge is Tattoo from Fantasy Island,
and he determines whether or not you have informed consent
to talk to your loved ones. Again, go watch Contact.
When Jodie Foster goes.
Speaker 1: Into the atheist alien space Heaven, she talks to her dad,
but that was only with the informed consent of Tattoo
from Fantasy Island.
Speaker 2: He is the Demiurge, Alex, what's up? It's not the plane,
the plane, it's the ship. The ship. It's the spaceship
us this ship, this ship? What's up? Man?
Speaker 20: Hey, Jake.
Speaker 10: Uh So?
Speaker 4: Through watching the stream.
Speaker 20: Tonight, I I just have a quick question.
Speaker 21: Sorry if this comes off a little silly, but I
just genuinely want to know, what do you think the
compatibility of being an orthodox Christian living in Bitcoin island.
Speaker 20: How would that be feasible? Like, I don't think do
you think they would include.
Speaker 21: An Orthodox church on the Bitcoin island, Like, how would
you go about doing Orthodox you know, faith, you know,
how would you go about doing that.
Speaker 1: On the Bitcoin I guess is gonna be a bitcoin state.
I'm sure that there could be an Orthodox church and
a like why would those things be incompatible?
Speaker 20: Because the first thing when I think about bitcoin, just
bitcoin things related and like bitcoin communities whatever, I don't
think they're like Orthodox first, you know, I really don't
think they would carry if there's an.
Speaker 2: America is not Orthodox first?
Speaker 1: Well no, no, no country except for maybe one or
two at least on paper, is Orthodox first.
Speaker 21: So so then do you don't you think there's like
a path or there's like a there's gonna be a
come a point where you're just gonna have to give
up on the whole thing of living in a bitcoin civilization, right, Like,
don't you think at some point it's going to become unfeasible?
Speaker 4: You know, like this idea of well.
Speaker 1: I don't know what I mean, the you know, we
could all die tomorrow and there could be into the
world tomorrow. So yeah, I don't know, but I mean,
there might be another two thousand and five thousand.
Speaker 2: Years left of the earth. So since we don't know, like,
how is that just how is that a defeat for
why a.
Speaker 1: Libertarian fantasy island, bigcoin island wouldn't work. I mean, I mean,
America hold on America is a worse scenario than say,
Bitcoin island for hypothetical purposes. Here, America is far more
anti Orthodoxy being first than Bitcoin island would be.
Speaker 2: So I don't understand the argument.
Speaker 20: No, it wasn't really an argument.
Speaker 21: I was just wondering, you know, like how someone of
orthodox or really any religion from any standpoint, honestly, like,
how they could live in one of those communities, because
I don't think any sort of bitcoin community would really
even care about religion, honestly, I don't.
Speaker 4: I think they would eventually become like.
Speaker 20: Just come to the point where we don't even need religion,
you know, we're just we're just a bitcoin community, and
they might just become like some kind of weird bitcoin cult,
you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: Well, that could happen.
Speaker 1: But again, if bitcoin becomes like let's say, for the
sake of argument, it becomes like the future currency or
world reserve currency or whatever. Like would that mean that
that Orthodoxy goes away because there's a new currency, or or.
Speaker 21: Would Orthodox he uh create their own bitcoin infused community.
Do you think that could be something that could happen. Well, yeah, yeah,
think bitcoin island is only for U or Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Well actually on the libertarian ethos, yeah, that would be
entirely They would have to argue that they would have
to argue that Orthodox could set up their island of
uh you know, Orthodox fantasy island that runs on bitcoin.
Speaker 21: Sure, sorry, this is another silly thing to say too,
but like do you think do you think Jesus would
approve of Like, yes, I want I want my Orthodox
community to you know, have bitcoin, Like I don't know,
it sounds stupid, but like you's trying to say, like
you think Jesus would be cool with like the whole bitcoin.
Speaker 4: Structure and all that.
Speaker 1: Well, given that it's the opposite of debt based slave money. Yes,
in fact, it's better than gold. I mean the Bible
says to use fair weights and measures, which means that
you don't rip off with monetary transactions and proverbs. That's
the entire purpose of big one.
Speaker 21: All right, well, thank you very much, Sae, appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean every not you, but every objection that
people have turns ten times worse on Fiat currency. So
I want to see if people really believe the stuff
they're saying. Then I want to see you guys like
totally not using fiat because it's like ten times worse
with fiat. And by the way, if you read the scriptures,
it does not ever say that money itself is evil.
It doesn't say gold itself is evil. It says that
unjust weights and measures, and you know, enslaving people with
usury is what's evil. So that presupposes that we ought
to be just in our transactions. And take, for example,
the first thousand years of Christianity had, as everyone knows,
both East and West, prohibition on Christians using usury. That
right there shows you that the Church told and spoke
to the culture that you weren't supposed to engage in
those types of money abusive scenarios. So the idea that
like Jesus has nothing to do with the political order
or this kind of stuff that's all like weird Protestant
gnostic type stuff.
Speaker 2: Uh, pepe, what's up, hatty?
Speaker 22: Hattie that was abrupt, So yeah, I get just sort
of joined the conversation. So, uh, sticking on the theme
of bitcoin, what if what if Trump all of a
sudden decided to accept bitcoin or doge and we were
able to circumvent the Fed because you've got to figure
England wanted to force the US colonies to use the
pound sterling an interest and we were like, I screw that,
We're done here.
Speaker 4: And then the FED does it.
Speaker 22: Everyone's like, oh, yeah, that sounds good, So like it's
it's kind of goofy. And then like on the actual
theme of the thing, one thing I can never get
an answer on is why do people believe the Old
Testament just like by itself.
Speaker 1: Well, well, to answer the first question, the question was
if Trump is pro bitcoin and crypto, could its go
around or subvert the Federal Reserve?
Speaker 2: I mean, I think the Federal.
Speaker 1: Reserve is kind of connected to the old legacy fiat system.
Speaker 2: It's really the embodiment of that. I think that old
system is eventually dying, so if the dollar is to survive,
it's going to have to in some.
Speaker 1: Way you marry bitcoin. However, they do this with strategic
reserve or whatever.
Speaker 18: They do.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I think that's the only lifeline for
the dollar. As for the Old Testament, I mean, one.
Speaker 1: Reason that many people believe it is that it had
so many prophecies of the time of Christ's birth that
were accurate, as well as his life, ministry and what
would happen afterwards.
Speaker 22: Well yeah, but that's especially if you look at it
through the lens of apologetics, and like that is like
the most common thing.
Speaker 19: I figure.
Speaker 22: It's like, well, I like this one book, so by
default I have to like this other book. But it's
kind of strange, like the variations and how much people
really believe it. So like I'll talk to a rabbi
and he'll be like, yeah, you know, it's just important
cultural stories. A lot of it is historical fiction, a
lot of it's not to be taken literally. And then
you got like the infallibilists and the literalists and they're like, no,
every single word actually happened, Jodah and the belly. Like
it's just like if people were to isolate just the
Old Testament without the Jesus parts, like cause there are
still Jews, but it's like I don't even know why,
Like I was people tell me I'm Jewish because birth things.
But yeah, I still I don't even believe the Old Testament,
so I can't believe the New Testament.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean most most right, Well, and actually most
Jews don't actually believe the Old Testament. They believe, if
they're serious, they believe the Talmud, which takes precedence over
the Old Testament. But I'm saying that in general, outside
of Judaism, the reason people would believe that the Old
Testament profits or profits is because of many precise predictions
about Christ himself.
Speaker 23: So not.
Speaker 2: Like one or two things, but many, many, many, many
many predictions. Daniel, what's up? Starting to get a headache?
So I'm I mean, I'm gonna keep going because we've
still got twenty one people requesting to debate. That's crazy,
are you there?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 2: What's up? Christian? Three dollars? Jay?
Speaker 1: I was thinking about Protestants. My church is Wesley and
I'm blown away by the spirit moving in my church.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's kind of subjective. I don't know what
you mean. Like, so like some bum comes in and
decides he wants to enter AA.
Speaker 7: Like is that?
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know what that means. I know
many go too far, but I don't think all yeah,
but I just I still don't think that what you're
calling the.
Speaker 1: Movements of the Holy Spirit necessarily quote prove that the
Methodists or the Church. I mean, I could be at
AA and a dude come in and like, you know,
he wants to quit drinking or whatever, and that's a
good thing. But I wouldn't say that, oh cee AA
is the true Church because look at look at the
positive effect. It's just not enough to say what the
true church is. Agent zero five dollars work as safe
for a I watch a lot of boomers buy artificial
foods all day long. Boomers love fake food. Uh yeah,
something about it. By the way, what do you think
of dark journalists? He was on info Wars a couple
of times. He seems like a morn to me, no
respect to AJ. I met dark journalist. The first time
I ever.
Speaker 2: Did a speaking engagement was at a.
Speaker 1: Secret it's called the Secret Space Program. Of course, I
was just there to talk about movies. You can still
watch that video on YouTube.
Speaker 2: It's called.
Speaker 1: It's like Esoteric Hollywood or something. It's like the first
presentation that I'm doing with slides behind me from like
twenty fourteen or fifteen, that's when I did.
Speaker 2: It might be uploaded later. But he was a nice
guy in person.
Speaker 1: We didn't really spend much time talking, so I don't
I never really heard his views.
Speaker 2: I heard about half.
Speaker 1: Of the interview that he did the other day with AJ,
so I don't know enough about his positions.
Speaker 2: But does he believe in aliens?
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure what his views Jacob ten dollars.
My family and I were received Orthodoxy after I grew
at Roman Catholic I was then a set of a
contest for a time at same situation here. Glad to
hear that, Jacob, I can't thank you enough for your work.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 9: Man.
Speaker 2: Glad to hear that. I think you're gonna find it
a much more.
Speaker 1: Peaceful, freeing situation than the trad crazy, trad cat world. Now,
everybody should keep in mind like the Orthodox world is
not problem free.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of.
Speaker 1: Annoying people in the Orthodox world. You're gonna meet priests
that will make you mad, You're gonna meet bishops that
let you down. I mean that you're gonna have bad
experiences in the Orthodox world too. So everybody should be
aware that you're not escaping problems by becoming Orthodox. It's
just different problems, right, So like the problems in the
Roman Catholic world, this many many years removed from that,
so I kind of don't even remember what that was
like anymore. But I would ever go back to the
Romancolic position ever. But you know, it's not like you're
gonna because you're still dealing with human beings, so you're
still gonna deal with, you know, difficult people. My situation
might be worse because of being public profile or.
Speaker 2: Whatever, but.
Speaker 1: I would over I would say, overall though most of
the experiences I've had, even though I've had several bad experiences,
most of my experiences have been good, Like most of
the Orthodox people that I've met spent time with. Everybody's great,
it's just a minority of kind of vicious, malicious people.
Speaker 2: User two O nine five dollars? Have you ever read Gogol?
Especially as short stories?
Speaker 18: Now?
Speaker 2: Actually, I think my priest was telling me to read
gogle so I need to get to that. What is
your opinion of them? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Weren't Dosciewski and flannering Ot Connor fans. I think I've
heard that. I think Father Vladimir told me that I
do need to read that doctor Chilling five dollars a
homeboyd I'll.
Speaker 2: Be triggered by Bobby's perspective. I'm not triggered.
Speaker 1: It's just that, I mean, if you go back, like
four years ago, Tristan was having Bobby on all the
time and they were talking about Orthodox stuff, that was
you know, Tristan was kind of new to look at
an Orthodoxy, maybe even twenty nineteen eighteen somewhere in there,
and then.
Speaker 24: Bobby was like, Orthodox, so let's talk about Orthodoxy and diets.
And then suddenly it's like I didn't even realize that
they talked the triunity is pigan.
Speaker 2: That's a bad Bobby. I can do a better Bobby
if and Tristan does a really good Bobby. But I'm
not triggered by him. I just think it's goofy. He's Bulgarian,
vegan meat eater. He's now Muslim.
Speaker 1: However, I cannot imagine a bigger grifter than Bobby. He
will never do a debate, no, I know that, Like
we we tried to get Bobby to not even do
a debate, but to come have a discussion, and he
wouldn't even do that, so of course he's not gonna
do a debate.
Speaker 2: Bobby C. Ten dollars, Good evening. I am blocked on X.
Was it by accident? Did I do something? Would you
consider unblocking me? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I block a lot of people because basically, if I
sense idiocy, it's a media block. So perhaps I made
a mistake, perhaps you were an idiot, perhaps.
Speaker 2: None of the above, and I accidentally hit a button
or something.
Speaker 1: I don't know who you are because when I type
in Bobby C, I don't see anybody's profile that comes
up Bobby C. So you got to tell me what
your profile is to unblock you, because, to be honest
with you, I have about probably three thousand people blocked,
so and my life is pretty good when it comes
a lot of Like I don't if somebody's really ridiculous
unless they later come and apologize, Like I'm happy.
Speaker 2: Just not interacting with a lot of idiots. Schooma bear
ten dollars.
Speaker 1: My friend wanted to ask what you thought about calling
Jesus an avatar. I mean that's kind of like a
typically a new age hinduist.
Speaker 2: You know type of concept. It's not doesn't really make sense.
And because it suggests that there are many avatars, right
and no, we think Jesus has way truth in the life.
Speaker 1: Tony teb ten dollars, blessings to the family, Thank you
so much. Do you mean Charles Manson's family or mine?
Speaker 2: Ultra three dollars. Hey, this is how I see you.
Speaker 1: You're sending me YouTube video links that I can't see
on stream labs. Mister goofy, have you watched Secret Level?
Speaker 2: No, I don't know what that is.
Speaker 1: Space Marines equals Bays demon slayers, Gay dire baysed demon slayer. Oh,
it sounds like an extreme evangelical who is going.
Speaker 2: To put me in my place? Why don't you call
in Ultra.
Speaker 1: I can't see what your YouTube videos are that you're
posting and turner five dollars. When I try to follow
the line of all who accredits theological schools in America,
I come to ats. I can't find any real information
on this or its affiliations. This seems strange to be
such an opaque organization for holding so much power.
Speaker 2: This is a good question.
Speaker 1: In fact, somebody brought this up the other day, like
because there was a discussion in one of my mod
chats about like who who decides accreditation? And I mean,
on one level, it makes sense that there would be
some kind of accredited crediting thing, but on the other hand,
like I've been in academia and grad school and all that,
and I've been in.
Speaker 2: Schools that were not accredited and accredited. So uh, accreditation usually.
Speaker 1: Generally speaking, is just a tool of control because they
decide that, oh, well, if you're going to be accredited,
you're going to teach blah blah blah blah blah. And
I feel sure nowadays that that's all a bunch of
woke crt stuff. So I would imagine your ap absolutely
on point here that whoever does this, and I've never
actually looked into this, it is probably some shady United
Nations rock filler globalist institution California prober one dollar. How
can something create a be eternal? Well, God creates a
timeless eternity, so that's one, so look up again, So
meaning that it's not subject to the motions of space
and time. It's hence a time less created eternity. Why
can't there be a created eternity? If God creates us
to be creatures who are eternal, so there can be
created eternities because we are created eternities. Look at the
medieval theologians called this all eternity ae, the eternity, all
of eternity, So that shows that there's nothing inherently impossible
about a creative thing being given eternality. But it's just
not discussed a lot in theology because most people don't
read Maximus Confessor and you need to read UH Laws
Scus Dogmatic Theology.
Speaker 18: UH.
Speaker 1: For example, even Protestant websites know that when you look
up the word aon, it means simply a boundless time,
aon in.
Speaker 2: Greek timeless eternal essence. So for us, they're obviously there's
not gods.
Speaker 1: And in fact, in the Latin the word is avonm,
which in the Greek is aon, and which I'm telling
you in the theology is a timeless eternity.
Speaker 2: So go look up what I'm telling you.
Speaker 1: Go read the book vy Vladimir Lowski Dogmatic Theology and
read the five pages on the timeless aon.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to recommend that website. I've never heard
anybody talk about this, by the way, until I read
it in Losky.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even look like you can really find even
any Orthodox websites discussing it. Even in Plato, the word aon.
Speaker 25: Is in.
Speaker 1: Here's father John Whiteford talking about it, but he's talking
about critiquingdavidanly Hard. I think, all right, well, this is
about universalism, This isn't what i'm This will probably be
a good refutation of universalism, this isn't exactly what I'm
looking for.
Speaker 2: I think the point is that.
Speaker 1: Time suggests beginning an end, and since we're talking about
something that is time less, it's not functioning in a
beginning end sense. It's an ever existing present, but it's
not eternal or it's not uncreated. So it's a time
less created realm where the angels exist. And that's why
when the trust's father's talk about the angels falling, it
was outside of time and hence it was instantaneous. But
this isn't really dealing with that. Alulah, five dollars add
me to your prayers. God knows I love you brother
as always. Thank you appreciate that. Lula, will we'll do that, silly,
give us five dollars. Do you have any thoughts on
Dan McClellan. I think we did him on We covered
him on that stream that Cootel and I did about
deconstructing Christianity.
Speaker 2: So you can go watch that.
Speaker 1: He will not debate people. But if you have rebuttals,
what are they? Go watch our video together about We
did two. We did one on my channel deconstructing Christianity
and then one on his channel deconstructing Christianity.
Speaker 2: I think we deal with.
Speaker 1: McClellan in his video on his channel. Gabriel twenty five dollars.
What happens to people who never hear of Jesus?
Speaker 2: Do they go to Hell?
Speaker 1: We don't make that judgment. We're not told the destiny
of people. We're just told to tell people to come
into the arc. It seems the moral to witness to
them and give them a chance to reject it. If
they would immediately go to heaven, well, we don't say
they immediately go to heaven.
Speaker 2: God doesn't tell us, and how he judges of people,
we don't know. There's inklings of how he does that
in Romans two in regard to natural law. But our
job is to tell them to join the church. Well
at annual five dollars I didn't even notice that this
was a late stream. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like midnight here. Appreciate that Albanian do ninety
eight two dollars.
Speaker 2: Contaxation in society be viewed as a divine judgment and
consequence because the sins of self interest and greed. From
an Orthodox perspective, I think all things like that can
be chastisements. Yeah, like any anything that comes our way, right,
if a plague comes, right, that's a chastisement. And you know,
in the.
Speaker 1: Covenants to be relations in Deuteronomy and in the Covenant
stipulations to the churches and Revelation two and three, the
blessings and the cursings that come to chastisements, all of
them are for are good.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I would I would say so. In fact,
I think there's a text in Ezekiel. Yeah, there's a
text in Ezekiel.
Speaker 1: That says that God gave them over to bad laws
because they were disobedient. And I remember Scott Hahn back
in the day when I was cat. I remember he
was a big letdown to me because he actually took
a like a modernist.
Speaker 2: Documentary hypothesis view about that. I kid you not.
Speaker 1: You could probably go look it up where he's trying
to grapple with this text, but I wish I don't
even think it's that weird of a text.
Speaker 24: He's like, I could not extense of distract, And he's like,
so I came to the conclusion that it's the Old
Testament itself and its laws that God is here saying
are bad laws.
Speaker 2: What God gave bad laws, which are the Torah? That
makes absolutely no sense.
Speaker 1: What he's saying is that since you wouldn't obey my laws,
I gave you up to bad human laws.
Speaker 2: Not even to me.
Speaker 1: It's not even a mysterious text. I don't know where
or why Scott Hank came up with that.
Speaker 2: Big way five dollars, Jay. I got to ask you,
why do you do some of the debate streams. I
hear a lot of Goober's showing up.
Speaker 1: Does it get tiring? It does get tiring, and I
enjoy it at the same time. So it's a love
hate relationship with debating. It seems to help a lot
of people. I get tons and tons of people saying
they love this. I mean the debate streams.
Speaker 2: If you guys watched my movie and book streams and
they got thirty thousand views.
Speaker 1: I would do that all the time, but ten thousand
people watch those and thirty forty fifty thousand people watch these.
So that's part of the reason why I do it,
that nobody.
Speaker 2: Watches the book streams and the movie streams.
Speaker 1: I still do them because I enjoy them. But Bitcoin
Island three dollars. I love these late night streams.
Speaker 2: Keep it up.
Speaker 10: Jay.
Speaker 2: Hey, if you want to support my work and you do,
happen to be a bitcoin tattoo Fantasy Island bro.
Speaker 1: This is my wallet rye here. People always ask what's
like QR code? That's to support me buy bitcoin? If
you would like to get started with bitcoin, there is
a link in my show description to swan Bitcoin. They're
a purchasing bitcoin only company.
Speaker 2: That's all it is.
Speaker 1: You buy it and then you transfer it to your wallet.
Very simple, very smooth process. Also, if you want to
support my work and your own health in the sense
of increasing toxic masculinity, then head on over to chalk
dot com. They're the best and supplement take particularly male vitality.
I recommend that chalk Stack right there. Use promo co
j forty four life to get forty four percent off.
You can cancel at any time and you will absolutely
up your toxic masculinity promo code Jay four four L
I F E. I recommend that performance stack, particularly the
tonk Ketally. Now, also we have ten percent ladies. There's
only ten percent of this audience as ladies. You can
go get that the female vitality Sack.
Speaker 26: And if you don't want to recurrence the description, you
can use the promo coach JAY four zero to get
forty percent off chalk dot com mer curious one dollar.
If I'm under a jurisdiction that promotes a humunism or
some other scandal, is there precedent for how to combat
heresy within a community or an Orthodox situation supposed to
admit with docility as.
Speaker 2: Our Roman Catholics.
Speaker 1: I mean, really, it just depends on how far we're talking.
I mean, are you talking about the bishop, are you
talking about a priest who says something liberal? Or I mean,
I guess ideally it probably would just be best to
find a better jurisdiction if you can. But there's not
an easy answer to these kinds of questions. We still
got twenty people over here.
Speaker 2: Let's find vesper. We got Eva Green over here? What's up?
Vesper Lend? Hello?
Speaker 4: Seconds, see if I can hear you?
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 27: All right, it's working now, all right, So I disagree
with the whole host of stuff you said, but let's
go with universalism.
Speaker 4: What's your issue with then?
Speaker 1: Well, the New Testament pretty clearly doesn't teach universalism. The
Church has condemned it at least three times and three
ecumenical councils.
Speaker 2: So that's enough for me.
Speaker 4: Are you sure about that?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 27: Because doesn't the Eastern Orthodoxy believe in this sort of
purgatory No, with like the aerial toll houses, Well.
Speaker 1: That's not purgatory. Purgatory has created fire, that God has
no creative fire.
Speaker 4: Okay, But you believe in like a purification of the souls, But.
Speaker 2: That's not purgatory because purgatory is bound up with the
Roman Catholic doctrine of temporald that's for sins and created
fire from God.
Speaker 4: Okay. And what happens to the souls in hell at
the end at the end times.
Speaker 1: They are joined back to their body and they are
experiencing the wrath of God and not the love of God.
Speaker 4: They experience unity with God.
Speaker 2: Right, No, the wrath of God, because God's love to
them is wrath, the.
Speaker 4: Full presence of God. You take that to mean something nefarious.
Speaker 2: Well, the lake of fire for us as Orthodox is
the same thing as the river of life. What distinguishes
these two experiences is are you laughing?
Speaker 4: Let's see, do you see the experience eternal torment?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: So the Orthodox view is that the river of life
is the lake of fire. But your recapitulation of the
virtues or lack thereof, is what determines your individual experience
of the escaton.
Speaker 4: So there's no reconciliation for people.
Speaker 2: Not if they, to the end of their life persist
in what Jesus calls the unforgivable sin.
Speaker 27: Correct, But they could theoretically be saved from hell in
this life, I mean, after being sent to hell.
Speaker 1: No, there's no precedence for that. There's no reason to
believe that. What's the basis to believe that?
Speaker 4: I don't know. It just it seems weird that their
souls are eternally tortured.
Speaker 1: I said, they're joined to their body and resurrected and
they experience what they chose, So they're not eternally tormented.
Speaker 2: As if God is.
Speaker 4: Okay, Okay, so they're basically reincarnated.
Speaker 2: No, the resurrection is not is not reincarnation. No, it's not.
We're gonna move on, Jake, what's up? What's up? Jake?
And I'm mute, Jake, unmute, unmute, dude.
Speaker 28: All right, Oh sorry, Hey, I have a couple of
questions about the GEOC speaking of kind of schismatics. What
you know, the genuine Orthodox Church quote unquote okay, so
is anything of them worth debating or using their content?
Speaker 29: So I'm just asked.
Speaker 28: Because some of their stuff might be confusing some of
the new converts or people who are just kind of inquires,
you know. Some of the things they say is kind
of like it seems pretty kind of like donatists.
Speaker 19: Yeah, I don't know if you're kind of.
Speaker 28: Tracking any of the stuff that they that they talk about, this.
Speaker 2: Is like five people, ten people, It's like nothing like
it's like it's smaller than set of a countism So no, people.
Speaker 1: Should just not waste their time with any of that.
And every schismatic group will, you know, have some legitimate gripe,
but that doesn't justify the actions or the reactions of
those groups.
Speaker 2: Kevin, what's up? Man?
Speaker 1: Looking for people who disagree. So if you're Orthodox and
you're asking me catechumen questions, I'm not doing that tonight.
So please if you disagree with me, if you want
to argue Catholicism, Atheism, protestantsm Calvinism, Islam, libertarianism, Gnocissism.
Speaker 2: It's not Orthodox ataq and I what's up? Kevin on you?
Kevin on? Mute? Ken is Kevin from the office. What's up?
Kevin on you?
Speaker 10: Hey?
Speaker 4: Jay?
Speaker 10: Sorry about that's up?
Speaker 30: Uh.
Speaker 31: Yeah, So I'm a pretty new listener. I've been watching
recently all of your debates and all that. So I'm
wondering if you wanted to talk a little bit about
Jeovah's witnesses.
Speaker 4: Okay, so really really quick summary. Uh.
Speaker 31: I was raised in the Jehovah's witness household, and uh
for in my late teens, I became an anti uh
anti theist, like an.
Speaker 10: Atheist anti seis kind of thing.
Speaker 31: I'm recently confining my way back to spirituality overall, and
I'm starting to lean forward Orthodogray.
Speaker 9: But my question to you is, and hopefully you.
Speaker 31: Can help me out here, is my family is super
intrussed in this belief to this date, So I'm wondering,
what maybe if you have some arguments to help maybe
take himself out of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would say a couple places to start. One
would be right here. This video is Jesus God is
God at Trinity. This is a video I made almost
six years ago. It'said about fifty thousand views on it.
I would start with that video because I go through many, many,
many Old Testament passages that prove that Christ is the
second person of the Godhead, and he's called yeahweh, He's
called God, not just in the New Testament, but all
throughout the Old Testament. Next, I would say watch the
recent video that I did Trinity in the Old Testament,
which is a step beyond this initial video, where I
actually go through all of the references to the Trinity
in the Torah, so very precise, very specific that we're
literally going to walk through. This ends up being ultimately
about three hours, and I think I missed one passage
in either numbers. I think in numbers, so I got
almost all of them. I missed one in numbers. But
it's another three hours of textual evidence and proofs that
the Old Testament literally teaches the train Now If the
Old Testament uses the Trinity, that's the end of Joe's Witnesses.
We don't even need or have to go to the
New Testament passages, which we can because there's plenty of
those in the New Testament as well. You could just
google New Testament passages that show the duty of Christ.
But I really think the Old Testament passages are the
most forceful because it really destroys Islam, Judaism, and jose
Witnesses all at the same time. So check out those videos.
Appreciate that, Kevin, and glad to see you moving.
Speaker 2: In the right direction. Bro, Jeff, what's up man?
Speaker 4: Hello? Hey, Hey, what's up man?
Speaker 32: So I am a new listener recently, you know, pretty
much accepted Jesus into my heart and this has really helped.
But I just wanted to kind of debate with you
about the way maybe I've thought about things in the past,
and you know, just to kind of see, like, wheread
go from it, even though I'm already kind of, you know,
on your side on it.
Speaker 4: Does that make sense on what topic? Well?
Speaker 19: So just kind of the concept of.
Speaker 4: Good and evil.
Speaker 32: You know, I didn't really consider the fact that there
was a good or evil. It just kind of was
you know, I didn't believe that I even had free will.
I'm just a robot of meat, you know, going through,
going through life and survival is the mechanism in which
I do everything, you know, run away from pain and
run towards pleasure.
Speaker 4: That makes sense.
Speaker 32: In the sense, but I'm not, you know, like a
hetonistic person like I. At the same time, I see,
you know, doing things like drinking, as dipping into a
river that the more I dip my foot in, the
more it submerges me and takes me down. It's past
and then I'm unable to get out of that river.
So that's the way I would consider doing things that
I didn't think.
Speaker 4: It was bad.
Speaker 32: It's not like that river is an evil river. It's
just that river is drinking porn, you know, doing crazy shit.
And sometimes I, you know, get in a river, probably
more than I should, but I never got lost in that.
Speaker 4: Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you say, basically you're saying, like vices didn't run
your life exactly.
Speaker 32: So I try to do try to do positive things,
and you know, for the most part, I was pretty
happy doing that. So I kind of was like, you know,
and I grew up evangelical type of Christian uh, And
I just didn't really see a reason to to go
to God. You know, I'm not a depressed guy, didn't
fear death.
Speaker 9: Uh.
Speaker 32: And even coming back to Christianity, it wasn't the the
hell heart that kept me, you know, kept me from
coming in.
Speaker 19: It's not like I was like, oh shit, hell.
Speaker 10: It was just like a logical conclusion.
Speaker 32: It was very like, you know what, I'm picking the side.
I'm picking this side. How do you talk to somebody
like me about Christianity? Because I feel like even bringing
it up back to my friends, like dude, Jeff gone crazy, you.
Speaker 7: Know what I mean?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 4: So what so?
Speaker 2: What is the question?
Speaker 4: So it's just like, how how do I explain good
and evil?
Speaker 9: You know?
Speaker 19: How do you even like.
Speaker 32: Because like in my sense that there is no good
in evil in my older sense, you know, how would
you say that there is a good and there isn't
an evil?
Speaker 2: I guess how do you pro I mean, I would
say those are kind of like good as a you know,
kind of a train incidental. It's like a necessary category
that like has there has to be some good or
else you couldn't make value judgments. You couldn't say that
this thing is not good or this is better or worse.
Speaker 1: So there's got to be some account of the good
rather than just saying there is the good. And I
think if you start to, you know, ask kind of
basic philosophical questions, Okay, well, what does it mean to
say something is good?
Speaker 2: What is the good? How do I know the good?
Where is the good?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: Those kinds of questions lead you into the domain of well,
then what isn't good?
Speaker 2: Is there evil?
Speaker 1: And that leads to the questions like, well, is there
an ultimate good, the highest good God? And then is
there things that are against God? Angels, demons, et cetera.
So if you're asking for the kinds of questions that
I would ask to people who don't believe, those are
the sort of philosophical questions I would ask that lead
to theology. So a lot of philosophical questions we don't
think of them as the logical, but they actually kind
of end up in the domain of theology, uh.
Speaker 2: Daniel. So I would start with those kinds of questions. Maybe, yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Don't claim it's a mystery and then claim the universalism
is false because there's aspects that I claim are mysterious
and others.
Speaker 2: That are not.
Speaker 4: So it's just like.
Speaker 1: Not even basics. Uh, Daniel can't connect Nathan, So we're
looking for people who disagree.
Speaker 2: Tonight, i'man.
Speaker 4: I was just wondering.
Speaker 25: So I have a friend at work that he is
into the faith healing and it's based in gnoscissism, and
I was wondering what the best argument against that is.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it's hard to argue with people
like that because most of the time they're really based
on emotion, So they're really only going to believe or
accept on the basis of the emotional highs and lows
that they get.
Speaker 2: So I don't even know.
Speaker 1: You might not even be able to have like an
argued type of position with that kind of person. It
might be better to just like invite him to an
Orthodox church or something like that rather than trying to
debate with him.
Speaker 2: If I was going to debate with somebody like that.
Speaker 1: I would just try to get him to start questioning
whether he's really seeing miracles, whether he's really seeing prophecies,
and all kinds of whatever he believes is going on
at his Pentecostal group.
Speaker 2: Emmanuel Herrera really for people who disagree.
Speaker 9: Hey, hello something Okay, So I just kind of wanted
to talk about like the LPT kind of.
Speaker 12: So basically the argument that was good to me was
if the Father didn't quote the essence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we've covered this many times, we did the whole
talks on it.
Speaker 12: No, but like particularly for the essence at like particular
and universals like not just like the standard LPT argument.
Speaker 2: So basically, how would the logical problem of trinity relate
to universals? I don't understand.
Speaker 12: It isn't more of the LPT, more just a God
being three like the Trinity being three gods.
Speaker 2: Well, strictly speaking, it's not three gods.
Speaker 1: I mean it's one God, the Father, and then the
Son and the Spirit participate in his divine essence. So
I mean, are you just like, what's the problem, Like, Well,
I've covered the LPT explicitly extensively multiple times.
Speaker 9: Yeah, and I've watched I'll watch your videos on it.
Speaker 12: Okay, this is like a distinct argument because it was like,
if I believe the fathers identical to the Essence, but
then I believe the divine essence is a universal does
I mean the Father's universal.
Speaker 1: Most of the church fathers don't believe the divine Essence
is a universal. Some do, some don't, so that might
be a problematic terminological use. I would inquate the divine
essence with a universal. It's like a universal in the
way that something can be one and many, just like
particular as the universals can be both, and so in
the trinity it can be both in But I don't
know that the Divine Essence is a universal per se.
I think maybe Nissa thinks that if I go going
for memory, but most church fathers don't think that.
Speaker 12: So then so then if I say that it's three particulars,
he said, well, then that means if you count God
by particulars, there's a sense some which you have three gods.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's just a different use of the word
God than what's being picked out by the essence. So
I mean nice, and Creed says, you know, God from God,
light from light. So there, the word God is just
picking out hypostasis.
Speaker 9: Okay, okay, so yeah, answer my question.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 9: I haven't merry Christmas you.
Speaker 1: Too, man, I'm just starting to get a little tired
of I'm not frustrated with you it's just my mind
is kind of turning to most of a certain point.
Speaker 2: Lewis V. What's up women going for? I'm your due
one dollar? How do you claim to be a Christian
when you've never had visions of huge breasticles in gorge
with milk? Well, how do you know? I haven't had
that dream? I just haven't told you guys about it.
Anonymous three dollars. I love your work. What do you
think is the best?
Speaker 9: Who?
Speaker 1: Wait, what you think is the best better quality? And
what should you focus on? I think the best thing
you can.
Speaker 2: Do in debate is to.
Speaker 1: Try to be defeated and being serious. What yes, I'm
being one er percent serious. Why would you try to
be defeated? Because what I want to do in a
debate is know everything about the other position as good
as or better than they do, And I want the
truth so bad that I actually want.
Speaker 2: Them to show me if I'm wrong. I think that's
the key.
Speaker 1: But I think most people probably think that I go
into a debate or I go about this kind of
stuff just to show off or just to always cop
a win. Actually know the way that I think I
got to be good at what I do in this
domain is through always wanting to be corrected if I
was wrong, and I've been wrong about many things.
Speaker 2: In fact, I was thinking the other day about making.
Speaker 1: A YouTube video about all the places I was wrong,
because YouTube now like all these the videos that are popular,
the ones that pop up are like these kinds of
like personal. You know, I was wrong about everything, So
I was thinking about making some kind of video like that.
So I think people mistakenly think the debate is a
thing where you're just going in to demonstrate how right
you are. That's actually not what you're doing. What you're
doing is you want to go in and you actually
want to be corrected if you're wrong, and so, well,
how would that make me win debates? Because if I
am debating somebody who's a Muslim and I'm listening to
their debates, I want to know what their good arguments
are and where they're right and if they are right.
Speaker 2: Maybe they're not, but maybe they are. So this process
of always and not every human being is going to
be successful in this.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you're gonna fail at it because you're human, you're limited,
you're weak, you don't have not all the time in
the world. But if you're at least trying to understand
the other position. You're gonna be much better off than
if you're not and you're just playing games and you're whatever.
And some of you might think that, oh, he's ignored
my argument. It's because I can already since within about
twenty thirty seconds, that you don't have a good argument. Sorry,
And you can interpret her however you want. You can
think I'm ignoring you and I'm scared of you.
Speaker 2: Whatever. It's fine. I'm not.
Speaker 1: I can tell right away. And that's because I've been
doing this since I was eighteen or nineteen. So some
people have been playing guitar since they were teenagers. I've
been doing this, and that's why I do have a
reputation of not losing debates, because I go into debates
wanting to lose debates, meaning that I want to know
the actual position and arguments of the opponent. And I
can only think of a couple times in public debates
since I've been doing them on YouTube at least. I mean,
I've been doing debates since I was eighteen nineteen, but
in terms of public YouTube debates, I can only think
of a couple times where and this is this happens
in debates because you don't always know, for example, what
people are going to bring in their opening statement, and
you don't always know what they're going to bring across
examinations or rebuttals, right, so they might bring some.
Speaker 2: Of the table that you've never heard.
Speaker 1: They might in their opening statement throughout something that you
don't know about. And I can think of a couple
times in public debates where people through curve balls or
through stuff at me.
Speaker 2: That I wasn't really familiar with.
Speaker 1: But even that doesn't necessarily mean you lose the whole debate,
because debates cover a lot. They can cover, you know,
a lot of broad topics, a lot of information, a
lot of disputed points. So I think winning and losing
debates ultimately ends up being about who has overall the
best argument. Unfortunately, a lot of debates nowadays ends up
coming down to thirty second clips, which is really lame.
Speaker 2: There's not really any way to stop that, but.
Speaker 1: People have such shot attention spans and everybody's so lazy
that I guess that's kind of unavoidable.
Speaker 2: But I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just spent like twenty minutes replying to a question
about debate. So I think if you wanted to be
a good debater. What I would focus on.
Speaker 2: I always tell people go listen to the Monson Steining
debate about five or ten times, take notes on it.
Learn the way that Bonson.
Speaker 1: Debates, because he was probably one of the best debaters
at least the last century. He's just a master at
It doesn't mean I agree with all his positions, but
he was a really good debater.
Speaker 2: I wish. Actually, the sad part is that I wish
Monson had done more debates.
Speaker 1: I've had a lot of really fascinating, great debates to
study if he had done more.
Speaker 2: Of course, Bonson died.
Speaker 1: Somewhat young, but I would say study Greg Bonson's Gornstein
debate and his other debates, because even the Tabash debate
there's stuff.
Speaker 2: To study there as well. I've done reviews of all
those debates on my channel if you go into the archives.
But yeah, it's not for everybody. It's not a.
Speaker 1: It's not a talent or a thing that many people respect.
I guess the Internet makes it somewhat respectable, but.
Speaker 9: I don't know.
Speaker 2: People just think that.
Speaker 1: You're a jerk and that you're just trying to be mean,
or that you just want to show out and that's
not really what it is. I mean, it really is
about pursuit of truth.
Speaker 2: Anyway. So you say, what should I focus on?
Speaker 1: Well, if I was just starting out, I would say, again,
watch the Boston Stein debate and learn the basic fallacies.
Speaker 2: That's like step one.
Speaker 1: And obviously, you know, if you watch a lot of debates,
you're gonna notice how how it goes, the.
Speaker 2: Flow, how people operate. And I would just start taking
philosophy classes. I mean, you really can't. You can't be
an effective debater if you haven't had some basic philosophy classes.
Speaker 1: You need a logic class, you need a pistemology class,
you probably need metaphysics class, ethics class.
Speaker 2: I mean, it just depends on how far you want
to go. Same with like people say this about music,
I want to learn the guitar, Well are you sure?
I mean, you're gonna have to do some work.
Speaker 1: You're not gonna be able to like listen to the
bonds and signed debate and then suddenly you're a debater.
It just doesn't work like anything like this. Just like
playing guitar classical, like you have to put a lot
of time in so but that's the start, David, A
one dollar take is so much?
Speaker 2: Clip and trim one dollar? You should? Should we open
up a clip and trim him?
Speaker 1: On Bitcoin Island, you can try because it's going to
be libertarian fantasy island.
Speaker 2: And I mean it's that means it's a free market, bro.
Speaker 1: So you know, if you want to be over there
cutting tattoos hair, maybe, but also if tattoo is our
private security contractor enforcer, if you cut his hair wrong,
you might wake.
Speaker 2: Up missing a finger or two. So that's your Jess McCall.
Speaker 1: Trevor, it's a very nineties preppy dude named Trevor.
Speaker 4: Hello, can you hear me?
Speaker 9: Huh?
Speaker 19: How's it going?
Speaker 2: Chair good? I mean, I'm a little tired of my
mind as motion, but what's up?
Speaker 33: Yeah, I've been on here. I get why you didn't
pick me for the last few times i've been on here.
I'm a pretty like ain't on account, but I have
a few questions about tag if you'll answer them, Okay, Yeah,
they're the generic questions us from the outset. I just
get the impression that it's begging the question, and uh,
I do have a problem with the premise, the impossibility
of the contrary.
Speaker 1: So, so if I say X is a necessary condition
of why why therefore X? Do you think that's not
a valid form?
Speaker 18: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I think I think the form is correct. I just
proving proving the premise.
Speaker 33: The impossibility of the contrary is just something I have
a I'm just curious about.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, that's not the only way that you
can state the argument. You can state the argument that
only the Christian paradigm gives an account for ethics, metaphysics,
and epistemology. I could phrase it like that, so I
don't have to use I don't use you have to
use the phraseology of by the impossibility of the contrary?
Speaker 4: Okay, how do you how do you prove the well?
Speaker 1: Because any other paradigm is not going to be able
to give an account for knowledge ethicsstem, I mean metaphysics,
mm hmm.
Speaker 4: How do you How do you prove that?
Speaker 9: Though?
Speaker 1: Because there's a limited number of starting points for any
possible position in ethics, epistemology, in metaphysics, it's not an
infinite variety.
Speaker 33: Sure, I get that, but how do you demonstrate that
the other world views can't account for that?
Speaker 1: Because the other worldviews have to choose some binary in
either in either those three disciplines. So for example, either
knowledge is objective or it's subjective. Okay, there's not an
infinite there's not an infinite series of options that you
could choose to give an account for that binary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and either one you either route you choose is.
Speaker 1: Going to determine a bunch of other things in the
system or in the worldview. So likewise, with metaphysics, like
either the universe you know, is eternal or it has
a beginning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's not an infinet variation in there.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 33: How do you also handle the begging the question part?
Because for me on the outset, it just seems like it's.
Speaker 9: Begging the question. How would you handle that type.
Speaker 2: Of Well, why is it begging the question? I mean,
if you admitted that the form is valid, why would
it be begging the question? That would that would call
it a question the form?
Speaker 33: Yeah, well, isn't God accounting for the transcendentals and stuff?
Speaker 1: In the premise, The argument is that there is knowledge.
Knowledge is only possible if there are transcendental categories. Transcendental
categories are only grounded or made sense if it can
only be made sense of if God exists.
Speaker 33: Okay, so you're saying it's just am I mistaking the
conclusion for a premise here?
Speaker 2: Is that what I think?
Speaker 9: So?
Speaker 1: Like, well, I mean if I lay it out that way,
you can tell me what the problem is, so the
argument and maybe you just disagree with the argument, then
I need to know why if knowledge exists, knowledge is
predicated on the preconditions of knowledge, which are the transital categories.
Transnal categories are not like self evident or in a
vacuum like they also have to be grounded in something.
God does the grounding work for those.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's my version of how I present tag.
Speaker 1: I mean other people, there's a lot of goofballs and
goobers like Matt Slick and people that I.
Speaker 2: Think are idiots that try to do it but they're
not very good at it. Right.
Speaker 20: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I'll read.
Speaker 33: Father Deacon in and Issa's paper as well, because I
just wanted to ask you a few of these because
I know these are popular objections.
Speaker 2: And I welcome those.
Speaker 1: And he actually I think his latest paper addresses the
last objection that you had. If you haven't read that one, Okay,
I'll check that out, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, good questions were likely BO disagree.
Speaker 9: Ed.
Speaker 10: D Hey, hey, how you doing.
Speaker 2: What's up man?
Speaker 4: Good to talk to you again.
Speaker 29: Thanks for staying up with a sonatam A bit of
a night.
Speaker 4: Oul, so appreciate that longevity of the stream.
Speaker 29: I was listening in on some of the libertarian Fantasy
Island stuff earlier, and uh, pretty funny stuff, but I.
Speaker 2: Kind of liked that idea. I actually kind of want
to go to libertarian fantasy Island, be honest.
Speaker 29: With you, Yeah, I'm wondering if a guy that talks
about setting up a barbershop needs to ask for consent
every time he sniffs the scissors. Yes, actually, yeah, I
just wanted to pick your brain on the idea of
what what do you think is the ideal form of government?
Obviously nothing is perfect and yep.
Speaker 18: But.
Speaker 2: I a libertarian monarchy, that's what I think.
Speaker 29: See, I was phrasing it to a friend of mine
as a constitutional monarchy. Would that be, I mean, in
line with what you're saying or think.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just that, like the historical versions of constitutional
monarchies are kind of gay. So as long as we can,
as long as we could divorce it from like the
constitutional monarchy that like.
Speaker 2: There's a lock.
Speaker 1: I think somebody one of the Enlightenment guys was like,
we've got to move away from dynastic hereditary monarchy. I
don't know about that one. That That's what I've never
been able to figure out whether I think that because
there's a lot of positives to a dynasty, but there's
also setbacks drawbacks, So.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I really don't know right.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 29: I know the reference is a bit cringe and overweight,
but the I don't know. If you're into the Game
of Thrones, that all right?
Speaker 20: George R.
Speaker 2: Martin being a kind of a strange I watched the show,
but I've never never read the book.
Speaker 29: There's there's kind of a line in the show talks
about the crown in the faith or the twin pillars
of the world, and I thought, you know that that
kind of.
Speaker 1: Stuck with me, like, yeah, expresses that expressview right.
Speaker 29: Thinking thinking about that, I mean that's more ideal, right,
we talk about like I guess, grievances with the papacy
and deposing emperors and stuff of that nature, but I
mean wanting something that's more cohesive, right, Like.
Speaker 4: Am I am I wrong?
Speaker 19: In saying like the.
Speaker 29: Bishops sat next to the Byzantine emperor like a two
thrones suation.
Speaker 2: Well, that's the whole purpose of the double headed eagle.
Speaker 19: So yeah, right, uh.
Speaker 29: I mean, and it gets into I guess a dodgy territory.
And I've had quite a few arguments with these guys,
but I mean, I'm leaning into the idea of at
that point Christian nationalism.
Speaker 4: And you say that and people get afraid of that one.
Speaker 2: It doesn't bother me or I'm not afraid of it.
Speaker 1: It's just that a lot of the discourse right now
about Christian nationalism, people think that that's a thing that
we're going to enact right now.
Speaker 2: I don't know how. I just don't think that's very feasible.
Speaker 1: I think the reason is that, you like, we've already
been turned into this pagan culture, so I think we
would have to re christianize the culture, which will take
which will take a long time.
Speaker 29: Sure, So I think there's there's models in where, you know,
like I had actually mentioned this too, Owen Schreyer talked
about discrepancies and payout an x or something like that,
and how in a way it promotes pornography and that
being kind of one of the avenues of rotting the culture. Yeah,
like it monetizes beginning things that were pornographic in nature.
In my opinion, I'm not saying you can't post it, post.
Speaker 2: What you want and gorge milkers.
Speaker 29: Yeah, leaking overies, leaking memories and.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so spiritual though, right it's uh.
Speaker 1: Okay, So what so you're saying, uh, there's a ethical
you know, issue with monetizing that.
Speaker 2: And so what was the argument?
Speaker 29: Well, I was making the point to him, it's it's
what's being monetized pornography kind of rotting the culture, Like
you said, you know, walk the culture back before something
like Christian nationalism could take place in the Chinese. You know,
for all their flaws, they are pretty on the ball
when it comes to culture war right there. Their social
media is promote uh, academia like the like they know.
Speaker 2: What damages and doesn't damage populations.
Speaker 29: Yeah, yeah, exactly, And that's something that I think that
you know, I mean, people are very black and white.
Speaker 4: If he are whatever on Elon Musk.
Speaker 2: It don't matter if you're black, girl, white, that's gonna.
Speaker 29: Be one of his responsibilities, I would think, or anyone
who owns and manages Western social media. If we want
to go that way is don't promote the pornography, don't.
Speaker 1: Promote they're saying, yeah, eventually, Yeah, So if we're going
to have like Christian ethic and nationalism on a social scale,
there would need to be you know, enactments against a
lot of this online generousy Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think so. I think we're a good ways away
from that.
Speaker 1: Though, And I'm not trying to be like, there is
something to this point that Alex talks about that a
lot of the legislation I'm suspicious is not ultimately about
saving kids. I think that I'm concerned that some of
the legislation that they claim is about prawn might actually
be about.
Speaker 2: Shutting down dissident political speech. So because a lot of
times they'll.
Speaker 1: Couch it in this all we care about the they
don't care about kids, that nobody believes they care about kids.
And I think the UK was the most recent version
of this where they were like, oh, we're going to
set up like age restrictions on the Internet, which makes
sense theoretically, but I don't think that's really what they want.
I think ultimately it's about probably eventually trying to have
some kind of Internet ID type of thing. So I
don't know what this is all like super complex stuff.
Speaker 2: I don't know what the answer is.
Speaker 1: Read what we need Libertarian fantasy island, I don't know,
and like everyone like what if everybody has their own.
Speaker 2: Island or something? This is so crazy, I don't know.
It's like orson Scott.
Speaker 1: Carr's Mormon, like his universe where there's like a Mormon
planet and a Catholic planet, like like maybe.
Speaker 2: We get out, Like I don't really believe in all
the space stuff, but could we.
Speaker 1: Have, like instead of nation states, what if we could
just divide up the Earth to have like you go
have your degenerate society over here. And if all the
purple haired freaks want to go live in a crazy cult,
go do it.
Speaker 2: Go here, go over here, you know what I mean?
That would the ideal, But of course that's never gonna happen.
Speaker 1: But orthodox bitcoin island over here to go test that out,
you know, Roman Catholic trad world.
Speaker 2: Go over there, go do your thing over there? Could
we do that?
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's totally idealistic, it's not realistic, but it
sounds fun. What's up Rachel. Hello, Hey, Hey, I only
wanted to say one thing, which is that I already
I can already tell you.
Speaker 10: That libertarian Fantasy Island is just gonna end up being
busted uff.
Speaker 2: That is a danger.
Speaker 1: It does seem like, Yeah, I mean the TV show
I remember watching it as a kid. Wasn't it like
where they create your fantasy or something.
Speaker 33: I don't know.
Speaker 9: I never watched.
Speaker 4: No, I should have, I'm an eighties kid, but I
just never watched it.
Speaker 20: An.
Speaker 19: I just know from debating libertarians for.
Speaker 2: Years now, it just ends up being Look, look, I
want to put something in my buck, so bring me alone.
Speaker 19: Right, Yeah, basically, basically.
Speaker 10: That's all I have.
Speaker 1: Uh, fair enough, great point. That's why we need like
orthodox bitcoin Fantasy Island.
Speaker 2: So let's see. They made they remade this five years ago.
Did I see this? I can't remember if I watched this.
They made a TV show, Fantasy Island. Oh, I did
see this. I did see Fantasy Island. It was mid.
Speaker 1: In the TV show. It was not what you expect
you think it's going to be, like I mean, in
the movie the remake, it just didn't make sense. It
wasn't very good. It's funny too, because he's like, have
these path of people don't even know what I'm talking about.
They've never heard of Fantish. But when you're a kid.
When I was a kid, I never liked this show.
I just remember it coming on, right, and you've got
Ricardo Montalban, who's like the host of this island.
Speaker 2: I don't even know what his pet midget dude is even, Like,
what's the point of this dude?
Speaker 1: I just he just comes out and screams the plane.
If you're a kid in the eighties, everybody you you'll
never forget this because there's this plane bringing the new
I don't know what they are test.
Speaker 2: Subjects to mk ultra Fantasy Island. I'll show you, guys,
Fantasy Island. Okay, what is this?
Speaker 4: You got?
Speaker 1: Retard O Montalban. That's one of my favorite jokes of
all time. So here comes the plane that's bringing the
new couple. It's arriving at Fantasy Island, and then the
little midget dude is going to scream Boss Boss the
plane to plane.
Speaker 13: Delan Slain.
Speaker 10: There you go, they playing they plan.
Speaker 1: I think he does it again too, when uh Ricardo
Ritardo Montalban picks him up. So you got like little
like Hawaiian chicks running around. I think this is supposed
to be some kind of hint hint situation.
Speaker 19: Look, how do you like my new can oh Handsome
the True very handsome.
Speaker 9: It's my new hobby.
Speaker 2: By the way, did you know Ricardo montalban I think
he's a tradcat.
Speaker 1: I remember when I was Roman Catholic watching a Rosary
document and it had Ricardo Montabon in it.
Speaker 2: Anyway, so people.
Speaker 1: Land and then I guess the island makes your fantasy
come true, but they can't show like whatever degenerate fantasies
everybody has in an eighty show. So I'm trying to
remember what the premise of the show is. Let's find out,
and I'm about done for So what is the premise?
A luxury, luxurious, remote island resort. The enigmatic mister Rourke
makes the secret dreams of well healed guests come true,
although twist of fate turn those dreams sometimes into the nightmares.
He's assisted by Tattoos, a little person who is always
trusted to sing out the plane the plane as the
guests arrive.
Speaker 2: Okay, well that doesn't really tell me exactly what I
don't know him. It's weird stuff.
Speaker 1: It's probably some kind of mk ultra island or something. Okay,
I don't know what you're thumbing down. What are you
thumbing down? You're go ahead, man, what's up? I'm emissary.
Speaker 19: Yeah, I'm just curious.
Speaker 34: As to why you would open a room about debate
and then you never speak anything about the topic of
what the room is about.
Speaker 2: I mean, we've been speaking about that for four and
a half hours. What are you talking about?
Speaker 34: Okay, I've only been here for close to one hour,
but nothing's been said at all about what it is
that you believe. I've looked at your profile, I've looked
at your website. I've looked at a number of things
that you've posted. The last thirty posts you've made on
your profile. I have nothing to do with any type
of scripture. So, and one of the posts that you
had made, I think it's the twenty ninth post on
your profile. I was trying to count all the posts
that you'd made, but one of them said that you
are not Protestants, you are not Muslim, you're not atheists.
Speaker 2: So what are youthodox?
Speaker 19: Very clear, it doesn't seem very clear at all Orthodox?
Speaker 2: Orthodox?
Speaker 10: Orthodox?
Speaker 2: What Christian?
Speaker 10: Okay?
Speaker 19: You do realize that Christianity came from Judaism, right?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 9: Okay?
Speaker 19: Do you realize that Passover was not in a tournament offering?
Speaker 2: Okay? It's a meal? Sure?
Speaker 35: Okay?
Speaker 19: So when should Jesus have died?
Speaker 34: If, if, if at all, y'all had accepted sacrifice, when
should he have died if he was going to be
an acceptable offering, if y'all even accepted human offerings, which
he doesn't, can you tell me when he should have died?
Speaker 9: So?
Speaker 30: What?
Speaker 2: What is your group? You're what kind of a weird
Messianic cult?
Speaker 4: What are you in?
Speaker 19: No, I'm saying if you read the first.
Speaker 2: I want to know your position. You asked me my position?
I said it? So what group are you from?
Speaker 10: What group are you from?
Speaker 19: The First Commandment?
Speaker 2: What group are you from?
Speaker 19: I'm not a part of a.
Speaker 2: Group, but you're not a part of any group.
Speaker 9: What what?
Speaker 2: You have a bunch of hebrew Ish on your profile?
Speaker 9: Like that?
Speaker 2: Like that makes you better? So you're some sort of
weird Messianic cult.
Speaker 34: I think anything that you would like to know from
scripture based upon Hebrew or the Old Testament?
Speaker 9: I will definitely delineate it for you.
Speaker 1: So you're in a cult. Do you believe that you're
an MS area of the Most High or whatever? So
you're you're a judaizing heretics. So you don't you're not
in the church. You don't believe in Christianity.
Speaker 2: Right? Is Jesus divine?
Speaker 4: Absolutely not?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you're a heretic exactly.
Speaker 34: So you're thinking that that y'all impregnated someone someone.
Speaker 1: Who you can't even talk, You can't even get your
words out. So do you accept the Bible or not?
Speaker 19: I accept what y'all had given to his people originally?
Speaker 2: You accept the New Testament? No, So are you a
Messianic or not?
Speaker 19: I'm trying to teach you the First Commandment?
Speaker 2: Right, So you're not going to answer. You're absolutely you're
a lunatic, So you're not going to answer my questions.
Moving on, Halo, what's up man?
Speaker 9: He? He?
Speaker 18: This?
Speaker 9: He?
Speaker 1: I think this is a person in total delusion and
who doesn't even believe anything. He's like his own made
up things. I don't even think he's a rabbinical Jew.
Speaker 2: He's just like some kind of made up he.
Speaker 1: I mean, they won't say he won't say what his
position is. So hello, i'm you look where people would disagree.
Please state your arguments. Don't dissimulate and not tell me
your position.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 30: No?
Speaker 4: Much?
Speaker 9: So you guys, I'll see you in here having the
illusion the conversation.
Speaker 2: I'll like to pay party. Okay, sure, what's what's your position?
I'm Orthodox Christian.
Speaker 36: I'm also Christian born again Christian?
Speaker 9: Orthodox? Was the difference more like Roman.
Speaker 4: Type Christian or what?
Speaker 1: No, we're not papists. We don't believe in the papacy,
but we do believe in real sacraments. We do believe
in the historic you know, church based on appslock succession.
We believe in tradition seven, eight, nine, ecumenical councils, et cetera,
et cetera.
Speaker 9: How do you get to become an Orthodox Christian?
Speaker 1: I guess well, I mean to become that is like
a process called becoming a catechumen So you go to
an Orthodox church, you attend it for one to three
years and then learn the faith and then decide.
Speaker 2: If you want to become Orthodox.
Speaker 36: So is this more of a a when you mentioned tradition,
so is this more of a religious type of thing?
Not more spiritual base, but more like by deeds, practices,
things you have to do to.
Speaker 9: Sounds more like Catholic.
Speaker 1: Right, probably to an evangelical. Yes, you would think that
we are quote Catholic, but we are not Roman Catholic.
But yes, we do believe in the necessity of good works,
so it's open look for people who disagree.
Speaker 2: What's up, James? Thank you for those questions.
Speaker 1: That's me who asked to debate one dollar. Thank you,
appreciate you, Thank you. What's up, James, I'm you.
Speaker 19: I just wanted to ask what your opinion of David
Bentley hart is theology.
Speaker 4: And works is.
Speaker 1: I think his first work is usually accepted as a
pretty good book, but he's pretty much become a perennialist
and so we don't really accept him anymore.
Speaker 2: Interesting, Thank you.
Speaker 4: I mean, how many of his works have you read?
Speaker 1: I read some of the first book, and then I
stopped reading him when he joined the Democratic Socialist of
America Party. By the way, we discussed him earlier tonight.
If you want to look at the critiques of.
Speaker 2: Universalism, Lord Mullin, well he's not just universalists.
Speaker 1: He actually has said on his blog that he's pretty
much a perennialist. So it's even worse. Go ahead, what's up, man,
you have a disagreement?
Speaker 9: Uh yeah, I have a question. So do you know
of the Roman Catholic guye Duong? He's like a a YouTuber.
Speaker 2: I know of him. I don't know him.
Speaker 9: Okay, he did a video.
Speaker 37: I'm just like curious of relations of opposition, and he
brought a quote of Saint Basil saying that this is
part of the quote within the identity of substance, the
properties are distinguished from one another by opposing themselves.
Speaker 1: That's not what is the tonistic relations of opposition doctrine
that has formulated. Admittedly, according to Kongar and Loski later
on the Middle Ages, it's not the same thing. Besils
not saying that the persons are distinguished by a relation
of opposition. He's saying that there are relations, but and
that you could say that the father is in a
sense of posed, but that is not a relative opposition
by which you try to distinguish a triad, because.
Speaker 2: It's a that would be only applied to a diad.
Does that make sense? I mean, I've actually addressed this
like ten times. I don't know why it keeps coming up.
Speaker 9: Okay, I didn't hear you address it?
Speaker 4: Is there?
Speaker 9: Like, is there a video I can go and look
to get a full Ye?
Speaker 24: Well what would that be?
Speaker 2: I'm pulling it up. So have you read the entire.
Speaker 1: The article that I've referenced multiple times on this from
not Loski and Congar.
Speaker 4: No, I've never heard this.
Speaker 9: I've never even seen this quote or heard this argument
from Efflis.
Speaker 1: So what they're doing is they're looking for terminology that
basil uses that they think is the medieval relations of
opposition doctrine. The only reason that relations of opposition comes
up as something that they want to try to use
is because of distinguishing in a absolutely simple essence. So
it's literally against the very premise of the Kappadocian triadological formulation,
which is based on the fathers the sole cause. So
when you don't have hyposthetic properties, then you need other
things as a way to distinguish persons. So what medieval
theologians came up with, and for example, here's the first
thing to read, which is a Roman Catholic scholar saying this.
This is Eves Congar, very famous Roman cathol theology and
it's called Augustine, the Trinity and the Filioque by Eavest Congar.
If you read this paper, he's going to tell you
that the develop of relations of opposition is a development
in the Middle Ages out of Augustinian presuppositions. Okay, so
that's from Congar, the famous Romemcalaity theologian, and he's going
to tell you that this isn't what the Kaba Dotionans mean.
They're not talking about the same thing. Then you're going
to want to read Laski's paper critiquing the medieval idea
called the procession of the Holy Spirit and Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.
So when this came up, I brought both of these
things up to multiple Catholics involved in this argument.
Speaker 2: And they said, yeah, I we'll read that. They never
read it, which to.
Speaker 1: Me says that they're not actually interested in seeing what
the issues really are. What they wanted was quote mine
to make it look like Basil teaches the medieval Tomus
doctrine of relations of opposition, which is dumb. Literally, Congar
will tell you the capit oceans don't have the Augustinian idea.
Speaker 2: Of transparent theology, and that's why Constantinople one is not
Augustinian transarent theology. It accepts Cappadocian model stuff.
Speaker 1: So read these two articles because they will make clear
what I'm what I was arguing from the get go,
especially the Lasky paper where in the first four pages
he critiques the notion of relations of opposition.
Speaker 24: Okay, I'll uh, I'll.
Speaker 10: Read those through.
Speaker 37: I have one last question, what do you What did
you make of Father Josida Trenham going on a voice
of reason in that whole discussion.
Speaker 1: So I was curious to know if, uh, perhaps the
guy I don't remember his name, but he may have
presented himself as an Orthodox person or a cateculum or an.
Speaker 9: Inquirer reason huh voice of reason?
Speaker 2: No, No, the other guy, I I don't know that
guy's name, the roots of Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, like he might have said to Father Trunbacher
whatever his name is, and Father Josiah, hey, I'm Orthodoxy inquirer.
Speaker 2: Will you come to an interview. Now.
Speaker 1: I don't know how he presented himself to them, but
I will think I will say that it's odd that,
you know, I think Father Josiah had said some years
back that in the case of I think he meant me,
and he don't know if he named me, but he said,
you probably shouldn't be making content.
Speaker 2: If you're a new convert.
Speaker 9: You know.
Speaker 1: This is something he said around the time of my
coming into Orthodoxy twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen. A lot of
people thought he was talking about Maybe maybe he wasn't.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: But my point is that it is interesting that in
my case he would say you're held to this high standard,
but he didn't seem.
Speaker 2: To care to check. In the case of Roots of Orthodoxy,
was the reason was.
Speaker 9: That interview like set up by Roots?
Speaker 2: I've heard.
Speaker 1: I don't know this is the case, but I've heard
that the Roots of Orthodoxy guy is the content person
that runs Voice of Reason stuff.
Speaker 2: Oh, I mean maybe that's not true.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 9: Okay, well that was all.
Speaker 2: Thanks, but be sure and uh, please do read the
the Kungar paper. It's not that long, and then read and.
Speaker 1: Please do read the loss Key paper because I think
you'll see that you'll see what I'm saying, and that
the stuff that they're saying is really kind of ridiculous.
It would be things would go a lot better if
they would just look at this stuff.
Speaker 2: What's up? You keep thumbing down?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 2: What's your problem? Go ahead? What's up?
Speaker 4: Hello?
Speaker 30: Yeah, yeah, I'm from I'm from Nigeria. I came across
your contents recently, like two two weeks ago. It was
through Andrew Wilson. Actually I watched one of his debates
shout out Rachel as well, I can see her hair.
So he was talking about how you're apparently good debate
for theological arguments and stuff. But I have a couple
of atheist friends, kind of atheists, kind of adious friends,
and you talked about how the transgender argument is one
of the best arguments for the existence of God. So
I watched a couple of your debates my dealer Auntie
and some other people about the arguments. But you also
mentioned something. You said that when it gets to the
pragmatic level, that arguments are inherently circular, like because you're
using God to justify the existence of God something like that. Right,
But then I started thinking about it, why can't and
it is just see because me I also, like I am,
I'm questioning my own beliefs, right, so I want to
really understand I like gets distinct fully fleshed out why can't.
And it is constantly just see that's logic or inductions,
saying that, like this thing, these things just exists, the
preconditions for the existence of knowledge, things like the self
causition teleology.
Speaker 2: To come to a debate and to say that they
just are doesn't do anything, and you can't do that
in the bay. But that's just as certain.
Speaker 30: But I get that, I get that, I get that,
but I'm saying that so if they can do that,
I can be an induction to see. Yeah, But the
thing is, it can be a justification for because I'm
using logic to justify the existence of logic, because induction
is a form of logic. I don't know if that's falicious,
because that's just what It's not a justification.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the fact that you're using logic to talk
about can you can you mute the background stuff like
I'm echoing, yeah, sure.
Speaker 2: That's that's going.
Speaker 10: Yes, true.
Speaker 30: I can't just use logic to just by the existence
of logic then, right.
Speaker 2: But it's unavoidable. So the fact that if you talk about,
how do we know that logic is logical? Right?
Speaker 1: We have to utilize logic to talk about logic, but
that doesn't justify logic. So it's a higher order question.
So you're raising the bar and you're saying, Okay, what's
the meta grounding that makes logic possible? So the fact
that you're using logic it's a category error, that doesn't
mean it's justifying its use. That's just unavoidable. So you
need something beyond its use to justify it in an
epistemic sense.
Speaker 2: How do we know that loge it works?
Speaker 1: The only way to do that is to appeal to
something that's bigger, larger, you're more universal. That grounds that,
hen Scott.
Speaker 9: But the thing is.
Speaker 30: Apists could just see what if I just go one
step for the tracks to find something that's transcendent though
too good?
Speaker 9: If that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Well by definition that that would be impossible. By definition,
God is the thing of which there's nothing greater, So
you can't find another transcend altar ground God.
Speaker 30: But themselves could just tell me that logic would be
the I guess you would see first or the for
like the justification for all that exists. They wouldn't have
to know the existence of good because.
Speaker 1: No, but it doesn't work to do that, Like you
can't just say it just is like just as what like,
that's not given an account for it.
Speaker 30: But he could also see that how do I knew
that good justice is because I would be picking, because
I'll be using good by the ext.
Speaker 2: That we're not arguing God just is. So again it's echoing. Man,
hold on, I can't deal with the echo.
Speaker 1: So the transital argument is not saying that all arguments
a circular so therefore God just is. What we're saying
is that everybody is at a certain point unavoidable in
their argumentation, and when you get to that paradigm level,
you're forced to do some kind of self recursive referencing.
So the question isn't who can be circular who can't?
The question is how do you avoid a contradiction within
the system that negates the system. That's the argument. So
you can't just say, well, I'm an atheist in logic,
just is right. And because we're not saying well, God
just is no, No, we're saying that God does the
grounding work in an epistemic sense, to ground the transcendal
categories which make knowledge possible.
Speaker 2: That's not the same thing as saying God just is.
I'm looking for people who disagree. So you guys are
raising your hand, please raise your hand.
Speaker 1: If you disagree. And I'm not trying to be rude
to that guy. If he can fix the echo in
the background noise, he can come back.
Speaker 2: It's just I can't hear every time I talk, I
hear myself that going, hey can you hear me?
Speaker 10: Huh hey.
Speaker 35: So I'm pretty new to your channel. I've I've been
on a journey out of Protestantism, and I don't I
don't like listening to a whole lot of people, like
I've already had to deal with a lot of confusion.
But I've spent I've probably spent like the past ten
sixteen hours on Sam's channel, and I was listening to
the responses of the Oriental Orthodox to emphasis and Calcedone,
and I haven't I haven't found like a good source
for the Eastern Orthodox position. And I didn't want to
Just like I said, I didn't want to just listen
to anybody.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're currently going through an entire, multiple part
lecture series on my channel.
Speaker 10: Okay, is it what's it called?
Speaker 1: Refuting each Oriental Orthodoxy. We've done two parts in about
six hours of talk and it's going to be about
twenty hours, so go watch the first two and be
on the lookout for that. Nikki D what's up.
Speaker 10: Man, I guess smile on huh okay, cool.
Speaker 16: Yeah, I think we might be a little more productive
if we focus on civics and political science and maybe
culture if need be. I'd like to advocate for our
constitutional republic at the Constitution of the United States of America.
Speaker 2: Okay, I mean that's not really in the topics of debate, so.
Speaker 16: Wow, libertarian is So I figured its civics and political
science around the table, and I've heard you advocate for
a theocratic monarchy, So I don't know if you're really
in favor of that.
Speaker 1: Or if ultimately I don't think we're going to actually
see that, but I think it's the better form of government.
Speaker 16: Well, I think we just need to restore integrity of
public servants. I mean, the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the Federal Trade Commission haven't been doing their job for
at least decades, and the Federal Reserve Bank hijacked our
nation in nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree with that, but how does that tell
you what integrity is?
Speaker 16: Well, integrity is when I'm referring to the public servants
right now. They're a bunch of insider trading, regulatory captured,
black mail, extored it and bribed, compromise, financial conflicts of interest,
in foreign influence.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I agree with all that, well aware, but that's
not really the topics of debate today. But thank you man.
Speaker 1: So the topics are listed as Catholicism, atheism, Muslims, libertarianism
in terms of the philosophy, and protestansm So, if you disagree,
raise your hand. So we're taking people who disagree.
Speaker 2: I don't we Are we done?
Speaker 1: Are we down to the no more disagrees? Thaie soccer
ed Flores twenty bucks. Thank you so much, Ed, appreciate that.
Welcome Jesse, he can't connect. Jordan's right, Hello.
Speaker 4: Hello, what's up? All right?
Speaker 38: Yah yah, mister Jay, thank god. I've been on a
stay for a lot for a little minute, but thank
you Christ Okay, So we talked a little bit last week,
I think on your stream, Thank you very much. And
so Mike so I'm still the Protestant, but we talked.
And I also I watched your video on John six
and the the flash like a two hour video on
the Eucharist, and because I just wanted to understand, and
then I read John six for myself and I just
wasn't I just I wasn't getting like I wasn't convinced.
Speaker 4: And then you but you kept talking about serial the
thorough guy.
Speaker 38: I don't know if it was of Jerusalem Alexandria, so
I just assumed it was of Alexandria. I listened to
his commentary on John six and I was like, Okay,
now I'm convinced of the Eucharist, but this is that.
Now I'm convinced of it, but the issues that I
have is and like this is the basically is the.
Speaker 2: Issue that I have, so.
Speaker 38: That I can relate a lot more to Catholicism because
like they will define things right, but when like I
look at the Lucim position on the Eucharist and the
Orthodox position, the only difference from what I'm looking searching
is that they just used like orthodox will state is
versus the loosener state under and so I'm confused. I'm like, well,
I don't think I know is that.
Speaker 1: Like now we believe in a real priestly based transformation
into body, blood, soul, and uncreated energy or divinity.
Speaker 2: That's not the Lutheran position.
Speaker 38: Okay, so my question is, in what would you still
is the all top position? Then it's still bread because
it past like bed. It looks like bed.
Speaker 1: I'm like it, or and and then and whin I mean,
we don't typically have the Roman, Catholic, Tomistic medieval idea
that you know, it has the essence.
Speaker 2: Of God or whatever, but it's or ascuse me that
it's the.
Speaker 1: Body of blood of Christ, but it's the accidents of
bread and wine, like I mean, we don't really go
into that because we do affirm it to be a mystery.
Speaker 2: But I don't I'm not aware of like whether.
Speaker 1: The church fathers explicitly state to what degree there's still
bread or not, because most of the time they just
state that it's changed into body, blood, soul, and divinity.
The divinity there is the uncreated energy. So you have
to understand that the only way to have this consistent
position of it really being the deified flesh is to
have the energy's doctrine, and only the Orthodox Church has.
The Lutherans, they've been all over the place with consentantiality,
and Luther himself argued that Jesus flesh became omnipresent and
that's how it's there, which is silly. That's actually a
that would be more of like a Monophysite type of position.
So I think if you, if you dig into it more,
you'll notice that really the only the Orthodox position is
consistent on that, and it really does tie into the
essence energy doctrine. Not trying to be rude, but like
my mind is turning the mush. So I'll give tie
one last time.
Speaker 2: And Jordan be sure to come back next time. I apologize.
I'll try to go to you quicker, go ahead, man,
last chance.
Speaker 4: I'm you Hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yep?
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 39: So I have one question maybe to have you read
the book Did Jesus Pray for Those Living in the World? No,
So basically it's a book about Orthodox spirituality by Elder
from Spiritual Spiritual Child, I guess.
Speaker 4: And one thing I don't understand is that he talks about.
Speaker 19: Ignoring, you know, visions during prayer, even.
Speaker 9: The most Selvafic.
Speaker 39: That's one thing he says specifically, but also the angle
of Orthodox spirituality is actually like having a vision of
the uncreated light, so you're kind of doing both at
the same time, ignoring visions but expecting a vision I
don't understand.
Speaker 1: Well, the vision of the uncreated light is only going
to happen at a most likely a very advanced stage
of a person's spiritual life. And that also comes with
the presupposition that you are under a spiritual father. So
one reason in the Orthodox Church that there's a stress
on having a spiritual father is precisely because he's going
to be there to help guide you in that process
so that you don't fall into the delusions like we
saw earlier with Taylor Marshall thinking in his pre last
that Mary's appear to him, and with the engorged Milkers,
that's precisely the kind of thing that the spiritual Father
would be like, that's not God speaking to you, So
he would be there to say, you know this, you know,
you were praying and you felt like, you know, God
was telling you, you know, in your mind, to go
do something that's probably not God. But he would also
you know, be there hopefully for the long term too.
You know, if in several years you felt like you
were having real spiritual experiences, he could help guide you
through that process.
Speaker 2: So there are real.
Speaker 1: Spiritual experiences, but because humans are so susceptible to delusion
or pre last, it's always under the guide of a
more advanced type of person.
Speaker 4: Goh, sure, all right, that's it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Yeah, thank you. I thought you disagreed. Dude,
you were raising your hand like you disagree. Does anyone
else disagree? The last chance you got to disagree? Though,
if you don't disagree, and you're just asking me catechuymic questions,
which I'm not mad at you. I'm just I'm gonna
I'm gonna pass out, hippo. Are you disagreeing?
Speaker 9: Mhm, Hello, hey, HODI.
Speaker 4: So this is more of a question.
Speaker 2: I guess disagree.
Speaker 23: I mean, I'm LDS.
Speaker 9: So let's start there.
Speaker 4: My question is, and I've tried to have other people.
Speaker 23: Explain it to me, but I just felt they weren't
like in a position to be like a teacher of
this subject. Okay, I'm very sympathetic to a lot of
what the Orthodox Church uh said and what's in their doctrine,
Like they believe in theosis similarly to the LDS Church.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't say that it's similar, but okay, go ahead.
Speaker 23: But the ones thing that has always got me and
why I have not been able to bring myself to
go to an other sect of Christianity is that I
cannot wrap my head around the trinity or why Jesus
Christ would speak in the New Testament to his father specifically,
if he is both a father and the son simultaneously.
Speaker 2: Well, he's not the Father. That's the whole point of
the trinity. Trinity is three really distinct and different hypostases.
So who believes that he is the Father? That's that's modalism,
That's not the Trinity.
Speaker 23: I guess from what I've understood of how the Trinity
has been explained to me is that they are.
Speaker 4: Three separate entities.
Speaker 23: But one God.
Speaker 1: No, the three persons are not separate, in fact, that
dwell one another perfectly in a perfect unity. So I
would say the first thing to watch is the video
that we recommended earlier tonight.
Speaker 2: That I did. It's called is Jesus God and is
God a Trinity?
Speaker 1: And I did this video about six years ago. It's
right here that will walk through about three hours of passages.
Speaker 2: In the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: And then I did a more specific focused video called
the Trinity in the Old Testament. And so I think
when you start to see this throughout the Old Testament,
you'll notice very clearly that, Okay, this is definitely the
teaching of the Old Testament.
Speaker 2: And then I did an.
Speaker 1: Entire lecture through all of the Gospel of John, which
you can also find on my channel. And what we
noticed in the Gospel John lectures was that every chapter
of the Gospel of John literally has a reference to
the deed of Christ and or the Trinity. So the
entire Gospel of John also harmonizes perfectly with all of
these Old Testament passages. So I'm not trying to just
pass it all pass you off, but like literally those
things will definitely I think, make this point clear, and
no modalism is different from the Trinity.
Speaker 2: I don't have any more energy. I'm starting to slur
my words. I'm super tired. Made by Jim Bob with
a big fat super Chat fifty bucks. Wow, thank you
so much, Jimbob.
Speaker 1: Guys, be sure if you're not subscribed. Jimbob is over there,
really powering through debating the atheists.
Speaker 2: He's like, just you thought I had fortitude over here
with this No.
Speaker 15: No.
Speaker 1: Eight, Jimbob is like got five times of fortitude. I
do to deal with the atheists for four to five
four three hours time, So be sure and check out Jimbob.
Do you disagree, Alex, I'll go to you if you disagree,
but please no FAQ questions. Only people that disagree. We've
had a lot of fun tonight. We're going to Libertarian
Fantasy Island. We're gonna put things in our butt. As
Rachel said, literally, I'm joking. You have to disagree, dude,
or else I'm just leaving.
Speaker 18: Yo.
Speaker 7: I disagree, and it's I'm rate to in the way
you say, espresso.
Speaker 2: I knew it was gonna be a fake disagree or
I knew it. I knew it.
Speaker 1: I'm going immediately to Libertarian Island, and I'm not passing go.
I'm not stopping to collect two hundred dollars. Oh no,
I am passing go Right, nobody disagrees.
Speaker 2: I'm done. I don't have no more energy. But hey,
be sure and follow Jim Bob.
Speaker 1: He's throwing out fat money super chats, he's throwing out
that getty Green, he's throwing out that chetta.
Speaker 2: Head on over there to Jim Bob channel and be
sure and follow and support our buddy Jim