Speaker 1: On one and you blew me off. You are a gryptor,
Speaker 1: that's what I said, So would have been very easy
Speaker 1: to set up a five minute conversation, which, as you
Speaker 1: can see, he says, why don't you call me and apologize? Well,
Speaker 1: you don't have time. I thought you were so busy
Speaker 1: that no one can call you and talk to you
Speaker 1: for five minutes because you're just too damn busy, got
Speaker 1: too much going on, son, So he blew me off,
Speaker 1: as you can say, that's what pissed me off. And
Speaker 1: then on Twitter he keeps trying to flex the channel
Speaker 1: that I didn't get access, like he's a crypto bro
Speaker 1: with Trader University or some nonsense. Dude, I don't care
Speaker 1: like go That's why I said, dude, screw off, I don't.
Speaker 2: Care while I was trying to figure out an actual debate.
Speaker 2: And I need him to do it with the same
Speaker 2: chest bumping that he did. I need him to do
Speaker 2: it with the same energy in his apology because this
Speaker 2: is happening.
Speaker 1: What do I have to apologize for. I tried to
Speaker 1: reach out to you and you blew me off. You
Speaker 1: need to apologize because you're.
Speaker 2: Lying before were Jay, And it's honestly old, and it's
Speaker 2: annoint now. Having said that, I don't.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry that you find people pushing back against you insufferable.
Speaker 1: Nobody did anything to create this mess but you.
Speaker 2: I would love to have a debate on one of
Speaker 2: your guys's dogmas. Get let's let's figure out a time
Speaker 2: and let's find a reasonable point. Despite popular opinion, guys don't.
Speaker 2: I've actually never even had a formal debate, so I
Speaker 2: don't even know what Jay is trying to prove.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is a great point here in the super chats,
Speaker 1: d says for five or acieving maximus ys for five dollars.
Speaker 1: Rousselan didn't have time for a five minute conversation, but
Speaker 1: he has time to record a twenty six minute recorded
Speaker 1: and edited video, and he has time to sit there
Speaker 1: and tweet for hours about this stuff. So he's full
Speaker 1: of shit, Ruslan, You're full of shit, dude, in debating
Speaker 1: me that that, like Ruslan, the guy that has informal
Speaker 1: conversations and wants to represent people accurately, is gonna lose
Speaker 1: any debate, which, like Jay, like, I don't understand, I
Speaker 1: really don't understand.
Speaker 2: But I was willing to have it and now I'm
Speaker 2: not because I.
Speaker 1: Think, oh, here we go. Now he's not. So he's
Speaker 1: doing the moral blackmail that Lofton did because he's a
Speaker 1: freaking pussy as I said, he was pusslne and I
Speaker 1: told you wouldn't do it, and I said, hold him accountable,
Speaker 1: and his excuse says, I'm gonna have moral blackmail against
Speaker 1: you until you apologize to me for what for crashing out?
Speaker 1: For crashing out? How you blew me off? I mean,
Speaker 1: you blow people off and expect them to just bow
Speaker 1: to you because of your a hunter k channel do
Speaker 1: screw you. That's douchebag behavior. You are being a douchebag.
Speaker 1: So apologize for being a douchebag. And guess what you
Speaker 1: don't have to apologize for to be in a douchebag.
Speaker 1: I don't really care. I'm still gonna debate you. I
Speaker 1: would always debate you, whether you're a douchebag or not.
Speaker 1: That's why people are not concerned with this effeminate Karen stuff,
Speaker 1: and they listen to people who just go into the issues.
Speaker 1: Right now, you got maybe a bunch of evangelical goobers
Speaker 1: in your audience that are all about piety, signaling and
Speaker 1: you can always keep those. You can always have your
Speaker 1: little grift, your little kingdom, your little cult. You're the
Speaker 1: one that has the cult, Ruslan. And it won't matter
Speaker 1: because it's gonna dwindle away, because everything that does not
Speaker 1: have the foundation stones of the Apostles, the one Holy
Speaker 1: Catholic episodic Church, is gonna die. So you can have
Speaker 1: your little stupid ministry channel. I don't care. I will
Speaker 1: move on. And I knew you weren't going to debate.
Speaker 1: I knew you would come up with an excuse. And
Speaker 1: that's why I put up the post saying hold Rouselan's
Speaker 1: feet to the fire, because he agreed five times to
Speaker 1: do a debate, and now he says, nah, not unless
Speaker 1: you apologize. So gay moral blackmail exactly the gay actions
Speaker 1: of Lofton six years ago.
Speaker 2: The entire thing is evidence of someone that is behaving
Speaker 2: very spectrumy, like the dude has no emotional intelligence in
Speaker 2: terms of anything that's going on, any emotional intelligence.
Speaker 1: Okay, Rusla, I mean I'm over here having fun. I
Speaker 1: don't know what you're talking about. Like, how would I
Speaker 1: write for Sam Hyde if I'm on the spectrum and
Speaker 1: I don't understand emotional intelligence and interact with people. I mean,
Speaker 1: hardcore autistic people can't do jokes. They don't have a
Speaker 1: sense of humor, they don't understand multiple layers of reference
Speaker 1: and meaning and sense. So again it is silly.
Speaker 2: Keeps having meltdowns and crying and then saying, but I
Speaker 2: can hold my own door.
Speaker 1: I look like I'm crying. I look like I'm having
Speaker 1: a meltdown. I having a blast. I don't know what
Speaker 1: you're talking about, and I don't know.
Speaker 2: What the chorm is. But you don't know what being
Speaker 2: charitable and graceful and kind.
Speaker 1: Oh we full loft and now we went full loft,
Speaker 1: dog be charitable? You are not being charitable? Is it
Speaker 1: charitable to blow people off when they're very open and
Speaker 1: kind in chat saying let's set a time and have
Speaker 1: a conversation. You guys saw the messages, Maybe, he says,
Speaker 1: I guess you don't keep up with me, But I
Speaker 1: got a lot going on. I do YouTube. Perhaps you
Speaker 1: know I do a YouTube channel, and I have a ministry,
Speaker 1: and I preach four times a week at church. So perhaps,
Speaker 1: like I mean, do you think I'm taking this very seriously? Reuslin,
Speaker 1: I'm having a blast with this.
Speaker 2: You are low cal Reuseline line is especially with one
Speaker 2: of the only people that was trying to give you
Speaker 2: a lifeline.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I so need Russeline. No one else will
Speaker 1: give me a Lifeloine. Yeah. I just went on twenty
Speaker 1: different shows on a podcast tour, got multiple giant podcasts.
Speaker 1: I host a massive show every Friday with you know,
Speaker 1: multiple millions of listeners. I just need a lifeline. Somebody
Speaker 1: helped me in media. Nobody will help me media.
Speaker 3: Please.
Speaker 1: I need your jule, Yeah, I need I need you
Speaker 1: so bad, Rustling. That's why I'm saying I don't care. Dude,
Speaker 1: would I be making this video laughing at your ass
Speaker 1: if I cared.
Speaker 2: Minds to get you two events and trying to get
Speaker 2: you to have these conversations behind the scenes. He doesn't know.
Speaker 1: I don't think you're doing that.
Speaker 4: I don't believe that.
Speaker 1: I think maybe you asked Wes Huff or Gavin Ortland
Speaker 1: or somebody to have a debate, and that's about it.
Speaker 1: So I don't think you're up to me to try
Speaker 1: and oh your doing all this work for me. You're
Speaker 1: trying so hard. Who believes that bullshit?
Speaker 2: And so anyway, I find the entire thing goofy uh and.
Speaker 1: And exactly, which is why I'm laughing, just lame.
Speaker 2: And And there seems to be these two camps of
Speaker 2: the Orthodox online. There's the Orthor Bros, which again I
Speaker 2: just find completely insufferable. A lot of these folks came
Speaker 2: out of, at least the leaders came out of presuppositional,
Speaker 2: calvinistic we're so certain about everything.
Speaker 1: And now, but do you got access?
Speaker 2: My brothers?
Speaker 1: Who wants access? I'm selling access right now, four thousand
Speaker 1: dollars in person. I will personally counsel you, Blessed God Ministries.
Speaker 4: What's up, dude, I'm.
Speaker 1: You dog ge what you think? Man, I'm over here
Speaker 1: crying having a meltdown son.
Speaker 5: Very clearly having the biggest meltdown effort.
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 6: So I was doing some.
Speaker 5: Research on Mormon and I found something really interesting. Have
Speaker 5: you ever seen or read about what the Mormons opinion
Speaker 5: on Mohammed is?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 5: So if you go on there, if you go on
Speaker 5: their website, you can read you can read about their
Speaker 5: views on Mohammed.
Speaker 6: One of their elders named Elder George A. Smith, and
Speaker 6: he was quoted saying that.
Speaker 5: Muhammad was a He was very sympathetic towards Mohammad, and
Speaker 5: he said that Mohammed was raised up by God to
Speaker 5: teach against idolatry and.
Speaker 6: Polytheism.
Speaker 1: Interesting. What's the guy's name again? Elder who?
Speaker 2: Elder?
Speaker 5: George A Smith. They also go on to say later
Speaker 5: there's also presidents that go on to say that they had.
Speaker 6: A portion of God's light.
Speaker 7: In them in him, and that he was one of
Speaker 7: the greatest prophets to well, not prophet, they don't use
Speaker 7: the word prophet towards hibody.
Speaker 5: He was one of the people raised up by God
Speaker 5: to enlighten the whole nations and to bring higher levels
Speaker 5: of understanding to individuals.
Speaker 1: In eighteen sixty eighteen fifty five, LDS apostle expressed a
Speaker 1: positive view of Muhammad, saying he was raised up by
Speaker 1: God on purpose he preached against idolatry. The divine purpose
Speaker 1: in the LDS article argues that Mohammad was descended from
Speaker 1: Abraham and raised up by God to fight Mohammad was
Speaker 1: a moral teacher, expressing those similar to Jesus. Yeah, wow,
Speaker 1: there you go right there. Yeah, I didn't know that
Speaker 1: that's pretty fair, but I mean that makes perfect sense, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that confirms a lot of the points that
Speaker 1: we've made about the similarity between these heresies.
Speaker 5: Well, Joseph Smith, during the Mormon rebellion, he made he
Speaker 5: called himself this generation's Mohammed and that he will lead
Speaker 5: his people wow during the rebellion.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then this is an LDS website here, and
Speaker 1: this is a pro Mormon website here saying that what
Speaker 1: prophets and apostles said about Mohammed, and it says latter
Speaker 1: Day saying appreciation of Mohammed can also be found in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy eight President's statement regarding God's love, Mohammad was
Speaker 1: one of the greatest religious leaders of the world and
Speaker 1: had a portion of God's lights. So there it is,
Speaker 1: right there, Yeah, exactly. So that's again oneer percent proof
Speaker 1: that Mormonism is Antichrist. Thank you, man. I appreciate that.
Speaker 6: That was just it's a very interesting.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That's a great find. That's really good. That's
Speaker 1: a gem right there. But I wish I could enjoy it,
Speaker 1: but I can't because I'm crashing out. So unfortunately, I'm
Speaker 1: super crashing out right now, and I'm just so unable
Speaker 1: to control my emotions and I can't handle life in reality,
Speaker 1: so I apologize that I can't because I'm such a sperg.
Speaker 1: My autism is getting me right now. I wish I
Speaker 1: could enjoy the truth that you just shared with us. Michael,
Speaker 1: what's up, doll? And I'm gonna put this hat on
Speaker 1: instead because Rouselyn said, I got Zen's in my brain.
Speaker 1: I don't even know Damn Zen's. Zen's made me throw up, dude.
Speaker 1: I'm straight ouping over here, straight up, Alpin, what's up, man?
Speaker 1: I'm you yo.
Speaker 8: I was wondering about, like, when people are in communion
Speaker 8: with heretical doctrines or or in food communion with demons,
Speaker 8: is there a physical effect that happens to them?
Speaker 4: There could be.
Speaker 1: You know, Paul in First Corinthians, when he talks about
Speaker 1: communing at the table of devils and communing at the
Speaker 1: table of God, seems to speak of definitely in the
Speaker 1: case of communing at God's table unworthily of a negative effect.
Speaker 1: And it seems logical to me that there could potentially
Speaker 1: be in some cases right physical effects communing at the
Speaker 1: table of demons too. I mean, for example, I mean
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of take take the example of maybe not
Speaker 1: in the case of cults, but in a lot of
Speaker 1: religions you have the drugs that are included with the
Speaker 1: communion with the deity, and drugs could definitely have a
Speaker 1: negative effect on the body.
Speaker 8: Because I was thinking of like the Uncanny Valley effect,
Speaker 8: like that.
Speaker 9: Weird fear we have when we.
Speaker 8: See something that looks human, walks human, but everything about
Speaker 8: it looks human, but there's just some tweak off that
Speaker 8: makes us.
Speaker 6: Terrified of it.
Speaker 8: So I was wondering, like, if someone is in full
Speaker 8: communion with the demonic or a heretical doctrine that can
Speaker 8: bite something into them, that it starts physically changing them,
Speaker 8: and we grow to fear that one person because of
Speaker 8: that one little detail.
Speaker 1: Interesting tale in there with Uncanny Valley. It's a great question.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. I haven't thought about that, but I
Speaker 1: think there's probably a kernel of truth there for sure,
Speaker 1: Sir Pontos. What's up, dude? By the way, it's open
Speaker 1: for him. I don't know where else Rousselom's going to go.
Speaker 1: It seems to be sort of rambling, but maybe he'll
Speaker 1: get to some other point here. What's up, man, how's
Speaker 1: it going, sir? Actually, I'm sorry, I'm also weeping and
Speaker 1: having a crash out. Even though it looks like I'm
Speaker 1: having fun, I'm weeping on the inside, you guys, because
Speaker 1: my spurgatism won't allow me to have a love language.
Speaker 10: Okay, So I don't know how related this is to
Speaker 10: the topic, but I just I want to know how
Speaker 10: you view view these CI guys, these guys who think they're.
Speaker 6: The real Jews.
Speaker 1: Who oh c I Oh, they're an absolute crazy fed
Speaker 1: run cult. I mean if you look at Eloheim City,
Speaker 1: I mean that's what entrapped or and got you know,
Speaker 1: McVeigh and all those people doing their thing. That was
Speaker 1: a CI group. And a lot of the c I groups,
Speaker 1: not necessarily all of them, but a lot of the
Speaker 1: CI groups believe in what's called the serpent seed heresy,
Speaker 1: which is the idea that Eve adds sex with the
Speaker 1: serpent and that spawned the Jews or some race of people.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a literally just a crazy heresy. So
Speaker 1: and a lot of it, not every group necessarily, but
Speaker 1: many of them are also obviously fed right. So it's
Speaker 1: just it's a obvious, like perfect fed honeypot situation. And
Speaker 1: in my my estimation, that's what the whole McVeigh situation
Speaker 1: was Elbowhem City was on record. By the way, fed infiltrated.
Speaker 1: We got a Roman Catholic pulsar.
Speaker 4: What's up?
Speaker 1: By the way, the topics are open. You guys are
Speaker 1: calling about it. It doesn't have to be about Rouslom
Speaker 1: or Protestant stuff. You call in about whatever you want.
Speaker 1: That's just the theme tonight.
Speaker 4: What's up?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 6: Where's the free debate? I can't find it anywhere.
Speaker 1: I don't think DJ posted it yet. I can look,
Speaker 1: I can look and see.
Speaker 11: I was looking for it like for the last forty
Speaker 11: eight hours.
Speaker 1: Uh, he didn't. He didn't tell me when they planned.
Speaker 1: Who posted?
Speaker 12: Did you do?
Speaker 1: Good?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 1: I mean, what do you think I want to say?
Speaker 6: Well? Yeah, was it to Christian Freemason?
Speaker 1: Yes, Chase Geyser, who is info War's former info Wars host,
Speaker 1: and then the other guy who was who works with
Speaker 1: the Bannon's guy, Joe Allen, so they both he's Church
Speaker 1: of Christ. And then Chase Guysers like non denominational but
Speaker 1: was raised I think Catholic or something. So yes. Their
Speaker 1: whole argument was basically, I'll tell you what you guys.
Speaker 1: I want you guys to watch it because it was
Speaker 1: the thing about that to me that surprised me was
Speaker 1: that it was way more heated than I expected. I
Speaker 1: thought it was going to be a very sort of
Speaker 1: just technical, sort of dry back and forth, and it
Speaker 1: got heated. I mean there was I thought twice they
Speaker 1: were going to rage, quit and leave. I mean it
Speaker 1: was like we were the point of like these guys
Speaker 1: are going to leave the stage.
Speaker 4: Like it was.
Speaker 1: So it was so heated, and I mean, everybody was
Speaker 1: nice afterwards, but like the debate itself was, it was intense,
Speaker 1: it was aggressive. It was one of the most aggressive
Speaker 1: debates I've been in, actually, so run down to the debate, basically,
Speaker 1: the whole debate ended up being going into this, it's
Speaker 1: sort of we started with why a Christian can't right,
Speaker 1: which I gave a five minute opening statement, and I
Speaker 1: think they both gave five minute opening statements about why
Speaker 1: you could. I went to Masonic sources and pointed out
Speaker 1: all the religious theological baggage that goes along with freemasonry,
Speaker 1: and then the whole debate ended up being basically, since
Speaker 1: freemasonry is not a religious organization, there's nothing that would
Speaker 1: make it antithetical too a religion like Christianity. So then
Speaker 1: it turned into a debate demonstrating over and over and
Speaker 1: over that it is religious all kinds of theological baggage
Speaker 1: and presuppositions and dogmas, and I think that they absolutely
Speaker 1: lost one hundred percent. I mean there was multiple points
Speaker 1: where the audience was laughing at them.
Speaker 6: Yeah, dude, I'm really looking forward to it.
Speaker 12: I don't know if this is kind of unrelated, but
Speaker 12: you brought up Church of Christ and I was watching
Speaker 12: a debate with Alex and some Church of Christ guy,
Speaker 12: and I thought, Alex, did I see him in here?
Speaker 6: So I thought he did a really good job.
Speaker 12: But I want to ask you, j so, can you
Speaker 12: explain to me like reception theory for when ecumenical council's infallible,
Speaker 12: like how it has to be received by the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think reception theory is like the only thing.
Speaker 1: I think that in the Orthodox mindset, there would be
Speaker 1: several things that would indicate as sort of public identifiable
Speaker 1: indicators of an ecumenical council or once the oucumene goes away,
Speaker 1: what we would call a pan Orthodox syna.
Speaker 4: So if you watch Ubi Petris's video, he does.
Speaker 1: A video on what makes an ecumenical council ecumenical, and
Speaker 1: he focuses on the canonical interpretation within the canons of
Speaker 1: the councils themselves, how they identify the councils in terms
Speaker 1: of authority and validity, and what that means for reception theory.
Speaker 1: So beyond that, though, if you're asking the question at
Speaker 1: the individual existential level, we would agree that the final
Speaker 1: orbiter is the Holy Spirit leading the individual. So I'm
Speaker 1: not being Protestant when I say that, because whether you're Protestant,
Speaker 1: whether you're Catholic, or whether you're Orthodox, everybody in those
Speaker 1: systems admits that the final orbiter is the Holy Spirit
Speaker 1: leading the individual through the means such as the teachers,
Speaker 1: the fathers, the councils, et cetera. So ultimately we're all
Speaker 1: in the same boat and that it's the Holy Spirit
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. However, where we disagree
Speaker 1: is the means of identifying those councils, and for us,
Speaker 1: the mind of the Orthodox Church is the ultimate determiner
Speaker 1: over time of whether something.
Speaker 4: Is received as Orthodox or not.
Speaker 1: So for example, in the case the Council of Florence,
Speaker 1: there were bishops and patriarchs present who we believe failed
Speaker 1: to keep the Orthodox doctrine, and eventually throughout the Orthodox world,
Speaker 1: Florence was not accepted, it was rejected. So likewise, say
Speaker 1: Nicia Nicia happened, and eventually, after a century too, the
Speaker 1: entire Orthodox world accepts the Council Nicea, the Palamite Synods,
Speaker 1: they're a Byzantine series of synods that occur, and eventually
Speaker 1: the entire Orthodox world accepts them. So when we say
Speaker 1: reception theory, I think there's a lot of angles and
Speaker 1: components to it. There's not a simple, one size fits
Speaker 1: all answer, except that you could point to things like
Speaker 1: the canons. For example, the beginning of the councils will
Speaker 1: say something like we following the previous ecumenical synods, identify
Speaker 1: the markers of those synods as in line with this one,
Speaker 1: and we intend to continue the previous ecumenical council. So
Speaker 1: there's canonical indicators there, there's a time period where it
Speaker 1: proliferates throughout the world and it's either accepted or rejected.
Speaker 1: There are other indicators too, like, uh, you know how
Speaker 1: many patriarchis are present? Numbers do matter, It's not the
Speaker 1: ultimate determiner. But how big was it? You know, obviously
Speaker 1: if you had more people there, it's more significant than
Speaker 1: if it was a small council. But even a small
Speaker 1: council could conceivably still be correct. So all of those
Speaker 1: things play into it. And unfortunately there's not as simple
Speaker 1: answer as to what makes an ecumenical council true versus false.
Speaker 1: But reception theory, by the way, as Ubi points out,
Speaker 1: and as I pointed out as a Roman Catholic myself
Speaker 1: when I'm when I was Roman Catholic, like reception theory
Speaker 1: is part of Roman Roman Roman Catholic theology too. Like
Speaker 1: the there's there's an element, there's an element of whether
Speaker 1: the world accepts the cardinal's choice for the papacy as well.
Speaker 11: But we believe an ecumenical council is a valves in
Speaker 11: these samples that you just gave, Like I'm not.
Speaker 1: Trying to No, you don't that's not true, that's not true.
Speaker 11: We believe it's a priority ecumenical or it's.
Speaker 1: That's not true. That doesn't tell that doesn't tell you. Well,
Speaker 1: if that was the case, then latter in six forty
Speaker 1: nine would be ecumenical and constantin Nople one would have
Speaker 1: been ecumenical, but it wasn't accepted by Rome until centuries later.
Speaker 6: Because it was out of communion with Leo.
Speaker 1: So then it's not at its closing ecumenical by your
Speaker 1: own argument, because your own church accepted it two centuries later.
Speaker 11: Ecumenical it has to be the bishops of the world
Speaker 11: teaching communion with the Roman pontive.
Speaker 1: Well that's your position, but uh, then why isn't latter
Speaker 1: in six forty nine acumenical?
Speaker 4: Well hold on, I just like, are you so.
Speaker 1: You're just gonna blow past not gonna answer that. Oh
Speaker 1: you're gonna blow pass that and not answer that.
Speaker 11: Well, you just blew past my point about Constantinople.
Speaker 6: You just said you believe that.
Speaker 1: You didn't address No, no, no, I'm saying that you believe
Speaker 1: that when it's closed, it's ecumenical. That example refutes that
Speaker 1: line of argument because Rome didn't accept it as ecumenical
Speaker 1: until centuries later.
Speaker 11: Do you think the church fathers that I see a
Speaker 11: thought that it had to be accepted centuries later?
Speaker 6: Or do you thought there?
Speaker 1: Did you not understand? Again, you're not even hearing the arguments.
Speaker 1: The argument is that on your position, constantin Noble one
Speaker 1: refutes you.
Speaker 6: No, it doesn't. I still have it heard your justification.
Speaker 1: For that, When did Rome accept Constantinople one?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 1: When I don't know, it's centuries later, so you don't
Speaker 1: even know. So again, you didn't understand the argument. The
Speaker 1: argument was that Constantinelman, it's centuries later.
Speaker 6: That's not true.
Speaker 4: It is true.
Speaker 1: Your own theologians admit that. What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: You just admitted that. You just said you just no,
Speaker 1: you're not you're not just asking. You said a minute
Speaker 1: ago that it happened out of commune with Leo. It
Speaker 1: wasn't out It wasn't out of commune with Leo. By
Speaker 1: the way, Leo wasn't the pope during constant At number one.
Speaker 1: It was out of communion with Rome. Though Okay, well,
Speaker 1: I was just like, okay, when was concept do you
Speaker 1: know when const number one was? Okay, you don't even
Speaker 1: you don't even know. No. Three eighty one, dude, you
Speaker 1: don't even know what you're talking about. Why you're not
Speaker 1: trying to debate. You have no idea what you talked about.
Speaker 1: This is why these idiots coming here with his asshole
Speaker 1: attitude trying to debate and then they don't know anything
Speaker 1: about what they're talking about, and that guy will go
Speaker 1: and say that I was mean to him when he
Speaker 1: just asserted a whole bunch of nonsense. He has no idea,
Speaker 1: didn't even know when the councils happen. What's up, Alex
Speaker 1: yell us up? Constut double one is three eighty one.
Speaker 1: What's up? Yeah, I just wanted to.
Speaker 6: Say that guy, I mean.
Speaker 13: The Kannadi document explicitly says that reception is the test
Speaker 13: for whether a council is ecumenical. And you have two
Speaker 13: cardinals and multiple bishops and like all of his top
Speaker 13: scholars signing off on that. It's just another example of
Speaker 13: how Roman Catholic apologetics are just totally detached from reality.
Speaker 6: What these guys are hearing online is totally.
Speaker 1: Detached from Roman reality.
Speaker 6: There's an experts and clergy say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Roman reality is one thing online apologists is another thing.
Speaker 1: Two different worlds. Yeah.
Speaker 13: On Russelm though, I think like all the ad homs
Speaker 13: show exactly where his priorities are, and the fact that
Speaker 13: he thinks like what you want is some sort of
Speaker 13: material gain or some sort of business exchange, it shows
Speaker 13: what he values exactly, right, So the fact that he's
Speaker 13: going to use those insults against you, it shows where
Speaker 13: all of his priorities are, and it just confirms that
Speaker 13: really he is a grifter at the end of the.
Speaker 1: Day, unfortunately, And you know, if we say these things
Speaker 1: to hurt, it is so that there might be healing.
Speaker 1: And so ultimately, yeah, whether I'm mean or not, the
Speaker 1: bigger deal is are you grifting or not?
Speaker 2: They're Orthodox, and then I have like the normies on
Speaker 2: the ground that are some of the most kindest, gentlest people,
Speaker 2: and they sometimes say, well, I'm going to be you know,
Speaker 2: Protestant in secret, and I'll I'll still pray with you guys,
Speaker 2: and I'll still do events with you guys, and all
Speaker 2: these sorts of things. And I often can't get a
Speaker 2: clear answer on what you guys even believe. Like I
Speaker 2: was watching Josh Nido getra pressed in Alex's stream about
Speaker 2: even coming to my event and even praying and worshiping
Speaker 2: with Protestants, because.
Speaker 1: So because a cd ach human was being pressed on
Speaker 1: a topic that means we don't know what we believe.
Speaker 4: This is so bad faith, Like go ahead, yeah.
Speaker 13: And if I could just add briefly that he was
Speaker 13: going around in the comments of this very video saying
Speaker 13: that the stream that I did was bad faith.
Speaker 6: Before I did that.
Speaker 13: Stream, everybody in the comments of Ruslan's video, they were
Speaker 13: all saying that who is this guy? We don't know
Speaker 13: who Joshua and Doe is. Why are you getting this guy?
Speaker 13: Nobody knows who he is. He's totally a stranger. When
Speaker 13: I got him on my stream, every single comment, like
Speaker 13: ninety to ninety five percent of the comments on that
Speaker 13: video where like, Alex, thank you so much for having
Speaker 13: him on.
Speaker 6: He seems like a really cool guy.
Speaker 13: Like it's a kind of a shame that he was
Speaker 13: put in this position. But I guess he really didn't
Speaker 13: do anything wrong. It was just a poor decision for
Speaker 13: Bruce Lan's part. And he's gonna go around and say
Speaker 13: that like the stream was bad faith, Like that stream
Speaker 13: was a favor for him and it really helped his
Speaker 13: friend at least to become more familiar in the community.
Speaker 6: It's just such a crazy double standard.
Speaker 1: And also, what do you mean Rouslan doesn't know what
Speaker 1: we believe? I mean, has Rousselan ever even read one
Speaker 1: Orthodox writing? Has he read any dogmatic theology?
Speaker 4: Of course not, so what is he talking about I.
Speaker 1: Don't know what you got, kid figure out? Would you
Speaker 1: guys believe? Well, maybe take a break from those stupid,
Speaker 1: dumb rap songs and read a book or two.
Speaker 4: Rouselan, we're heretics.
Speaker 2: Remember, we're heretics. We're not in the arts.
Speaker 13: Books to numerous unnamed moderators about unspecified prompts. Talk to
Speaker 13: them at unknown times. All of these unknown people, these abstractions.
Speaker 4: Yes, and they cannot.
Speaker 1: And also the Orthodox that he talks to, by the way,
Speaker 1: I mean, Rouselan could easily reach out to me and
Speaker 1: ask me a question about some theological topic.
Speaker 4: He's never done that. He did have me on the show,
Speaker 4: that's true, and we had a.
Speaker 1: Discussion about several Orthodox things, and we had several you know,
Speaker 1: topics relating to justification and that kind of stuff, but
Speaker 1: we did not He's never reached out since then to
Speaker 1: discuss any theology issues, which he could very easily do.
Speaker 1: He has other very well educated Orthodox friends that he
Speaker 1: could easily reach out to if he has some kind
Speaker 1: of questions, so or he could actually just read a book.
Speaker 1: I don't know why he can't just do that.
Speaker 2: The church, the One Tree Church, is the ark. We're
Speaker 2: not in and he was getting pressed on that. But
Speaker 2: then I talked to other folks and they're they're super
Speaker 2: kind and super gentle, and so I just think there's
Speaker 2: so much sleight of hand with these conversations.
Speaker 1: That's a bad faith line of argument, though, because anybody
Speaker 1: in any group, you could find within any group people
Speaker 1: who misrepresent or don't know the positions of the group. Right.
Speaker 4: That's like saying, well, I.
Speaker 1: Talked to a lot of Roman Catholics, and Roman Tholicism
Speaker 1: isn't true because there's a bunch of different Roman Catholics.
Speaker 4: That's a bad line of argument.
Speaker 1: If you're discussing the topic of the lack of clarity
Speaker 1: and Catholic dogma, Sure you could make that argument, you
Speaker 1: can point that out, but it doesn't disprove the system
Speaker 1: because a bunch of the members of the group are unclear.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 1: And I would argue actually that you can be selective
Speaker 1: in your bias too, in terms of who you ask. Right,
Speaker 1: if I asked a bunch of new converts about what
Speaker 1: the Roman Catholic doctrines and dogmas are, they're probably not
Speaker 1: gonna know. So likewise, to press, you know, somebody on
Speaker 1: a difficult theological issue, that is a catechuman. It's not
Speaker 1: a good fair measure of what Orthodox theology teaches, and
Speaker 1: he should know that so that he keeps acting like
Speaker 1: I just I can't get any clear answers, and we
Speaker 1: just don't know and who knows what orthodoxeology says? And
Speaker 1: have you actually read any Orthodox theological book that's like
Speaker 1: used at a seminary?
Speaker 4: I mean you can start there.
Speaker 13: This entire crash out just seems like a huge projection,
Speaker 13: all the things that he's in secure about exactly to
Speaker 13: push on everybody else.
Speaker 2: There's so much chess thumping in these conversations, and I
Speaker 2: would love to have these covers. But what I'm not
Speaker 2: going to do is sit here and need to defend
Speaker 2: every single Protestant doctrine under the sun. I want you
Speaker 2: guys to substantially here.
Speaker 1: Uh who has I even asked you to do that? Though?
Speaker 1: Like I mean, when we had the debate on your channel,
Speaker 1: I went in there not knowing anything about what he
Speaker 1: wanted to talk about, and he immediately went into the
Speaker 1: subject of justification. Ruslan did not tell me ahead of time,
Speaker 1: I'm going to have a two hour long discussion with
Speaker 1: you about justification. He didn't tell me, And I don't care.
Speaker 1: It doesn't bother me one bit that he just asked
Speaker 1: me all of a sudden about justification and we went
Speaker 1: into this two hour diversion after talking about Hollywood and
Speaker 1: Colts for two hours. But I don't care. It doesn't
Speaker 1: bother me at all, Like it doesn't bother me that
Speaker 1: you ask me defend your position of justification in light
Speaker 1: of what Paul says and what James says, and this
Speaker 1: and that, and he pulls up all these verses that
Speaker 1: he had ready to go. I had no prior knowledge
Speaker 1: that he was going to do that, But I don't care.
Speaker 1: It doesn't bother me. And I think he disastrously lost
Speaker 1: that discussion as well. He didn't know I pulled out
Speaker 1: like five different fallacies. He had no idea what the
Speaker 1: fallacies even were, so he's making all these fallacious lines
Speaker 1: of argument. He doesn't even know what the fallacies are.
Speaker 1: But it didn't bother me, Like none of that was
Speaker 1: a problem at the time of him bringing that up.
Speaker 1: But now he says, I don't have to defend all
Speaker 1: of these different Protestant positions. I don't know even know what.
Speaker 1: We haven't even talked about a prompt of the debate,
Speaker 1: So what are you even talking about. Nobody nobody said
Speaker 1: you have to defend every Protestant doctrine. I'm sure in
Speaker 1: the prompt of the debate we would pick one doctrine.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: Claims is the one true Church and your dogmas that,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, contradict scripture in the first hundred years church
Speaker 2: just we someone them to have that company.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we don't care that you think that. So
Speaker 1: we want to argue what the ecclesiology of the church,
Speaker 1: that there is no one true church in the first
Speaker 1: century and because of quote the clear reading of Scripture. Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you wanted to make ecclesiology in the
Speaker 1: early Church, we could do that. And the only reason
Speaker 1: I think he's saying that is because he's cribbing from
Speaker 1: Gavin Ortland's line of argument. Rousselain doesn't have any of
Speaker 1: his own theology. Anything that he argues, it's cribbed from
Speaker 1: Gavin Ortland.
Speaker 4: That's his go to big Daddy.
Speaker 1: So the only thing he's gonna even conceivably debate will
Speaker 1: be the acumenist idea of accretion of the of the church.
Speaker 1: Being everybody I don't know, professing Jesus or something, and
Speaker 1: then some idea of accretions. So the debate will be
Speaker 1: a proxy debate with Gavin Ortland psation.
Speaker 2: Jay is going to need to grow up. Jay's gonna
Speaker 2: need to understand how to talk to grown men the
Speaker 2: what not?
Speaker 1: You? Uh, you don't blow me off and flex your
Speaker 1: channel on my face and then tell me that I'm
Speaker 1: not a grown man. I mean, I've been out here
Speaker 1: debating all of the biggest people bigger than you, including
Speaker 1: atheist gaytheists you know, on channels and outlets bigger than you.
Speaker 1: And now I don't you telling me the man up
Speaker 1: and talk. I mean men talk smack and say stuff
Speaker 1: like this. Men don't say A learned the love LANGUAGEFC fighters.
Speaker 2: I know this is blood sports to him. This is
Speaker 2: not an MMA match. You're not gonna You're not gonna
Speaker 2: call me gay and and bate me into a debate. No,
Speaker 2: you need to be a man, apologize, repent, show fruit
Speaker 2: of repentance.
Speaker 1: And apologize for what. And No, you're not gonna morally
Speaker 1: hold me by some blackmail that I have to repent
Speaker 1: to you. You already agreed to a public debate.
Speaker 2: And maybe someday we'll have a conversation. But until then,
Speaker 2: let me know who do you guys want me to debate.
Speaker 2: I'm so willing to have the conversation.
Speaker 1: Oh but he said four times he would debate me,
Speaker 1: but now he's added a moral blackmail criteria. I won't
Speaker 1: debate you unless you publicly that you apologize. Do you
Speaker 1: say publicly? I don't ever said publicly or not? I
Speaker 1: thought you didn't have time for phone calls.
Speaker 2: Station in person, formal structure on one of your dogmas
Speaker 2: that you claim is unchanging that you can and by
Speaker 2: your dogs of a specific interession of the Saints icons.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna have that conversation.
Speaker 1: Due he's so triggered, he's so like worried, he's so
Speaker 1: he's taking this so seriously. He wants me to publicly repent,
Speaker 1: republicanly repent to my or okay right now. In fact,
Speaker 1: you should probably pay me money. You actually owe me
Speaker 1: money because you because the will you talk to me? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I should probably charge you for them.
Speaker 2: You must confess your sins to a priest in order
Speaker 2: to have your sins themself. I'm gonna have that conversation.
Speaker 2: Those those conversations.
Speaker 1: I yeah, I mean there's quite a few New Testament
Speaker 1: passages that you seem to be not not aware of, Ruslan,
Speaker 1: So let's I hope we do have those conversations. But
Speaker 1: it sounds like now you've walked it back and you
Speaker 1: won't have it until I bow to some sort of
Speaker 1: arbitrary lists of what I have to do to publicly
Speaker 1: repent to you that he did say publicly. So at
Speaker 1: first it was I need to call him and repent.
Speaker 1: Now I need to publicly grovel and repent. Well, I
Speaker 1: don't think I've done you wrong. You started all this mess,
Speaker 1: and you're the one that's crashed out Russelin. You're the
Speaker 1: one demanding that I repent. I don't answer to you.
Speaker 1: You're not my spiritual father. I don't publicly repent for you,
Speaker 1: and you're the on doing the summoning here. I think
Speaker 1: you think that you're some sort of preacher that we
Speaker 1: respect and we look to in alle are some sort
Speaker 1: of like you know, prowess because.
Speaker 4: Of eight hundred K.
Speaker 1: I don't care, and you see, these people don't know
Speaker 1: how to handle people that don't care. Alex, do you
Speaker 1: want to say something?
Speaker 13: Yeah, I've still been going back and forth in to
Speaker 13: these like comments with Rouslawn, and he even admitted at
Speaker 13: one point he was like, this guy's like trying to
Speaker 13: bribe me. Is like, I was trying to give you
Speaker 13: a shot, man, But it's sad that he didn't acknowledge
Speaker 13: certain things like.
Speaker 1: This, Yeah, he thinks he can. He can. He thinks
Speaker 1: he can pay you with attention through the channel. He's
Speaker 1: blackmailing you through the channel and access, which is what
Speaker 1: every retard crypto scammer does. So basically Rouslawn is a
Speaker 1: religious crypto scammer.
Speaker 4: It's it's the same model of like the Tate bros.
Speaker 1: And their university, and you got to pay all this
Speaker 1: money to get access, and dude, I don't care about
Speaker 1: your access.
Speaker 6: That's what it's pay to play.
Speaker 13: And it's it's funny because he was complaining about me,
Speaker 13: like speculating that there may be perhaps running something like
Speaker 13: a little racket over there, that there's only like certain
Speaker 13: people that are permitted. Like he just admitted he was
Speaker 13: trying to give me a shot, and he's trying to
Speaker 13: blackmail me with access, Like he's admitting exactly what I suspected,
Speaker 13: which is that they have a small group of acceptable
Speaker 13: people that are going to behave in a certain way
Speaker 13: that you know. I was watching the debates between Gavin
Speaker 13: and Trent and I'm like, man, at certain points it
Speaker 13: does look like fixed boxing matches because there are so
Speaker 13: many kill shots available to Trends that he just never
Speaker 13: takes against Gavin, and thinking like, man, this this really
Speaker 13: is some like funny informal little arrangement.
Speaker 6: That they have.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a funny comment here too. I don't believe
Speaker 1: in confessing the priest, but Rouselan demands that we publicly
Speaker 1: repent for him. So it's like, no, dude, you're in
Speaker 1: super delusion in here. See.
Speaker 2: And I have some degree of standards. I don't. I
Speaker 2: don't do things virtually. Why because despite popular pini you
Speaker 2: guess think, oh he's afraid. I'm actually known to crash
Speaker 2: out on people as well. And so I've said boundaries
Speaker 2: on my own, like to say it, I'm not I
Speaker 2: am not going to do virtual conversations. I'm going to
Speaker 2: be in the rom because it's something different in the room.
Speaker 2: I need to have a moderator, we have a structure
Speaker 2: to the conversation.
Speaker 1: When I was going to that's fine, I don't care
Speaker 1: whether it's some person or virtual or because I have
Speaker 1: no uh, I've never cared about this. People always make
Speaker 1: some big deal about this. I don't care whether it's
Speaker 1: virtual or in person.
Speaker 2: Either way, Gish gallup. And I'm not gonna be lectured
Speaker 2: about logical fallacies and epistemological certainty.
Speaker 1: Okay, oh, you're not going to be lectured about logical fallacies.
Speaker 1: And you want a debate, Reaslin, you wanted to rules
Speaker 1: of debate. These are the rules of debate, you idiot,
Speaker 1: Like you've been clamoring for a debate with Nick Fuentas
Speaker 1: and Candas for a year and you want to be
Speaker 1: a debater, but you don't care about logical fallacies.
Speaker 4: You just showed you're an idiot.
Speaker 2: I have a moderator, We have a structure to the conversation.
Speaker 2: When I was going to be gist gallop and I'm
Speaker 2: not gonna be lectured about logical fallacies.
Speaker 1: And if you make logical fallacies, you will get lectured.
Speaker 1: And if you recall the two hour justification debate that
Speaker 1: we had on this podcast, that's what he's referring to
Speaker 1: is because I called out his fallacy. So he's basically
Speaker 1: saying I don't care. I'm gonna make fallacies, You're not
Speaker 1: gonna call me out on it. This means the shows
Speaker 1: you're an idiot.
Speaker 2: Man logical certainty. Okay, I'm not interested. I want to
Speaker 2: have a real conversation and.
Speaker 1: You're not interested in epistemic certainty.
Speaker 4: You want to have a real conversation.
Speaker 1: What you talked about the perspecuity of the text. So Rusalan,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna need to know what the method is for
Speaker 1: knowing what the clear texts are according to you as
Speaker 1: a Protestant, how do you demonstrate that? And what's the
Speaker 1: public criteria that we can go to to know that?
Speaker 2: And once you guys to substantiate that you're the one
Speaker 2: true unchanging church and your dogmas don't ever change.
Speaker 1: Okay, So now he wants to too quoke way and
Speaker 1: throw the burden of proof back on us because Protestantism
Speaker 1: is indefensible. So you guys defend your position.
Speaker 2: Yet we see I'd argue a good amount of changing
Speaker 2: from scripture and into the first hundred years of tteriacy.
Speaker 2: That's the conversation I want to have.
Speaker 1: So, okay, Ruslan, I don't believe that you actually know
Speaker 1: anything about the Batristic or post episode period. I don't
Speaker 1: think you know anything about it, So tell you demonstrate
Speaker 1: that you have read the Apostolic Fathers, the post Apostolic Fathers,
Speaker 1: or anybody in the first and second century. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna take that claim very seriously at all, So you're
Speaker 1: having to put yourself. I kind of feel sorry for
Speaker 1: Ruslum because he's having this sort He's in a tough
Speaker 1: position to where he can't say no to the debate.
Speaker 1: He's got to save face for the Channel and all
Speaker 1: this kind of stuff. But at the same time he
Speaker 1: doesn't want to do the debate, so he's putting up
Speaker 1: this moral blackmail position that I have to publicly repent.
Speaker 1: This is exactly what Lofton did. Lofton said, I will
Speaker 1: not interact with debate Jay Dyer. He must publicly repent
Speaker 1: for the jokes and things.
Speaker 2: If you guys have somebody that you would like to
Speaker 2: see me have that conversation with.
Speaker 1: Oh now it's it's not now, it's not Jay Dyer.
Speaker 1: So notice I told you guys he would back out
Speaker 1: of it, and he's invented a moral excuse when he
Speaker 1: has said right here, I will debate Jay Dyer. I
Speaker 1: already said I would debate him right here. You've seen
Speaker 1: it twice. He said it four times at the beginning
Speaker 1: of this video too, So now he's walked it.
Speaker 2: Back comments I would really like to see that, and
Speaker 2: maybe we could figure out a moderator, and maybe we can
Speaker 2: figure out some time to do this. Not on your time,
Speaker 2: not roost on, drop everything you have going on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, nobody said you had to drop everything. Nobody gave
Speaker 1: you some time limit. There was literally no times were
Speaker 1: even hinted at. Literally no times hinted at. So this
Speaker 1: is all made up.
Speaker 2: We understand you got a book. We understand you got sumit.
Speaker 2: We understand you're doing a tour. We understand you also
Speaker 2: preaching to church, your local church. We understand you have
Speaker 2: a family with little kids. Do drop all of it
Speaker 2: and do it right now. I don't. I don't owe anyone.
Speaker 1: Nobody said that this is made up bullshit.
Speaker 2: He's just lying a conversation. No one's entitled to come
Speaker 2: onto my channel.
Speaker 1: But nobody said we are nobody expected to go on
Speaker 1: your channel. That's why I said, don't do it on
Speaker 1: your channel.
Speaker 2: I want to represent you guys, acurately, and I feel
Speaker 2: like I've done up until this point, I've done a
Speaker 2: fairly good job. Even with having Josh there, I feel
Speaker 2: like I've had.
Speaker 1: A really Jalen, what's up? You're raising your hand on
Speaker 1: you yo?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: So Jay, we'll talk your mind.
Speaker 6: Yes, So I had a couple of questions.
Speaker 11: So I heard that in order for a ecumenical counselor
Speaker 11: to be ecumenical, the pope past to ratified.
Speaker 6: So what do you think about that? So?
Speaker 1: I mean, who says that? Did? I heard it?
Speaker 6: I heard it from a Roman Catholic friend.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, I heard from a Roman Catholic friend that
Speaker 1: you can touch butts and put peep in the pooper?
Speaker 1: So what.
Speaker 6: Do you What do you think about that claim?
Speaker 1: Though? What do you think about it? Okay? Well, did
Speaker 1: the fathers that Constant double one think that when they
Speaker 1: were out of communion with Rome? Answer? The answer is no, right.
Speaker 1: So again that's why I brought up constantin double one
Speaker 1: to the previous guy, Myron Chuck. What's up man? How
Speaker 1: you doing? Jason? Myron Chuck? We lost it? You fell out? Uh?
Speaker 4: Nikolai? What's dog?
Speaker 1: K forty one? We'll go to you too after Nikola,
Speaker 1: what's up?
Speaker 14: I just got done reviewing the same kind of stuff
Speaker 14: that you were.
Speaker 6: You know, I was actually pretty pleased.
Speaker 14: With how Josh handled his set himself overall in the discussion.
Speaker 14: But one thing I noticed, and this is exactly the
Speaker 14: criticism that we were all bringing up originally to Russalom
Speaker 14: which made him crash out, is Josh is clearly not
Speaker 14: an experienced rhetorician. He's not an experienced debater, and Gavin
Speaker 14: and Trent just magged to the whole de bait the
Speaker 14: whole discussion, Like I think he spoke a grand total
Speaker 14: of maybe ten minutes out of the entire like allotted time. Yeah,
Speaker 14: because yeah, on reflection and trained and sucking out all
Speaker 14: of that oxygen. So that's part of the criticism. And
Speaker 14: I think Josh handled himself well overall. But it was
Speaker 14: very just like this weird energy where Trent kept on
Speaker 14: trying to piggy pack off of Josh's answers and say,
Speaker 14: oh yeah, yeah, yes, the kind of the church also holds.
Speaker 6: It's like, well, why are you, why are you like.
Speaker 14: Interrupting his you know his his you know his answer.
Speaker 14: You're sucking up all the oxygen well, and Ruslin did
Speaker 14: a horrible job too moderating by not even letting it's like, hey,
Speaker 14: you guys got a chance to answer that question, Josh,
Speaker 14: do you have any thoughts?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 14: He didn't even do that, So it's just a bad
Speaker 14: like panel discussion overall.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't believe Ruslan's good intention anymore. In fact,
Speaker 1: I think this, the the interactions have actually forced Russan
Speaker 1: to kind of spill the beans about. I think he's
Speaker 1: got bad I think he's a sort of a weasly
Speaker 1: snake person who has bad motives. I think he is
Speaker 1: trying to throw jabs at us and he doesn't want
Speaker 1: any pushback, and he's getting he's trying to get attention,
Speaker 1: he's trying to get all kinds of there's multiple motivations,
Speaker 1: but I no longer believe the good the good, good
Speaker 1: hearted motives line anymore, only because of what he's saying
Speaker 1: in this only because of what he's saying this video,
Speaker 1: and also like, okay, you've got all these good hearted motives,
Speaker 1: like it would a lot of this would have been
Speaker 1: avoided if you just said, yeah, let's talk for five
Speaker 1: minutes and uh, you know, get this ironed out. But
Speaker 1: he blew me off and flexed his channel in my face.
Speaker 1: And he still flex in his channel in Alex's face.
Speaker 1: It's like, that's not the attitude of a person who
Speaker 1: is so good hearted and charitable.
Speaker 14: Well, and also he deflexed to like, oh, my employment
Speaker 14: and me and Alex talked about this on my stream
Speaker 14: not too long ago, like maybe an hour or two ago,
Speaker 14: and he says, well, my employees changed the name to
Speaker 14: a debate and it's.
Speaker 3: Not my fault.
Speaker 14: Well, you're you're the boss, Like anybody who runs a
Speaker 14: business knows that ultimately the blame lines on your repeat.
Speaker 6: So he's trying to have it both ways exactly.
Speaker 14: He can be, he can be the person that's innocent
Speaker 14: in all of this. I'm just trying to be like
Speaker 14: a good faith like middleman between all these different actors
Speaker 14: and then at the same time say, well, it's not
Speaker 14: actually it's actually all these guys's faults.
Speaker 6: Like it.
Speaker 14: He's trying to have it both ways.
Speaker 1: It's ridiculous. I think that that's ultimately what I get
Speaker 1: from this video. And yeah, who believes now that oh,
Speaker 1: it was just the fault of his staff. And then oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, I mean if nobody had pushed back.
Speaker 1: Who thinks he would have actually changed the title.
Speaker 2: Nobody A good intention job to represent you guys accurately,
Speaker 2: and that's often met with initially love bombing and then
Speaker 2: secondly just complete meltdowns and whining, which to me, and
Speaker 2: I'm saying Eastern Orthodox, he is a cult. But this
Speaker 2: pocket of orthopros is very culty. It's very culty. You
Speaker 2: guys all have this. The creators in this orpit all
Speaker 2: kind of have the same aesthetic as Jay. You guys
Speaker 2: all have the same eighties night writer type vibes.
Speaker 4: Heers like, it's all very okay.
Speaker 1: By that line of argumentation, all of the gay, ugly
Speaker 1: evangelical lack of lack of aesthetics means that you're all
Speaker 1: in the same aesthetic less cult. So it's like that
Speaker 1: falls back on you too. Dog K forty one, what's.
Speaker 6: Up, yo, Jay? I just had a just a quick question.
Speaker 1: How familiar are you with John Zerka? Uh, that crazy
Speaker 1: internet dude Zurka?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I know of him.
Speaker 1: I don't know anything about him.
Speaker 6: Yeah, So basically what he's been pushing out to like his.
Speaker 1: Audiences, doesn't he like push like he? I mean he
Speaker 1: goes to my trad cat the Gnostic, the Masonic, it's
Speaker 1: like all over the Yeah, it's very strange.
Speaker 6: I don't know if you're familiar with like Rosicrucianism.
Speaker 1: And yeah, Rudolf Steiner is he pushing that now?
Speaker 6: No, that's that's what John Zerka is pushing out. Yeah,
Speaker 6: and he's called you out a couple.
Speaker 5: Of times saying that you're like a low level incarnation
Speaker 5: in that Rudolph Steiner is like a superior Christian.
Speaker 14: You.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's fine. I mean if people want to go
Speaker 1: with some kind of like crazy gnostic, weirdo cult, dude,
Speaker 1: that's that's that's up to them. Jason, what's up, Myron, Chuck, Jason,
Speaker 1: you want to speak?
Speaker 15: I think I'm thinking I'm lagging here. I'm thinking of
Speaker 15: a few steps behind.
Speaker 16: Uh yeah, I don't know what's been said already. Uh,
Speaker 16: just jumping in kind of halfway through the conversation and
Speaker 16: halfway through the whole thing. I'm I'm at, I'm i'm at.
Speaker 16: I don't understand how Joshua was allowed to speak on
Speaker 16: that stage.
Speaker 15: I am like, and this is this isn't a dig
Speaker 15: on him. But yeah, there's unfortunately I think this is
Speaker 15: maybe a good lesson for people to understand some media literacy,
Speaker 15: how these people are not your friends, like there is
Speaker 15: there is a concerted effort to take down or make
Speaker 15: our embarrassed orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and yeah that's how.
Speaker 15: That was my takeaway from kind of speed watching the
Speaker 15: Ruseland thing, because I was holding my tongue until I
Speaker 15: actually saw the whole presentation. And uh yeah, again this
Speaker 15: is not against josh he was doing he was doing,
Speaker 15: he was doing what he thought was best. But yeah, no, no,
Speaker 15: there's no way a Catecuban should be allowed on that stage. Like,
Speaker 15: I don't know who gave that blessing, I don't know
Speaker 15: what the conversation was.
Speaker 1: I don't want.
Speaker 15: To cast any dispersions, but under no circumstances should that
Speaker 15: have happened. And I will not believe for a second
Speaker 15: that Ruslan and we were on that stage didn't know exactly.
Speaker 6: What they were doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I no longer believe Ruselans and motives were good,
Speaker 1: but go ahead, out.
Speaker 13: I did have Joshua on my stream and I watched
Speaker 13: that one too. Sorry out here, Yeah, yeah, you gave
Speaker 13: some facts over there where this started off. It was
Speaker 13: supposed to be like a testimonial type of thing where you.
Speaker 6: Know, they were just talking about how.
Speaker 13: They landed on whatever tradition they landed on, which is
Speaker 13: relatively harmless. It was only a few days before they
Speaker 13: had agreed to a month before the conference, right the
Speaker 13: panel discussion and the attendees, and it was only a
Speaker 13: few days before the actual conference that they had changed
Speaker 13: the topic of the panel to justification. So there it
Speaker 13: seems like there was a little bit of like boiling
Speaker 13: the frog going on there.
Speaker 15: Well, I think it's also you know, we say there's
Speaker 15: a lot of things that that are said, even in
Speaker 15: catechorism that we don't understand maybe until until at some point, right,
Speaker 15: like at some point you're gonna understand it, and if
Speaker 15: you're not involved in the media space, you really don't
Speaker 15: understand it. Right, Like my spiritual father told me to
Speaker 15: peace out for a few months after the Jay dire
Speaker 15: friend or fed It was just like, look, you need
Speaker 15: to concentrate on your uh, on your catechism and and
Speaker 15: make that a priority.
Speaker 6: I was like, oh, no problem, right, and so I
Speaker 6: took four months off.
Speaker 12: Uh.
Speaker 15: It was it was good that I did, because you
Speaker 15: the danger always is assuming authority, not just over what
Speaker 15: you know, because it's not just about what you know,
Speaker 15: it's authority within with like presenting yourself as authority for
Speaker 15: the church. And that's something that you just have to
Speaker 15: grow into and it's going to take the time it takes,
Speaker 15: and you may never have that authority and that's fine,
Speaker 15: Like a public authority kind of figure, that's fine. That's
Speaker 15: why like, uh, you know, Jay Dyer is Jay Dyer.
Speaker 15: You know Andrew Wilson is Andrew Wilson. Like these these
Speaker 15: people are Alex Sorn is Alex Soren like these people
Speaker 15: are are are given graces and given blessings to speak
Speaker 15: in there in that capacity. But it's not a it's
Speaker 15: not a right, it's a gift. It's a blessing, and
Speaker 15: that can go and that can be taken away. And
Speaker 15: I think that's something that maybe I don't know where
Speaker 15: the where it's falling apart for some people.
Speaker 6: I don't want to blame uh priests.
Speaker 1: Or or anyone like on that level.
Speaker 15: I don't know, right because I don't know what the
Speaker 15: conversation is being had, but uh, I think there has
Speaker 15: to be a great deal more responsibility on the individual,
Speaker 15: whether a category and inquirer or certainly a baptize or
Speaker 15: faithful to to know your role a little bit and
Speaker 15: know that, hey, you don't speak for the church like
Speaker 15: you know, there's there's there are.
Speaker 6: People who who are granted that authority and that's great,
Speaker 6: but you're not them. And you know, cool your.
Speaker 15: Jets a bit because yeah, that's the nights are out
Speaker 15: and there's and there's tons of people who because I
Speaker 15: guarantee you right, if you don't cross all the dots
Speaker 15: and you know dots, dont all the eyes and cross
Speaker 15: all the t's and something like Trent Horn can catch
Speaker 15: you out on something.
Speaker 6: That's the thing he's gonna call.
Speaker 15: He's gonna call Orthodox the people that we're and every
Speaker 15: single Orthodox to better for the next fifteen years is
Speaker 15: gonna have to deal to deal with that that statement.
Speaker 6: You know what I'm saying, Like, that's that's what's at risk.
Speaker 1: Appreciate those comments, Jason. Let's listen a little more rouslan
Speaker 1: here and see what we can get.
Speaker 2: The end of it be culty to me, and that
Speaker 2: sucks again because my underground experience, what.
Speaker 1: Sy Yeah, if you're into Miami vice and palm trees
Speaker 1: and if you have an eighties aesthetic.
Speaker 4: It's obviously it's a culty, right.
Speaker 2: Wethodox Folks is very different. And so I'm not saying
Speaker 2: I have some moral high ground. I'm saying because I
Speaker 2: know my flesh is weak, and if I end up
Speaker 2: in a situation where I get angry, I don't want
Speaker 2: to put myself in that type of situations. I don't
Speaker 2: want to misrepresent Jesus. I don't want to stumble into
Speaker 2: the flesh. I know my own weakness, and I know
Speaker 2: that has to be parameters and boundaries stars these conversations.
Speaker 2: And so unfortunately Jay has crashed out. He's cussed me out,
Speaker 2: He's cussed me out privately, he cuss me out publicly.
Speaker 2: He said vile things about me that I just are
Speaker 2: not true. All along.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the vile thing I said was your pretentious grifter
Speaker 1: did so. Yeah, and then what was the cussing was
Speaker 1: you're a douchebag.
Speaker 2: When it was efficient to benefit from my platform. He
Speaker 2: asked to come on my platform twice, mind you.
Speaker 1: Okay, Now, I asked to do a debate, and you
Speaker 1: said that I could come on your platform and we
Speaker 1: could have a discussion. So I said, yeah, I'd be
Speaker 1: happy to do that. So he acts like I was
Speaker 1: begging to come on his platform. Do I care about
Speaker 1: coming on his platform?
Speaker 2: No, I don't ask me to call into his live
Speaker 2: stream several times, mind you, and im posing as this
Speaker 2: like I'm just a comedian. Meanwhile this you know, all
Speaker 2: he does is sit in debate theology.
Speaker 1: Which it's not true.
Speaker 4: We do live events.
Speaker 1: We did a five week long podcast tour I just wrote.
Speaker 1: I spent two years writing a book on Hollywood, Esoteric
Speaker 1: Hollywood three, which you can get signed copies in the
Speaker 1: shop as you guys know, that is out. Last year,
Speaker 1: we did I don't know ten live events related to
Speaker 1: the book and to geopolitics. We hosted multiple stand up
Speaker 1: comedians at our live events. I spent the last year
Speaker 1: writing with Ryan Rivera, Pat Dixon, and Brendan Wilds for
Speaker 1: the Sam Hide Show. So he acts like all I
Speaker 1: do is sit and do debates. None of that is
Speaker 1: actually true.
Speaker 2: Which is cool, right, which is cool. But there's so
Speaker 2: many people lined up, women and ready to debate Jay Dyer.
Speaker 4: Who are these people?
Speaker 1: He's talking about, some rando, weird, schismatic guy with two
Speaker 1: thousand followers. I don't I'm not going to debate that guy.
Speaker 1: Who are the people lined up? Why can't you just
Speaker 1: name them.
Speaker 2: That he doesn't want to? Okay, again, true Orthodox, they've
Speaker 2: been asking for debate. Seems like you keep ducking them.
Speaker 2: Why is that there's all sorts of people that are
Speaker 2: willing to debate, and yet it seems like he only
Speaker 2: wants to.
Speaker 1: Well, I also have other reasons for why I wouldn't
Speaker 1: necessarily accept a debate with that kind of a group
Speaker 1: or person. I believe that a lot of those groups
Speaker 1: are actually used by FEDS to push a wedge in
Speaker 1: the Orthodox world, and there's a significant amount of information
Speaker 1: to back that up, including authorities from within our own
Speaker 1: church that discuss that, as well as academic and intelligence
Speaker 1: history authorities, including my recent interview with John Kiryaku, which
Speaker 1: will come out pretty soon next few days, I would imagine.
Speaker 1: I talked to the producer today and he said the
Speaker 1: expectation is before the end of the month, So within
Speaker 1: the next week the John Kiryaku interview comes out. And
Speaker 1: of course Kariyaku would be an intelligence authority at Whistleblower,
Speaker 1: longtime CAIA operative in Greece, himself also Orthodox, who also
Speaker 1: backs up at this point about intelligence usage of schismatics.
Speaker 1: So I have all kinds of reasons, and I don't
Speaker 1: have to even tell Ruslom the reasons why I'm not
Speaker 1: interested in debating a tiny schismatic group that I think
Speaker 1: has quite a bit of connection with especially in the
Speaker 1: case of a Gotham gal and the Roca groups and
Speaker 1: their connection to the Ukraine, and this skids them in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: And of course I don't have to tell or explain
Speaker 1: any of that to ruz Line, and I've explained that
Speaker 1: on my channel many times.
Speaker 2: The seams seems I'm not saying. The seems is certain, Okay,
Speaker 2: stop with all or notther thing. But it seems like
Speaker 2: you only wants to make people with much bigger platforms
Speaker 2: to than.
Speaker 1: You mean, like you did with Candae and Nick Quentes.
Speaker 1: So of course people want to debate people bigger platforms. Duh.
Speaker 1: I mean, why do you think I went on Piers
Speaker 1: Morgan to debate the aatheists? Why would I go on
Speaker 1: Jesse Lee Peterson? What like?
Speaker 4: Of course, what are you talking about?
Speaker 2: And I think that's lame. I think if you're really
Speaker 2: about it, we're really.
Speaker 1: About you think that's lame, Well, then you should be
Speaker 1: willing to do the debate about the theology because you
Speaker 1: care about people believing in a works based salvation. That's
Speaker 1: not the true gospel, right, I mean, if you really
Speaker 1: believe that you're dedicated to the gospel, you think it's
Speaker 1: the Protestant justification by faith, the lone solofi day line
Speaker 1: of argumentation. You got to you gotta be out here,
Speaker 1: you know, refuting the Orthobro's dog.
Speaker 2: The seeking of truth. You should be willing to debate
Speaker 2: anybody at any time, because that's the expectation of me,
Speaker 2: isn't it.
Speaker 1: No, that's not true. The seeking of truth does not.
Speaker 1: It's a non sequitor to say that, because I seek
Speaker 1: the truth, I must be willing to debate anyone at
Speaker 1: any time. Now who out here comes the closest of
Speaker 1: anybody except for now perhaps Alex and others who do
Speaker 1: the same model.
Speaker 4: Not that I care of having people call in.
Speaker 1: Who else out here in this sphere allows everyone to
Speaker 1: call in and to debate, and does blood sports and
Speaker 1: does public formal debates. Oh me, no one else does this.
Speaker 1: Tim Gordon willing to do a blood sport debate and
Speaker 1: willing to do a formal debate. Tim Gordon doesn't do
Speaker 1: call in public, Goober debates I do, so no one
Speaker 1: else is willing to do everything that I do except
Speaker 1: for some other people. Now, so that itself refutes everything
Speaker 1: Rouselan's saying, what's.
Speaker 2: What the double standards? So having said that or the
Speaker 2: docks listeners, I appreciate you. I think you're wrong, and
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna back down from that. But I appreciate you,
Speaker 2: and I.
Speaker 1: Don't appreciate them because you just said a giant portion
Speaker 1: of them are in a cult. So again contradiction. Go ahead, Alex.
Speaker 13: I think it's rich that he keeps on like the
Speaker 13: I think you're gonna push the push a little more
Speaker 13: on this, but he keeps on equivocating between literally an
Speaker 13: anonymous call in show that's like for edutainment purposes versus
Speaker 13: a professional on stage production is blessed God summit conference
Speaker 13: that he's gonna post for like everyone to see on
Speaker 13: what plan those two things come from.
Speaker 1: Yeah, most of the people who call in here are
Speaker 1: not named, right, how is that equivalent to what he's offering?
Speaker 1: Yell with a giant public venue here.
Speaker 2: Appreciate the pushman, and we're gonna make it right. Me
Speaker 2: and Gavin Nortland will have a conversation. Let me know
Speaker 2: who you guys want to have a conversation with.
Speaker 1: Secondly, so you already said you would do it with me,
Speaker 1: uh and your backing out reason is that I must
Speaker 1: publicly It's not notice he chiefs changing the claims that
Speaker 1: originally it was call him and have a conversation where
Speaker 1: I apologize to him on the phone, and then at
Speaker 1: the end of this video it changed to you must
Speaker 1: publicly repent for the things. Well, is it, like, what's
Speaker 1: the criteria going to be by the end of the video?
Speaker 1: Like do I have to fly to Antarctica and do it,
Speaker 1: do the public apology and hebrew on top of an
Speaker 1: ice mountain or something like it?
Speaker 4: Is it going to change by the end of the video?
Speaker 2: Or Brooks? You guys are insufferable. I've seen this.
Speaker 1: You want to say something else?
Speaker 6: It just sounds to me like russ Law needs to
Speaker 6: forgive his mother.
Speaker 3: Honestly, Rudla, have you moi, Jill Moba the gates of hell?
Speaker 3: Have you full give?
Speaker 9: You?
Speaker 1: Just angry angry at your move? What the Ambergride? I
Speaker 1: forgot that he said, which was actually really funny. When
Speaker 1: I was watching some of the clips and he said
Speaker 1: at the very beginning, he goes, well, what made you
Speaker 1: call orthor dot and not just a normal Christian? What
Speaker 1: would you be authored? Dog?
Speaker 6: And not?
Speaker 1: Does normal.
Speaker 2: Happened before? We've seen it happen with a you know,
Speaker 2: a new atheist. Then we saw it happened with the
Speaker 2: reformed and restless group of everyone being a thousand point Calvinists,
Speaker 2: And then we saw it happen with the online manosphere,
Speaker 2: red pill community. This is came and gone before and.
Speaker 1: What's coming and going? Oh, Ortho bros. Are a fad
Speaker 1: that's going to come and go, but not his made
Speaker 1: up business church that will stay. That's here for the
Speaker 1: long haul, y'all.
Speaker 6: You should just change your last name to tape, change
Speaker 6: just to Tate.
Speaker 4: And yeah, well the author bros.
Speaker 1: Are a fad dude, and it's it's just an aesthetic
Speaker 1: and it's coming and going. But Rusland's strip mall business
Speaker 1: Church is here for the long it's apostolic dog. Didn't
Speaker 1: you know in the fourth century, Saint Athanasius he actually
Speaker 1: went to a blessed God business strip mall church.
Speaker 2: If you didn't know atheists, then we saw it happened
Speaker 2: with the reformed and restless group of everyone being a
Speaker 2: thousand point Calvinists, And then we saw it happen with
Speaker 2: the online manosphere red pill community. This has came and
Speaker 2: gone before. And I promise you, if Jay Dyer is
Speaker 2: your cult leader, I promise you, if this is your pope,
Speaker 2: if this is your king, this is not gonna end
Speaker 2: well for you.
Speaker 15: Guys.
Speaker 1: Is this script literally just copying and pasted from Lofton's
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen twenty twenty videos. I feel like
Speaker 1: he just like spit it put into an AI like
Speaker 1: what's the best way.
Speaker 4: To go after the Ortho Bros?
Speaker 1: And the AI was like, well, you could just copy
Speaker 1: paste the Lofton model, except that it didn't work, Like
Speaker 1: the Lofton model didn't work, and nobody cared. It didn't
Speaker 1: put an end to my channel, and did it? I
Speaker 1: remember back at that time, specifically Yobaras said, you know,
Speaker 1: Jay's channel's going down. It's not going to keep growing.
Speaker 1: He's got about thirty thousand, and I don't expect it
Speaker 1: to go nowhere, And here we are over two hundred
Speaker 1: and almost at one hundred and thirty k here on
Speaker 1: X and I do expect the Lord willing that we
Speaker 1: will continue to have growth. So, but it's not about channels,
Speaker 1: it's not about brands. Notice how Protestant the whole idea
Speaker 1: of branding your God Ministry is, it's just so preposterous.
Speaker 1: And that's why I don't make this a theology brand. Right.
Speaker 1: I do talk about theology, but I see this more
Speaker 1: as infotainment and edutainment. And I don't call myself at
Speaker 1: the theologian. I are very rarely even say I'm an
Speaker 1: apologist because I try to focus on and stay in
Speaker 1: my lane. So a lot of this, and I think
Speaker 1: people think that that seems to resonate. I think what
Speaker 1: people they find it more authentic than this sort of
Speaker 1: polished sort of brand approach where you're interacting with some
Speaker 1: you know, business deal, right, Like I feel like I'm
Speaker 1: at some business deal or something with the Protestant ethos
Speaker 1: of the church and his business church, right, and so
Speaker 1: who actually believes that the post Apostolic church was blessed
Speaker 1: God Ministry's business church? Right?
Speaker 2: Nobody believes that this is going to end in doom.
Speaker 2: And my question to you is where would you draw
Speaker 2: the line with how J. Dyer acts outside of debate
Speaker 2: that where is the line?
Speaker 1: So here we go, it's going to end in doom.
Speaker 1: He's implying that the Ortho Bros Are going to be
Speaker 1: led through my aggressive debate style to what we're going
Speaker 1: to do fed actions.
Speaker 4: Is he trying to say.
Speaker 1: We're going to false flag of it? Like what's he
Speaker 1: talking about? Like we're going to start to take it out,
Speaker 1: like we're going to have a political revolution. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is actually getting into the domain of like, okay,
Speaker 1: you're actually losing it. Is like this is schizo's tears stuff.
Speaker 1: Like somebody was saying, and maybe that's why he's saying this.
Speaker 1: Somebody was saying that Gavin and perhaps Trent, I don't
Speaker 1: know if Trent was included in this, but they were
Speaker 1: saying that they're actually afraid of going to a public
Speaker 1: venue because the Ortho Burros are dangerous people. Now, I've
Speaker 1: shown you guys the multiple times where what appeared to
Speaker 1: be Roman Catholics, trad cats, and people in Latinizer groups.
Speaker 1: And then we had another comment that I posted from
Speaker 1: some years ago. This seemed to be a schizophrenic person
Speaker 1: where the people say they're gonna take me out right,
Speaker 1: there's people who say fairly, I would say maybe every
Speaker 1: year or on average, I get the preposterous death threat
Speaker 1: on YouTube right or on Twitter or in my dms
Speaker 1: or whatever, right, And anybody who gets a significant audience
Speaker 1: will eventually get one of these kind of coded or
Speaker 1: not so coded messages of I'm going to un alive,
Speaker 1: Jay DIYer, I just posted that the other day in
Speaker 1: a Latinizer Protestant probably tradcat guy saying he's going to
Speaker 1: come to my house and take me out. He knows
Speaker 1: where I live.
Speaker 4: I posted that.
Speaker 1: So that's the people who are our opposition. I've yet
Speaker 1: to see an Ortho bro do anything like that. Of course,
Speaker 1: you'll probably get fed sok accounts and phony is making
Speaker 1: those kinds of accounts now doing it. But somebody was
Speaker 1: saying that these people in Ruslan's circles are scared, that
Speaker 1: that they they're scared for their life right the probably
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, where would they even get this?
Speaker 4: And I'm thinking, like, imagine.
Speaker 1: Thinking that you're like, you're not going to do it
Speaker 1: at date with dire because or.
Speaker 4: The bros By assassinate you or something not. It's just
Speaker 4: so crazy, it's so preposterous.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, well, Kay, don't.
Speaker 14: You know, it's not a threat to their lives. It's
Speaker 14: a threat to their livelihood.
Speaker 1: That's okay, I mean, but no.
Speaker 14: One thing that I noticed about this whole Ruslan thing
Speaker 14: is that in the entire the entire thing is he
Speaker 14: completely ignores the Schitzos from their.
Speaker 1: Own camps exactly. That's what I'm saying. Yeah.
Speaker 14: And the other thing is that I've been in these
Speaker 14: circles for a while now. I mean i've been there's
Speaker 14: been eight years now that I've been in Orthodox circles,
Speaker 14: and I've never seen this like alleged proof of like
Speaker 14: these Schitzel replies where Bruslan is like implying that they're
Speaker 14: going after my wife, They're going after this Yeah right,
Speaker 14: where show me the receipts. Like, I'm sick and tired
Speaker 14: of having to like disavow Internet orthodoxy whatever that means
Speaker 14: every time there's an alleged claim of impropriety by an
Speaker 14: anonymous account with two followers.
Speaker 4: Yeah right, which could be anybody.
Speaker 6: Right, I'm sick tired of it.
Speaker 14: And the last thing that I'll say on that is
Speaker 14: the oracle bros.
Speaker 6: By far, they have to be the.
Speaker 14: Most committed people to the act ever, like, oh, this
Speaker 14: is just a fad. If it's a fad, that's a
Speaker 14: really hard commitment for a fad like Orthodoxy. He's not
Speaker 14: easy going to church standing for two hours, your back
Speaker 14: is sore, you know, being a catechuman for sometimes a year,
Speaker 14: two three years. In my case it was three years. Like,
Speaker 14: if it's a fad, then man, it's a it must
Speaker 14: be a really really good bad Like these people are
Speaker 14: so unseerious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the the Ortho Bro phase from say twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: to twenty eighteen, many of those guys are now married
Speaker 1: with kids, they're becoming deacons, they're becoming clergy. You know,
Speaker 1: everybody knows of who's the guy that used to do
Speaker 1: Orthodoxy first. You know, he's probably already a priest by now.
Speaker 1: Luke ken Drats already appre So, I mean we're like
Speaker 1: ten years into this and this is just totally contrary
Speaker 1: to what are he's saying here.
Speaker 2: You guys want me to be a Trent Horn apologist
Speaker 2: or Gavin apologies. Like those guys don't want to sit
Speaker 2: down with Jay for their own reasons, some of the
Speaker 2: same reasons I'm dealing with now. If you don't understand
Speaker 2: why you may need to see if you're on the spectrum.
Speaker 1: Okay, Okay, so everybody who's an ortho bros Spurg. But
Speaker 1: here's the thing. At the live event when we had
Speaker 1: the debate with the the Masons, I would say we
Speaker 1: had about maybe anywhere from eighty tow one hundred people
Speaker 1: at the event.
Speaker 4: And I would say, out of.
Speaker 1: The majority of the attendees, probably seventy to eighty of
Speaker 1: the people were there on our side as opposed to
Speaker 1: a handful of Freemasons supporting the Masonic side. And I
Speaker 1: would say, of all of those guys that got in
Speaker 1: the line to get books, pictures, et cetera, to you know,
Speaker 1: to talk to me, I would say, most of those
Speaker 1: dudes looked like based chad dudes. They were there with wives, girlfriends.
Speaker 1: Not everybody, but I would say several were, you know,
Speaker 1: when we did the I spoke at the Ludwell conference.
Speaker 4: I mean, it was almost.
Speaker 1: All bays Chat dudes, a lot of wives, a lot
Speaker 1: of girlfriends there as well. So this is not accurate
Speaker 1: in terms of the now. Maybe in the online spheres
Speaker 1: there's a sector of spurgey, you know, Latiniser or something
Speaker 1: like that. But I would say that what might have
Speaker 1: been what might have been a valid criticism of the
Speaker 1: ethos of the orthopros in twenty sixteen seventeen eighteen is
Speaker 1: not really that accurate anymore, and every group has these
Speaker 1: extreme twenty year olds and seventeen year olds and fourteen
Speaker 1: year olds.
Speaker 4: Alex, go ahead.
Speaker 13: I just wanted to talk to Nicolay's second point there
Speaker 13: where he said like this disavowing of like the bad
Speaker 13: ortho bros. And like I sent out that tweet today
Speaker 13: is like I talked to Russlan a little bit one
Speaker 13: of his live stream chats.
Speaker 6: It like kind of guilted me into it.
Speaker 13: So I was like, guys, if you are meming about
Speaker 13: his u and children, please stop doing it. And you
Speaker 13: know I gave him that concession, and freaking two seconds later,
Speaker 13: you give him a few minutes and this guy is
Speaker 13: already talking ship in his comments, like calling me bad
Speaker 13: faith and trying to disparage my reputation.
Speaker 6: So Nikola, you're spot on with that.
Speaker 13: You give him a lake, your pinky, it'll take your
Speaker 13: whole arm.
Speaker 15: Jason, Uh, I just want to say that I think
Speaker 15: our our ortho autists are actually a strength, you know, any.
Speaker 1: Of yeah, a good point. Yeah, point out.
Speaker 15: Without our hlos autists, I think we just lead in
Speaker 15: and and accept that like, it's not it's not it's
Speaker 15: certainly not.
Speaker 1: A bad thing.
Speaker 15: That I think we attract a certain a certain caliber.
Speaker 1: Of of of of dumban.
Speaker 15: Who wants to give themselves diligently the faith in all aspects.
Speaker 15: And that's sometimes intellectual or otherwise right.
Speaker 6: But like, yeah, no, we we we we.
Speaker 15: We certainly have some of the best and most diligent
Speaker 15: minds in the religious sphere, like and I mean the
Speaker 15: the uh the the bar is not set high, unfortunately,
Speaker 15: but but I think we certainly have them.
Speaker 4: Uh Grock, what's up?
Speaker 1: I don't know, Jay, I I just popped on over
Speaker 1: here probably a little over an hour ago when.
Speaker 6: The Ruslan section started.
Speaker 1: And I was listening to it.
Speaker 15: Man, you might want to do that public repentance or
Speaker 15: Ruslan might track.
Speaker 11: You down in public and throw his bloody tampon at.
Speaker 6: You and then nag you to death.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know who this is resonating with,
Speaker 1: but I mean, I don't know. I'm kind of feeling
Speaker 1: I feel a little sorry for us, and honestly, I'm
Speaker 1: starting to feel like I'm being a little too, I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 4: Into the and us what's up?
Speaker 1: I do and I don't right, Like I feel sorry
Speaker 1: for him at one level, but at the same time,
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, you brought I brought a lot
Speaker 1: of this on yourself, dude into the furnace, I mute, Hey,
Speaker 1: what's up, buddy.
Speaker 6: You know something that I've been finding really interesting is
Speaker 6: I'm noticing.
Speaker 10: That a lot of these like Protestant guys, Gavin or
Speaker 10: Ruslan or whatever, you know, what it.
Speaker 1: Feels like to me.
Speaker 10: It feels like they're really comfortable, They're on the top.
Speaker 10: And I think what's really ending about that is I
Speaker 10: feel like that's gonna be their their own downfall, their
Speaker 10: refusal to do debates, the refusal to engage.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 10: And then you have Orthodoxy, which is like steadily rising, steadily,
Speaker 10: like just coming up right on their heels, and uh.
Speaker 6: Again, I think this is gonna be the this is.
Speaker 10: Gonna be the catalyst that's gonna drive a lot of
Speaker 10: people away from Protestantism because in reality, like the Suazoeys
Speaker 10: progressed through rigorous to be rigorous examination of things, right,
Speaker 10: But these Protestant guys, they don't want to.
Speaker 1: Do, they don't want why, And how different I have
Speaker 1: to say, this is so different from the apologetics world
Speaker 1: of the late nineties in the early two thousands when
Speaker 1: I first got into this world. I mean, the big
Speaker 1: dog was doctor Greg Bonson. I don't care who you were,
Speaker 1: if you're a Roman Catholic, if you were whatever else, atheists.
Speaker 1: I mean, people were terrified at debating Greg Bonson.
Speaker 4: He was he was the big dog.
Speaker 1: And Bonnson would just destroy opponents, right, I wish, even
Speaker 1: though obviously he was he was a Calvinist, but uh,
Speaker 1: you know, he was so good. He was probably one
Speaker 1: of the best debators of the last century, if not
Speaker 1: the bestibator of the last century. And Bonson, you know,
Speaker 1: died too soon. So we only have a handful of
Speaker 1: classic Bonson debates, maybe six or seven total. I think
Speaker 1: I've seen them all, maybe one. I haven't gotten a
Speaker 1: hold of it. But you know how vastly different the
Speaker 1: the mindset is from like what it used to be.
Speaker 1: And even in the in the two thousands, you know,
Speaker 1: there was some pretty heavy, hitty, scholay, heavy hitting, scholarly
Speaker 1: type of debate with you would have Dave Armstrong, you know,
Speaker 1: going pretty hardcore with sources and citations, and you would
Speaker 1: have Scott Hahn writing these books, and you would have
Speaker 1: you know, this this churning out of the you know,
Speaker 1: Petrine apologetic stuff, and you had William Webster and you
Speaker 1: had James White and the everybody was churning out these books.
Speaker 1: And there was all of these you know, high tier,
Speaker 1: fairly academic types of debates. And then you know, twenty tens,
Speaker 1: it was he really kicked off online with not just
Speaker 1: the religious fear, but I think Crowder and Shapiro played
Speaker 1: a huge role through the campus debates and the you know,
Speaker 1: challenge meat type stuff, and then blood sports kicked off
Speaker 1: with war and that really just made it a whole
Speaker 1: different thing. And it's just so wild to see the
Speaker 1: last couple years, this rapid decline in the willingness to
Speaker 1: to do it. It's just crazy. It's like so different
Speaker 1: than the time of like Greg Boonson and Jerry Maditics
Speaker 1: and you know Roberts and Jenis and you know, he
Speaker 1: would be out there just you know, they would have
Speaker 1: hours of debates on Catholicism Protestantism, and James White hours
Speaker 1: of debates versus all these different you know, Catholic and
Speaker 1: other people. It was just so it was constant, right,
Speaker 1: you know, even going back to Sam Shamu back in
Speaker 1: the old days, scam Shimou when he was doing all
Speaker 1: the Muslim debates back when he was a Calvinist or
Speaker 1: whatever he was like in those two thousands era, right,
Speaker 1: it was just so different. And now it's just like
Speaker 1: the whole thing is meta debate about tone. It's just
Speaker 1: insane to me, Like what was I'm trying to think
Speaker 1: of the last like big scholarly debate. I mean, Trent
Speaker 1: did a debate with James Whitatt well like a year
Speaker 1: or two ago. I mean that was a fairly high
Speaker 1: tier academic debate and I enjoyed that, and I said
Speaker 1: that I thought Trent won that debate. So you know,
Speaker 1: actually we had early on when we were on better
Speaker 1: terms with Trent, we had a pretty fair I think
Speaker 1: positive assessment of Trent when he would make good arguments
Speaker 1: and do good debates. I think I reviewed most of
Speaker 1: Trent's earlier. I think Trent beat you know, cosmic skeptic.
Speaker 1: We had a very positive assessment of that debate. And
Speaker 1: so in the case of Trent, I bring that up
Speaker 1: because Trent and I have been basically all throughout yesterday
Speaker 1: and today going back and forth on email, and we
Speaker 1: may do a debate. So we are in negotiations to
Speaker 1: do a debate. I think partly that, you know, Tim
Speaker 1: Gordon was kind of in the background, and I think
Speaker 1: he kind of said, look, you know, Jay and I
Speaker 1: have a good relationship because Jay respects that I was
Speaker 1: willing to do the debate. So I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: Trent might be rethinking the strategy of not doing debates,
Speaker 1: and so we're trying to really come to agreement on
Speaker 1: the prompts of the debate and then of course outlets
Speaker 1: and formats and all that. So yeah, I'm hopeful that
Speaker 1: that will come to fruition. I think, you know, he
Speaker 1: had a prompt and then I said, well, if I
Speaker 1: do your prompt, do you have to do my prompt?
Speaker 1: And so we're kind of negotiating both of the prompts,
Speaker 1: and you know, to get Trent to agree to a
Speaker 1: Vatican debate that relates to politics is a challenge because
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to do that. And I'm not being
Speaker 1: unfair to him because he explicitly says he doesn't want
Speaker 1: to do that. But the thing is a Vatican has
Speaker 1: a specific policical stance and has had a political stance
Speaker 1: about itself because it is a political entity. It's not
Speaker 1: just a religious institution. It also is a city state.
Speaker 1: That's it's recognized in international law as a city state. Right,
Speaker 1: it has its own kind of sovereign status. And to
Speaker 1: act like, well, I don't have to defend any of
Speaker 1: that because that's not relevant to But you have a
Speaker 1: theological position on church and state.
Speaker 4: I believe it's contradicted itself. So I think he.
Speaker 1: Kind of admits that, Like he's kind of in the emails,
Speaker 1: he's kind of coming around to the point of like, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: there might be a church and state kind of topic
Speaker 1: that we could debate, So across your fingers because we're
Speaker 1: negotiating that and it might it might come about.
Speaker 15: So Jason, I think your thoughts on this, because when
Speaker 15: you were saying, you know, the changing of the bait
Speaker 15: tactic strategies and.
Speaker 6: Quality coming from a from my you know.
Speaker 15: Previous new athe he's kind of framework. I think Chris
Speaker 15: Hitchins was actually the jump. It was sort of like
Speaker 15: the the moment where things changed, because he kind of
Speaker 15: straddled both lines.
Speaker 6: I'd like to hear from you, like your opinion all that.
Speaker 6: I mean, he was, he presented, he.
Speaker 15: Presented, he presented something well as an academic right or
Speaker 15: as an academic thinger.
Speaker 6: But all his debates saw was pally vibes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean him and his brother are interesting characters.
Speaker 1: I remember watching. We've watched a few of those debates.
Speaker 1: But there's actually a forgotten debate with Doug Wilson and Hitchens,
Speaker 1: which is pretty interesting. People have forgotten that they did
Speaker 1: a tag debate many, many years ago. I want to
Speaker 1: say it was like maybe even the late two thousands,
Speaker 1: like maybe even two thousand and six or seven. There's
Speaker 1: a classic sort of forgotten Hitchens Wilson tag debate, and
Speaker 1: of course Doug Wilson actually wins the debate, in which
Speaker 1: I'm not at all a fan of Doug Wilson, but
Speaker 1: he did win that debate because he's using tag.
Speaker 4: But yeah, I forget about those guys too.
Speaker 1: They did play a big role in that phase of
Speaker 1: I just was never in the New Atheists world, so
Speaker 1: I didn't really pay much attention to the sort of
Speaker 1: you know, two thousand era debates with the New atheists,
Speaker 1: although there were many, and of course they were putting
Speaker 1: out books. But you know, the internet wasn't you weren't
Speaker 1: doing a lot of like YouTube debates, yeah, back then.
Speaker 1: But you know William Layne Craig, you know, he played
Speaker 1: a role in it. I just think that to me,
Speaker 1: it doesn't bother me that there's all sorts of different styles.
Speaker 1: So there's blood sports, there's you know, to me, it's
Speaker 1: like the debate's like taking over like debates everything now.
Speaker 1: It's pretty crazy. I never would have expected this. I
Speaker 1: never would have thought it would be this way. You know,
Speaker 1: Crucibille played a big role in that. Worsky did too.
Speaker 1: But you know, it is what it is. Here we are.
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna say my boomer boomer cliche, it is
Speaker 1: what it is.
Speaker 4: Shadows what's up?
Speaker 6: Hright.
Speaker 17: So going back to wrestling or however you fayling kind
Speaker 17: of moral hypocrisy, he's kind of made himself into the pope,
Speaker 17: and I thought Protestants this avowed the pope. He's kind
Speaker 17: of just said, oh, you need to bow to me
Speaker 17: and meet my terms. And he can't even take accountability
Speaker 17: for what he's done and has to blame it on
Speaker 17: other people exactly how much like what Trent did too well.
Speaker 1: I think these guys understand the currency of attention and
Speaker 1: channel numbers, and then when people don't care about that
Speaker 1: and are not worried about it, they don't know what
Speaker 1: to do. So he doesn't really know what cards to
Speaker 1: play other than this moral high ground trump card. So
Speaker 1: but uh, yeah, I think you got some some good
Speaker 1: points there with like, yeah, a great, Heath, what's up
Speaker 1: when I'm you? Heath? You know what I'm Hey, Jake,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I thought you were. You came on right
Speaker 1: when I was come back in. I'll go to you next. Ben,
Speaker 1: what's up? Sorry about that? Heath?
Speaker 4: Come back in?
Speaker 1: Ben? Yeah, can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Uh huh.
Speaker 18: So I was at the Nashville the Mason debate, and
Speaker 18: I was shocked at the quality of their answer when
Speaker 18: it came to how do you know what the Bible is?
Speaker 18: If you're solely scriptor the only thing that matters is
Speaker 18: the Bible, how do you not have a good answer
Speaker 18: to how do you know you have.
Speaker 1: The right Bible?
Speaker 18: That just it's been blowing my mind ever since I
Speaker 18: started thinking about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm glad that did briefly come up. And I
Speaker 1: thought one of the guys who came to the to
Speaker 1: the microphone at the end to do the questions, he
Speaker 1: had a great question for Chase Guyser. He said, because
Speaker 1: Chase Geyser was asked it earlier in the debate, like well,
Speaker 1: why should we accept your Protestant Masonic you know, list
Speaker 1: of the cannon or whatever, and uh, I forget what
Speaker 1: he said, but it was something like because that's what
Speaker 1: Jesus leads me to believe, or something like that. And
Speaker 1: some guy in the Q and A was like, Hey, uh,
Speaker 1: I've been reading the Gospel of Jack and I really
Speaker 1: believe it's very convincing and I'm going to stick it
Speaker 1: in the Bible.
Speaker 4: Is that cool?
Speaker 1: And uh, I think they didn't really get the line
Speaker 1: of argument with that. That was okay, yeah, to give.
Speaker 6: Jack all the money and all the.
Speaker 1: Women, it's and then you just say, well, but Jesus
Speaker 1: led me to believe that, So what.
Speaker 6: The gospel Jack says?
Speaker 1: Jesus said, yeah, exactly, Yeah, great comment's Ben. I appreciate
Speaker 1: you coming to the debate. What did you think about
Speaker 1: the debate overall? Beyond that point?
Speaker 18: I thought that it was hilarious that you got them
Speaker 18: to admit that they're totally fine with Satanists coming in
Speaker 18: as long as.
Speaker 1: They lie a little bit. Yeah. I mean it was
Speaker 1: so all over the place, right. It was like at
Speaker 1: one point like, oh, it's not religious, we don't have
Speaker 1: any theological criteria, and then within a minute they're like
Speaker 1: listing ten theological things that would exclude you. It was
Speaker 1: just so like it was like two hours of that
Speaker 1: basically back and forth. Timothy, what's up? I will give
Speaker 1: the Mason's credit for one rhetorical point. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think it was a blowout. I would say ninety five percent.
Speaker 1: They were just completely dominated. They did have a good
Speaker 1: rhetorical retort at the very end, and it was based
Speaker 1: on the girl who asked the question about the Pledge
Speaker 1: of Allegiance. So you guys will see this when you
Speaker 1: watch the debate. But towards the very end of the debate,
Speaker 1: somebody said, the girl says, Jay, if you think that
Speaker 1: the Masonic Oath is necessarily religious such that it would
Speaker 1: compromise you, how could you not make the same argument
Speaker 1: about saying the Pledge of allegiance written by that socialist woman,
Speaker 1: because it would be affirming the Enlightenment generic deity, you know.
Speaker 4: Pledging your allegiance.
Speaker 1: So thus it would be a form of an oath,
Speaker 1: So I do think within Like initially, I was like,
Speaker 1: that is an interesting rhetorical report retort. However, and Chase,
Speaker 1: you guys are really jumped on this. He thought this
Speaker 1: was like a total gotcha, and he was like, really
Speaker 1: really running with that one. But the difference is that
Speaker 1: the pledge of allegiance is not a religious initiation, right,
Speaker 1: So in the pledge of allegiance, I can conceivably still
Speaker 1: belie believe that you know, one nation under God refers
Speaker 1: to the Trinity, right, because God is a generic term. However,
Speaker 1: as I argued in the debate, I think convincingly, when
Speaker 1: you join the Masonic Lodge, you are explicitly having to
Speaker 1: affirm a generic God in the religious initiation oath. So
Speaker 1: there is a difference there between because what they were
Speaker 1: immediately saying was why can't I, when joining the lodge
Speaker 1: interpret the higher Power, Supreme Being to be personally me,
Speaker 1: Chase Guyser or the other guy personally, that's the Trinity
Speaker 1: for me, And thus I'm not violating anything anymore than
Speaker 1: saying the pledge. I grant that they did have a
Speaker 1: good rhetorical retort at the very end. However, as we
Speaker 1: dug into the issue, I forced them to admit that
Speaker 1: it is a religious initiation oath, and and that is
Speaker 1: explicitly demanding that you not have a theological trinitarian dogma
Speaker 1: of who the supreme being is when you join the lodge, right,
Speaker 1: it has to be generic theism, so it is dogmatic.
Speaker 1: And that actually was the first hour of the debate
Speaker 1: was whether or not Masonry has a dogma that you
Speaker 1: cannot be dogmatic about the Trinity and the dety of Christ.
Speaker 1: And that's what I labored for one hour to demonstrate.
Speaker 1: I think I did. I think I demonstrated that forcefully
Speaker 1: in the first hour, and then towards the end of
Speaker 1: the debate it came back up and I think that
Speaker 1: and it took Chase a little while to get what
Speaker 1: I was arguing, but I think it kind of gradually
Speaker 1: started dawning on him that you know, I know you
Speaker 1: say that you don't have dogmas, but when I say,
Speaker 1: for example, I said, could I join the lodge and
Speaker 1: be received if I believe that the supreme deity is me?
Speaker 1: And they sat there and thought about it from it,
Speaker 1: and they said, no, we would not accept you on
Speaker 1: that basis.
Speaker 4: And I'm like, so you do have theological criteria.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, but no, but it's just supreme being. But
Speaker 1: it can't be supreme being that it's you. Well why, well,
Speaker 1: because blah blah blah blah blah, And they list all
Speaker 1: these theological criteria. I'm like, oh, so you do have
Speaker 1: a bunch of theological dogmas that exclude people theologically. No,
Speaker 1: it's not a theology. Well, but it is all right,
Speaker 1: So again the dogma is that you have to have
Speaker 1: a generic supreme being. Saying the pledge of allegiance is
Speaker 1: not in any way committing me to a religious dogma.
Speaker 1: A brotherhood, there's no you know, blood oaths, which Masons
Speaker 1: do take. So I think it was qualitatively different. Jason,
Speaker 1: by the way, I forgot to say this in the debate,
Speaker 1: and somebody later mentioned it to me, and then Jamie
Speaker 1: mentioned it to me as well as somebody who was
Speaker 1: at the debate. Mason's also, when you go into the lodge,
Speaker 1: there's actually you can have the Torah, the Quran, and
Speaker 1: the Bible up on the altar, so that right there
Speaker 1: I think if I'd have thought to bring that up
Speaker 1: would have been an immediate kill shot against their whole
Speaker 1: line of argument.
Speaker 15: Jason, I mean, just briefly, I think that I've said
Speaker 15: this repeatedly is that ideologies failed the level of I
Speaker 15: think this is where orthodoxy and it really overtakes everything,
Speaker 15: is that you can't I'd like to hear your thoughts
Speaker 15: on this as well, is that when you failed the
Speaker 15: state of being right, it's not just worldview, but a
Speaker 15: state of being, you can't be your ideology like, there's
Speaker 15: there's a level of which even the most diehard Communist
Speaker 15: can't be. There is no absolute, there is no ideal,
Speaker 15: there is no being communist right, there's just somebody like
Speaker 15: doing the thing that the Communists do right.
Speaker 1: There's there's now I brought that, yeah, myology. But my
Speaker 1: opening statement was I asked the audience and then I
Speaker 1: know you're not really supposed to ask questions in an
Speaker 1: opening statement, but I thought rhetorically this would be a
Speaker 1: good line. I said, do you guys believe that it
Speaker 1: makes sense to be a Christian and a Gnostic? Do
Speaker 1: you think it makes sense to be a Christian and
Speaker 1: a Pagan? Do you think that it makes sense to
Speaker 1: be a Christian and a member of the Communist party, right,
Speaker 1: And most everybody said no, including the Masons, to almost
Speaker 1: all of those. So I think that illustrates what you're saying, Jason,
Speaker 1: right that, like, it's not just a question of notions,
Speaker 1: it's also a practice, right, is that what you're saying?
Speaker 15: Yeah, well, well it's also just because I think when
Speaker 15: people hear everyone talks about theosis, and that's you know,
Speaker 15: that's the big orthodox word, but is one I think
Speaker 15: I slipped slipped on because it's often reduced to worldview,
Speaker 15: but it's actually a state of being, Like to be
Speaker 15: Orthodox in all ways, right, to be Christian in all
Speaker 15: ways is sort of the pathway towards theosis. So when
Speaker 15: you start trying to apply that to any ideology, whether
Speaker 15: it be Masonry or you know, fascism, whatever, right, anythisms
Speaker 15: right the entire liberal frame, it falls apart because liberalism
Speaker 15: can only tell you how to conduct business or how
Speaker 15: to laws to enact, but it can't tell you what
Speaker 15: to do when your dad's dying, and it can't tell
Speaker 15: you how to raise your kid, And every time.
Speaker 6: It tries to do it falls apart.
Speaker 15: I think that's that's always the why these systems, Well,
Speaker 15: we need to work, we need to work against them.
Speaker 15: We can also sit back and one fall apart, because
Speaker 15: ultimately they're gonna they're going to reach into is where
Speaker 15: they cannot produce answers. They will always be insufficient or
Speaker 15: human for human beings on some on not just a
Speaker 15: spiritual level, but on a living level, like you said, praxis.
Speaker 1: Uh, tim Timothy, Yes, sir, I was just the other day.
Speaker 6: I don't remember which channel it was on. Ruslan had
Speaker 6: come on. He was kind of crashing out, and uh,
Speaker 6: through our parasocial relationship, I get defensive of you guys, said.
Speaker 6: I listened to it, and he's kind of bad. It
Speaker 6: seemed like very bailed but obvious insults.
Speaker 14: And this is a while, not a long time ago,
Speaker 14: but long enough ago that I was like, kind of made.
Speaker 1: Uncomfortable by the whole thing.
Speaker 5: I was like, well, Jason Ways nice about Ruslan, even though.
Speaker 6: Oh Juway has been nice for resauce.
Speaker 8: I don't really see the issue, but this has it's
Speaker 8: been a long time coming.
Speaker 6: Obviously, I think you've figured.
Speaker 9: That part out.
Speaker 14: I will say, he said you behaved well during debates,
Speaker 14: just not outside of him.
Speaker 1: So it does mean you are allowed to.
Speaker 5: Call him a goblin, a demon, and a boom regard
Speaker 5: and that's actually okay.
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting that. I mean, how many insults did
Speaker 1: he throw at us throughout this video? Right, So it's
Speaker 1: a standard that he doesn't actually apply because if he
Speaker 1: really thought that, he would not call us spurgs cult members,
Speaker 1: you know, all the different in souls.
Speaker 6: Degenerate gay stuff.
Speaker 1: Kept on calling us gay gay degenerate, Like all the
Speaker 1: stuff that he said is just horrendous and unconscionable. All
Speaker 1: the stuff you just said, dude, look at so again,
Speaker 1: if you're going to do all this, don't try to
Speaker 1: moral high ground and have your you know, a moral
Speaker 1: high horse when you're doing all the stuff that you
Speaker 1: just said, you know is supposedly about the worst stuff.
Speaker 1: He guy, what's up man on you?
Speaker 5: I I wanted to just mention how he like totally
Speaker 5: hand waved the stuff with Israel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that would you know, I didn't know
Speaker 1: his position, he's I forgot that it maybe six months ago.
Speaker 1: I asked him if you wanted to do a Christian
Speaker 1: Zionism Israel debate because I wasn't actually sure of his position,
Speaker 1: so I forgot and I just sort of I don't
Speaker 1: even know what his position, but I sort of assumed, well,
Speaker 1: if he's wanting to debate Nick and Candace, my assumption
Speaker 1: was that he was like Christian Zionist or maybe leaned
Speaker 1: that way. I bet it wasn't sure. So I did
Speaker 1: ask him if you wanted to do a debate on that,
Speaker 1: and he, you know, got really defensive, like, oh, I
Speaker 1: can't believe you asked that, And I don't even care
Speaker 1: about that. Okay, fair enough, but like I don't I
Speaker 1: don't see why that was even a problem that.
Speaker 4: I mean, he.
Speaker 1: Invited me to his podcasts and we had a debate.
Speaker 1: I mean the two hours at the end is me
Speaker 1: and him debating justification, so we already kind of had
Speaker 1: a debate. So I don't understand why he would even
Speaker 1: see it as a problem for me to ask him
Speaker 1: to do another debate. Right, It's like we already kind
Speaker 1: of had a debate. So what's the problem.
Speaker 10: I think it's optics, because like if he says, oh,
Speaker 10: I don't support Zionism, or if I do, it's going
Speaker 10: to like just really.
Speaker 5: Mess him up because look of what is happening in
Speaker 5: politics right now with.
Speaker 6: The Trump stuff right now, people are reacting, well.
Speaker 4: I don't know, was he a big Trump guy or not?
Speaker 6: Really?
Speaker 1: I don't even know what his leanings are.
Speaker 6: Oh, I don't know.
Speaker 7: I'm just saying like he won't be I'm saying he's
Speaker 7: like sneaky because he won't talk about.
Speaker 1: It in the I see, yeah, exactly. He didn't want
Speaker 1: to say he was pro Christian Zionists, at least when
Speaker 1: I asked him. I was like, well, I assume that
Speaker 1: you were because you wanted to debate, you know, Candice
Speaker 1: and Nick or whatever. My assumption was that it was
Speaker 1: over that. But H Brosey, what's It's three am where
Speaker 1: I'm at. But we might try to wind it up
Speaker 1: here pretty soon. I got a lot of super chats,
Speaker 1: so if you disagree, raise your hand, you go to
Speaker 1: the head of one. What's up, Hbrosy, hey.
Speaker 9: Apologize or for jumping out last week? I am about
Speaker 9: being yeah about Trump there.
Speaker 4: It was just I don't care.
Speaker 9: It was just a spur of the moment thing, you
Speaker 9: know what. It wasn't obviously it wasn't like I said,
Speaker 9: It's not like I'm gonna stop following Andrew. I love
Speaker 9: Andrew obviously done a tremendous job, you know, with him
Speaker 9: and his leftist I want.
Speaker 1: And so forth.
Speaker 6: But after what I've seen from his latest period.
Speaker 1: Interview, this is yeah, this is.
Speaker 9: Just one thing that I'm just gonna have to pretty
Speaker 9: much ignore everything he said though, like this regarding Trump.
Speaker 4: But yeah, I mean, I'll be honest, I haven't kept
Speaker 4: up with Andrews.
Speaker 1: I did want to cover the trigonometry discussion because a
Speaker 1: lot of people are saying that Andrew gave a really
Speaker 1: good explanation of paradigms that should resonate with people outside
Speaker 1: of the philosophy theology sphere, so I am interested in
Speaker 1: covering that. I also want to cover there was something
Speaker 1: else I saw that he had done, and I wanted
Speaker 1: to go back to their Joe Rogan appearances too, So
Speaker 1: I do have some catching up to do there.
Speaker 4: But I've not seen what you're talking about. I can't
Speaker 4: believe that, Doug, just.
Speaker 9: Like obviously if you don't want to, it's nothing special
Speaker 9: with him, Martin Lamont Hill and some or some check
Speaker 9: out own though it is nothing special or whatever. But
Speaker 9: I mean the twenty or thirty minutes that Marjorie Taylor
Speaker 9: Green got before Andrew and everybody else was an added
Speaker 9: onto the panel.
Speaker 1: That was actually pretty good because.
Speaker 9: It laid the groundwork that made Andrew and Jack it
Speaker 9: with Andrew and Jack pisodn Urson, those two leftists.
Speaker 1: It laid the.
Speaker 9: Groundwork that actually made Andrew and Jack look so bad
Speaker 9: because during that twenty to thirty minutes it was established
Speaker 9: and points it out like repeatedly that she holds the
Speaker 9: positions that she helped Trump or her tougher or whoever
Speaker 9: else were campaigning for him back in twenty twenty four
Speaker 9: and twenty twenty three, and he's the one that's changed.
Speaker 9: And Andrew didn't have I tweeted this earlier. Andrew did
Speaker 9: not have the worst moment. But throughout that entire exchange,
Speaker 9: Jack Pasoviic.
Speaker 6: And you can see him realized what he was saying
Speaker 6: in real time.
Speaker 9: So pierres asked, and sorry, my son wake yes. So
Speaker 9: Pierre's asked, mamm have to get off here in tech,
Speaker 9: I might have to shut up. So Piers asked him
Speaker 9: that question just like exactly what I just said. So, uh,
Speaker 9: that's from his perspective. Is it Trump that's moved off
Speaker 9: of the position by what you know, why would he
Speaker 9: be so upset that Marjorie Taylor Green maintaining the positions
Speaker 9: that he had back during during the campaign. And as
Speaker 9: Jack is talking, he's like, he admits to start that, Yes,
Speaker 9: it seems that it would seem to him that he's
Speaker 9: the one that's moved off to positions or Marjorie is
Speaker 9: staying consistent, but it's his online behavior that's remained consistent,
Speaker 9: which was completely available.
Speaker 1: Like he just threw that out there.
Speaker 9: It was the dumbest ship that I've ever heard somebody
Speaker 9: bring up, like out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: It had nothing to do with what was being discussed. Argument.
Speaker 6: Yeah, like he I hadn't. I have no idea, like
Speaker 6: why he even said that.
Speaker 1: It was.
Speaker 9: It was the weirdest thing episode, but he did well.
Speaker 9: He like he didn't explicitly say it, but him him
Speaker 9: admitting that it is Marjorie that's maintained the same position
Speaker 9: and not Trump. That's a concession right there, Like you're
Speaker 9: admitting that he has moved off of his campaign promises.
Speaker 1: So and.
Speaker 9: I'm like, again, I'm not bashing, I'm all right, So
Speaker 9: I'm just gonna leave the whole Andrew thing on like
Speaker 9: I said, just voting forward, this is just one thing
Speaker 9: that I'm gonna.
Speaker 1: I'm kind of like, you know, be and Andrews.
Speaker 9: Just aren't gonna see how of eye on it, and
Speaker 9: that's fine, that's fine, But there was one more thing
Speaker 9: that I had, dude. So the only reason I'm up
Speaker 9: is because I was up for three hours trying to
Speaker 9: get into this. This really big sports bros of he
Speaker 9: was running a space or whatever, and I know he's designed,
Speaker 9: it's like he's a hard course iiist, and I was
Speaker 9: waiting three hours to get in. I kept spanning people's dms,
Speaker 9: like everybody that came up before me, and he finally
Speaker 9: let me in. I was in his space for a
Speaker 9: minute and thirty seconds before he realized, like what my
Speaker 9: profile it was, and he started asking.
Speaker 1: So as soon as I said, israel Is kicked me immediately.
Speaker 9: Kicking that kind of pissed me off, man, and I
Speaker 9: just I didn't I didn't even think you still be.
Speaker 1: Up here, So I just decided to call it in
Speaker 1: real quick appreciate it. Yeah, this was a I wasn't
Speaker 1: expecting rouse line to crash out, but we had a
Speaker 1: late night rouselan crash out. So who disagrees, raise your hand.
Speaker 1: You go to the headline. We're gonna try to wind
Speaker 1: it up here and I'll read the super chats. Anybody
Speaker 1: disagree in the line up here, we got six people.
Speaker 1: Anybody raise your hand. If you disagree, you go to
Speaker 1: the headline. Anybody emojis disagrees. Nobody disagrees. You're setting up
Speaker 1: a heart. Does that mean you disagree or do you agree?
Speaker 1: I don't know what. What does the heart mean? You
Speaker 1: love me? Is that your love language? Rouselan says, we
Speaker 1: have to use love language, so be mad, he says,
Speaker 1: for ten dollars. I grew upap It's rid orthodoxerch Awar
Speaker 1: started reading Religion Apostles by Father Stephen Young. I, by
Speaker 1: the way, it's still intending to eventually finish that. I've
Speaker 1: only read the first two chapters, but I do intend
Speaker 1: to get through it visiting theology by mind or please
Speaker 1: trade for me. We're attending our first liturgy. Yeah, absolutely, man,
Speaker 1: we'll profuse Citadel, not lot oft of dollars. I was
Speaker 1: initiated into Greek Orthodoxy. This was the night before Hollywood.
Speaker 1: You played a very important role. Christos anasty. That's great
Speaker 1: to hear. Citadel many years in the filth. Hey, he
Speaker 1: trying to step to you. We called him Jaywalkin. It's exactly, Malcolm.
Speaker 1: Five dollars. Keep Rouslan's name out your mouth. Rouselan about
Speaker 1: to throw holy hands with you. Put some respect on
Speaker 1: Ny Shepherd. Five dollars. Jay wearing a fu boo shirt.
Speaker 1: The attitude that Jay sporton is also made by a
Speaker 1: fooboo all black everything exactly, it's my people, social b
Speaker 1: two dollars. Have you heard of the rapper sanctified flow
Speaker 1: he Orthodox? No, I'm not. I don't know about Orthodox rappers.
Speaker 1: So Kiki found out. We got to make disciples do
Speaker 1: this BS fat waste of time. You look ridiculous to atheists.
Speaker 1: I disagree. I don't think making fun of Protestants and
Speaker 1: the ridiculousness of Protestantism is in some way wrong or
Speaker 1: evil or I think Protestants do a great job of
Speaker 1: making clowns with themselves. So no, I do not at
Speaker 1: all feel bad. Somebody commented on the YouTube channel, they said,
Speaker 1: why are you arguing with Rousselin? There's there's monsters to
Speaker 1: go after instead of Rusal And I said, well, Protestantism
Speaker 1: is a monster, so it's a monstrous heresy Dark Sickle
Speaker 1: three dollars. Check out p omal Jono song just not
Speaker 1: over It. Okay, CS, thank you for that dollar. Doctor Evo.
Speaker 1: Shout out to our Crench Core producer. The new crnch
Speaker 1: corese song feature in Doctor crack Rock Captain crack Rock
Speaker 1: Harriet Tubman. It's complete. It's even got spoke alarm.