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