Speaker 1: I'm married to a buncle pop.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 3: Oh, we got better to conjoined in a subway shop.
Oh oh, I'm married to a buncle pop. Oh by
a man's mat.
Speaker 2: They come to me through a tube.
Speaker 1: My whole life it's been watching on a tube. Whoa.
Oh oh, we got weard a courtius been a subway shop.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: We got wed at courts and in a subway shop.
Speaker 3: Oh, we got wet courtaus in a subway shop.
Speaker 4: Oh oh oh, I got married.
Speaker 1: To a fuco pass.
Speaker 5: Whoa, we got ready.
Speaker 6: Come joint in the subway shop.
Speaker 1: For I'm married to uncle pass.
Speaker 6: Whoa I imagine me and Rosie come to me through
tub hoo like the stick watching on the two.
Speaker 4: Whoa, whoa open boot.
Speaker 7: Joy to see the subway shop over. We got waiting
for the sad subway shop for.
Speaker 5: Mm hm.
Speaker 7: Oh, I'm married to a phone cap.
Speaker 1: We got ready. We got joined in a sockway shop.
Speaker 2: Right, he is a man a roads. They come to
me through the two night missen then a road so lonco.
Speaker 1: Phone h whoa bunco funk.
Speaker 2: Oh oh oh, I got married.
Speaker 1: I got married to my phone go papa. We got ready.
We got joined in a subway shop.
Speaker 8: Whoa go.
Speaker 2: Phone call, love, phone call.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to my phone. Do we got wedded?
Speaker 9: Come join in.
Speaker 1: The subway shop. Oh, I'm happy.
Speaker 2: Married to a phone call.
Speaker 10: Boo, we got joined courts in the subway shop.
Speaker 8: Boo.
Speaker 1: Vitamins and biscuits. Some minerals they come and be do
it too, the Holy s man watching on the two.
Speaker 11: Whoa olet me.
Speaker 6: Too my phone.
Speaker 12: Boo, we got wedded.
Speaker 5: We got joined in the subway shopping.
Speaker 7: Boy, the mats and minerals.
Speaker 1: I come to middle it too, the mats and minerals.
The coming mid to this year too.
Speaker 13: Who all right? What's up? Welcome everybody. It's that time again,
another live stream, another open chat. You better bring some heat, son.
We got a lot of people talking, talking smack. They're
ready to come into bay. They're gonna set me straight.
They're gonna expose me. You about to get exposed. Well,
we always give that opportunity. So here is the link.
You can call in right there on Twitter and you
can set me straight. Set me straight, baby, tell me
where I'm a fake. I'm a fraud, im a kg B,
I'm an operative. This is your chance to finally expose me.
Put me in my place. Son. Of course, you can
also ask questions. You don't have to call into debate.
That's always the most entertaining.
Speaker 8: T L.
Speaker 13: What's up? TL cobble, Timeline cobble. I'm the highway patrol
of debate today with these glasses. What's up?
Speaker 5: Man? I'm mute?
Speaker 13: Talk dude, what's up? Unmute? You gotta unmute yourself. Man,
it's like eight years of this, y'all. Come on, okay,
don't umute yourself. Just sit there muted. Then fine, anybody
else want to call in? Lieutenant Bilki, what's up? Dude?
Welcome everybody?
Speaker 5: Hello?
Speaker 10: Oh?
Speaker 8: Then I was quick? What's up?
Speaker 10: Jay?
Speaker 8: How are you? How bless good?
Speaker 13: What's on your mind?
Speaker 5: All right?
Speaker 14: So, like all right, I actually I'm orthodox. I know
you heard a debate, but I just just genuine question.
So I'm trying to like really understand how to I guess,
give an honest like refutation. I guess you would say
of like Roman Catholicism, because like, okay, I've seen a
lot of some of you, like you're like not only
your large debates, like more just your informal ones where
you know you'll mention the contradictions and the dog mo. Overtime,
you'll mention like, you know, the natural theology not working
a bunch of things. But it's like I always like
every time I bring it up, like I don't even
try to debate it. I kind of like dialogue it
with uh Catholic folks, and it's like I always get
some different answer. Like, for example, I had one guy
say like, we teach natural theology in a in a way,
and then I was like kind of quoting him.
Speaker 5: How I forgot who was quite.
Speaker 14: Necessarily, but it was basically how like they have the
idea that you know, you have to know God through matter,
and they were basically saying like, oh, we hold that
position too, But like I didn't really.
Speaker 13: Know what natural theology is. Natural theology is not can
you know God through matter?
Speaker 14: So okay, so it will be like the proper way
to like define it then, so you can have like
the distinction because.
Speaker 13: Natural theology is defined as reasoning about God without any
reference to divine revelation.
Speaker 14: So no reference to divine revelation, So where is this
in Catholic dogma?
Speaker 15: Then?
Speaker 13: Like where find John Paul the seconds and cyclical fetus
at ratio but any theological dictionary that's Protestant or Catholic
will define natural theology that way. Okay, interesting, but no,
I mean natural theology is not even like the easiest
best way to disprove Roman Catholicism. Rotholicism is a system,
and if you can show us some level defeater, then
the system's false. So just go to one of the
papal dogmatic contradictions. Why is that not a defeat for
the system.
Speaker 14: I don't know, because I've I've had guys like try
to say, oh, Council Florence, Council Florence, we had the
league gates, and then they change their mind.
Speaker 13: Yeah, again, that's not addressing what I just said. So
they can let them say all that stuff. Leagates aren't infallible.
As Voice of Reason admitted in that debate that if
the leagates go back and the bishops reject what the
legates said, doesn't count. Okay, So that's that ends that
argument right there. In Voice of Reason admitted that in
ubie debate, what I'm saying is, if there's a Roman
Catholic dogmatic contradiction, does that not invalidate the system?
Speaker 14: I would say it does, Okay, then that's the case,
like can you just reference me?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 14: I noticed like a medieval time dogmin and like Vatican two,
Like what would you reference?
Speaker 5: Just like it?
Speaker 8: Have that to point out? I guess.
Speaker 13: So if you type in Vatican one, Jay Dyer, you'll
get about four talks that pop up in videos that
pop up. All of those would answer that question in
more detail. But I made a specific video called this
one dogmatic contradiction refused Catholicism, and that one is about
when I'm sunging to them in the temporal supremacy of
the Roman bishop, when.
Speaker 5: I'm saying that. Okay, all right, copy of that? All right? Cool.
Speaker 14: I don't want to take two your time, but thank you.
Speaker 13: For a good question anytime. Yeah, be sure and watch
the when I'm sunk to them video. It's called this
one contradiction.
Speaker 14: Let me find it, Okay, I usually watched like when
I'm like driving, This is it.
Speaker 13: This one dogmatic contradiction ends Roman Catholicism.
Speaker 8: This is it?
Speaker 5: Did you? Uh?
Speaker 8: You're on YouTube streaming, aren't you correct?
Speaker 14: Okay, let me.
Speaker 5: Surprise. I think I can just look it up, you said,
Jay Dyer. One refutation for romcals.
Speaker 13: This one dogmatic contradiction ends Roman Catholicism. Is the video
that's eighteen minutes. That's a really strong argument. And you
can type in one Jay Dyer and you'll get four
separate videos about Vatican One.
Speaker 5: All right, copy it. I appreciate that. Man, God, bless you, MANBC.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Yeah, good questions. I'm always happy to answer
honest questions. Confused, what's up? Man?
Speaker 5: Hello? Hey, hey, I had two kind of questions.
Speaker 16: I don't really have a debate, but my brother is
a Calvinist, and I'm wondering if a good argumentation towards
him is like break down his idea of total depravity.
And I use the two parallel doctrines of total inability
and the doctrine of the reprobate to show that it's
not giving everybody the ability to respond to the Gospels.
And Jesus says that he wills, the Father wills that
all might come to repentance.
Speaker 5: So would that be big good argument against him.
Speaker 13: No, they're just gonna say that there's two different wills
in God. There's a decreative will and a will of desire,
or a will of a moral will where he would
like everyone to be saved, but that doesn't mean that
he decrees, So you're just going to end up in
an infinite argument with them over the five points of Calvinism.
I wouldn't waste my time waiting that top debating that topic.
I would debate other things like the christology or the
canon of scripture. And if you can demonstrate the errors
that way, it's much more effective because they're just going
to keep arguing in endless biblical text with you, meister.
Every time you point out a text about universality, they're
going to counter with some other verse about particularity. What's up, meister?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 17: Hello, Jay, I ask you a days ago about my
colleague that is the nominational and he invited me to
some zoom group or online shirts thing. Will this fall
into ken On thirty three of LAOSDA. Do not pray
with heretics to join this group that they read the Bible.
Speaker 13: I would ask your priest whether he thinks it's allowable.
I mean, I wouldn't be joining Protestant zoom groups. But
father Deacon, what would you say about that? Yeah?
Speaker 5: Why?
Speaker 12: I mean, keep in mind too, we're not rule worshipers.
Rules and guidelines are in place to keep you healthy
to heal. And so the reason why we don't pray
with schismatics, heterodox and heretics, even if they have some
common things that we hold.
Speaker 5: Error gets in. The other thing too, is that it.
Speaker 13: Also suggests that we have the same faith to them,
which is not true.
Speaker 12: And I like to use the marriage analogies and affairs.
You're married to the Orthodox Church, your baptismal services is
in the dance Isaiah.
Speaker 5: That's a marriage, just like the marriage and just like
the ordination. So what you're doing is you're having an
affair with other bodies.
Speaker 12: So would you ever say, well, can you imagine me
saying to my wife that, like, well, you know, I
was fooling around with this other girl lead but she's Christian,
she holds, you know, ten of the same.
Speaker 5: Views you do. That's one of the reasons why you
do not unite.
Speaker 12: And that's flirting and messing around with another bride is
when you start praying and doing worship services with.
Speaker 5: So it's infidelity. I think about that way. That makes
a lot more sense.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Yeah. People keep asking I don't know when
Rouslan is going to release his video, as you guys,
I don't know, Troy, what's up?
Speaker 5: Hello?
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 18: kJ, Can we talk a little bit about bitcoin and
micro strategy?
Speaker 5: Sure? So I saw that you recently purchased a micro strategy. Yeah, yeah,
and I have some too.
Speaker 18: I have about six hundred nineteen percent, and I think
it's great and I hope you continue to DCA.
Speaker 5: But I also do think bitcoin's.
Speaker 18: Good as well, just because of being able to you know,
take loans, equity loans hopefully in the future. But my
question is, what do you think this cycle Bitcoin's gonna
talk out or do you think we're gonna not do
the traditional four year cycle but do this.
Speaker 13: Supersychal, I have no idea. I mean, everything is we're
in new charted territories or uncharted territories, so I have
no idea. I mean, we've never seen.
Speaker 8: This level of.
Speaker 13: You know, government institutional adoption acceptance. Banks are caving now.
So I would guess conservatively that it would top out
at maybe one hundred and fifty two hundred, could go higher.
But it just depends on a lot of other factors too,
Like you know, the geopolitical sphere. What happens is there
does a war break out, you know, all those things
can put a damper on it too. So I mean,
I definitely think that we're at least going to be
at a million and four or five years.
Speaker 5: I agree with that.
Speaker 13: Yeah, and maybe sooner, I hope.
Speaker 5: So, I hope so too.
Speaker 2: I'm hoping.
Speaker 5: But yeah, all right, your time, cham.
Speaker 13: Yeah, props all you Bitcoin bros today because you know what,
we just hid another all time high a few minutes ago,
like one O nine something.
Speaker 5: So oh man, I just sold all my right before.
Speaker 13: And yeah, remember to buy high. So loo. I don't
know where the Roman Catholics are that we're going to
come in here in debate Tony. As usual, there's a
lot of they bark on Twitter and then they don't.
There's no bite. It's all bark, no bite.
Speaker 15: Yo.
Speaker 13: Hello, what's on your mind? Oh Jay?
Speaker 15: Can I get some clarity on the drama recently with
Bishop writing a letter?
Speaker 13: Did you see did you see the other letter?
Speaker 10: No?
Speaker 13: Okay, well I posted it right under it. Why did
you not read that one?
Speaker 15: I did not see any response at that time.
Speaker 13: Yeah. So the letter says that I have permission to
talk about theology and he supports my work. The other
letter says that I'm not an official representative of ro Corps.
I'm not employed by ro Corps, hence freelance.
Speaker 15: Okay, yeah, I mean a lot of it was blacked
out to be cool Catholic fishing, leaving out important details.
Speaker 13: Well, I mean, yeah, who knows what's in the blacked
out part. But I talked to my priests about it,
and he said he was very close to Metropolitan Hilarium.
By the way, Mess Parlton Hilarian has passed away. For
those people, the Romancalachs think that this is like our
bishop right now, he passed away. He's not alive anymore.
Speaker 8: But the uh.
Speaker 13: When I first joined ro Corps, I took all my
articles to for Vladimir and I said, you know, I
don't want to be doing this publicly without permission to
do so. And he wrote to the bishop and the
Bishop was aware of what I did at that time,
and he said that Jay's a good writer, a solid
Orthodox apologist, and we need him in our time. Separate
from that, a question was asked, does Jay officially represent
ro Corp And the answer was no, But they don't
say that to anyone. No one gets like a free
pass blessing to totally. It's not like the Roman Catholic
system where you get like an impromater or a nil obstat.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 13: Roman Catholics have this idea that anytime you do something
with that you got to get a nil obstat. But
you can see right here what he wrote to my priest.
He said, quote from what writings of Jada I've read.
I know that he's a solid Orthodox writer. I thank
God for people like him who defend the Orthodox faith
in difficult times like this. Does that sound like somebody
who's reprimanding me in any way?
Speaker 5: Sounds like quite the opposite.
Speaker 13: Right, So the letter is saying he does not speak
for Rocorp. But they wouldn't say that any parishioner. They
wouldn't say for doctor Bo Branson or doctor David Bradshaw.
They are the voice of the OCA or the Antiochin church.
The one reason for that too is that I was
talking to my priests about it. He said. The bishops
are very careful with the way that they were things
because they can be legally liable and people don't realize that,
Like if somebody does something in the name of ro Corps,
then it's like it could potentially be something legal, so
they guard their words very carefully about how they say things,
and so no, and his point was that they're not
going to give anyone like a blanket quote blessing to
represent ro corpor something like that, which, by the way,
I never even said that. What I always said was
that I have permission to talk about theology, and Father
Vladimir said a lay person doesn't technically need the permission
of the bishop to talk about theology, and in fact
that I went to them and got permission was actually
a sign of humility.
Speaker 2: Night's fishness.
Speaker 15: The fact that I've seen some music videos called you
a field illosion, but I don't think you can.
Speaker 5: Be a is that correct?
Speaker 13: There is no official title in the Orthodox Church as
to who can be called a theologian. I mean, there's
some saints that are called, you know, John the theologian,
Gregor the elogian, but I don't. I don't even know
what you're what you're talking about? What do you what
do you think like people? I've never called myself that.
I call myself a comedian, So.
Speaker 15: Okay, yeah, just some mut videos, but I guess that's that.
Speaker 13: Well, Father Deacon, you are are also clergy. You could
speak to this. I mean, everything Father Vladimir said was
essentially what Father Deacon and and Ice has always said,
Like laity, uh can speak about things without a You
don't have to get permission from your bishop to do
anything that you want to do, per se. But if
you are going to talk about theology, it's good to
have permission to do that. But that's not the same
thing as like, I mean, I suppose it's Father Deacon
is a deacon. He represents his jurisdiction certainly more than
a layperson, and clergy are held to a lot more
a higher standard, but even laity are not. Like, you
don't have to get permission to do everything that you
do per se, But if you are going to talk
about theology, it is a good practice to have permission
to do so. Is that correct, Father Deacon.
Speaker 5: Yes, And it just gives us a kind of a rubric.
Speaker 12: And what's the word I'm looking for a metric for
who should I be listening to and who I shouldn't.
Speaker 5: Well, obviously, in such confusing times, that's why people go. Now.
Speaker 12: First of all, every ordained clergy has the blessing in
virtue of the ordination to teach and preach depending on
what level or you are the administration of sacraments and
things like that. So we've already had our blessings. But
you know, even if we're going to do something big
or something like that where I would have an official
capacity representing the church, like for example, the conference, like
that's all piscopal blessing, and even that's not necessarily required,
but like Jay says, it protects, it's in the good
order of the church.
Speaker 5: It protects the bishop, protects the priests involved, myself and
the parishioners too, And so it definitely makes it clear
when that it's like, well this this is actually blessed.
The rest of the stuff you don't know.
Speaker 12: So it's it's kind of practical and moral kind of
and spiritual guidance that.
Speaker 5: It's in the good order of the church to get blessings.
Speaker 12: But yeah, you don't become autistic and be like, well,
I've got to get a blessing from my bishop to
go to home depot and because well here's somebody asked
me about the gospel. Better call the bishop and do
you see what I mean?
Speaker 13: And by the way, don't priests have to get permission too?
And I mean it wouldn't it be like, like you're
saying about your conference, like it's good to have the
blessing of the bishop to do the conference right. Absolutely,
if you don't get permission for everything you do and
every time you talk. And by the way, this whole time,
I've always stressed that I have permission to talk about theology.
That doesn't mean that I get everything right. If I
get something wrong, I'm held accountable just like anybody else
will be held accountable. And I'm not just held accountable
by Father Vladimir. I would be held accountable by Father Deacon,
all the people that are the clergy, that are in
his circles would hold me accountable. Uh, there's there's an
accountability there at multiple levels, which is the purpose of
the whole thing. It's it's not about like rule worship,
It's about are you held accountable? And the thing with
the a lot of the online Twitter profiles is that
no one holds them accountable. They do whatever they want,
say whatever they want. They say a lot of things
that are wrong and have no permission at all. So
it's totally different.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just can you help me figure out the
psychology of this?
Speaker 12: We don't even know if they're most of them, I'd
say about ninety eight percent of them, we don't even
know if they're Orthodox.
Speaker 5: You don't know these people in person. They say all kinds.
Speaker 12: Of incorrect stuff. I want to know, why are people listening?
Why are you listening to that?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 15: I listened to a lot of converts in America who
list like five moons away from the nearest church, so
Twitter is all they have.
Speaker 12: Well, what could be what I'm What I'm saying though,
is you don't know. So there's a lot of people
who are not Orthodox, a lot of subverters. So I
just find a real kind of niciativity that It's like,
I don't even know. If you ran into a random
person on the street and they were like, oh, let
me tell you something about your brother, and it's like,
who are you, It's like, well, don't worry about it.
Speaker 5: Would you believe some preposterous the story about some random
person you met?
Speaker 12: But yeah, everybody online like they just they just listen
to anything people say. I think a lot of it
has to do with confirmation bias, especially people who are
in posi like clergy and your Orthodox brothers that you
do know you should give them the benefit of the doubt,
and not the people who you can't actually confirm or
Orthodox that have a blessing.
Speaker 5: We just these people are strangers. We have no idea,
and I try to live by that. It's like, yeah,
even clergy make mistakes and have been wrong, but I'm
going to.
Speaker 12: Give them the benefit of the doubt and my Orthodox
brothers before some random person.
Speaker 5: And what you look is you can know them by
their fruits.
Speaker 12: They're constantly stirring up turmoil and fighting and it's demonic
and people are just so dumb and naive. It's like
those are the people they listen to, and you're free
to do that. It's just unfortunates to one's own spiritual
moral demand.
Speaker 13: I mean, how many times have Orthodox priests and clergy
and my own priests been on my live streams with me?
How silly that is?
Speaker 5: This?
Speaker 13: Would he come on my live stream and we do
a conference together and do an Italy pilgrimage together, if
he didn't give permission, and if they didn't give permission
for what I do? Just think I said, I mean, look,
I'm showing on the screen right here, this is our
conference we our video we did last year promoting our pilgrimage.
He used my channel to recruit people to go to
the pilgrimage, but he doesn't want to support my work
or be associated with me. Well, here he is right
here with me talking about Look, the history of the Renaissance.
There's an entire almost three hours two and a half
hour talk on the Renaissance that we did. I mean,
by the way, none of the people involved in any
of this reached out to my priest. Any of them
could just ask Father Vladimir, does Jay have permission to
talk about this stuff? Why would he come on my
channel if I didn't have permission. It's so stupid.
Speaker 12: These people are not interested in truth. I'm gonn give
to a stark warning to all of you too, and
forgive me if this is a bit harsh. If you
listen to these people, if you judge.
Speaker 5: Your Orthodox brothers, another clergy member, by listening to these people,
you will be judged.
Speaker 12: In the same way you may find either in the
Kingdom to come on judgment day or in this life,
that you will be found in a similar position in
which you're slandered and libels created, and you'll be held right.
That'll be put on you and people write the same
standard up. Well why don't even investigate it?
Speaker 5: Like Jay said, you could call his priests, you'd call
the bishop, right, you can.
Speaker 12: You can look at any of the clergy that have
been planted and look, it's all transparent.
Speaker 13: But it's it's the same people saying that you're defrocked,
which is just made up.
Speaker 12: Yeah, it's it takes two seconds just to look to
see if any clergy member is in good standing. Well,
there could be a day when you're accused and nobody
looks at it, and you're held in trial, your and
you're sentenced.
Speaker 5: Because but ultimately that's the type.
Speaker 12: Of person that you become. That is what your judgment
day will be. And I'm giving that as.
Speaker 5: A harsh kind of warning, knock it off for your own.
Speaker 12: Good and salvation, because it says in scripture you'll be
judged by the same manner which you judge. So it's
hurting me, it's not hurting us that much, right, we're
just used to it's annoying and stuff like that. But
the real tragedy of this is that's your judgment. It
comes back on you and you will be judged on
judgment day. The exact same way. Well somebody Magic Christ
said was somebody some stranger told me you were you
were weren't Orthodox, So that's the same standard.
Speaker 5: So depart from me. I never knew. Can you imagine
that horrible? It would be horrible. Yeah, So for your
own benefit, I love all of you, even the you.
Speaker 12: Know, uh, our enemies, like I don't wish you any
none of us, jade, none of us.
Speaker 5: As Scripture says, you'll know them because they love one
another and they love their enemies. We're saying these things
because we want.
Speaker 12: The very best, even for our enemies, like I don't
want to see you perish and be judged that way,
Like just for your own good knock it.
Speaker 5: Off, you know what I mean?
Speaker 13: Thank you for that. It was a good question. Thank
you for your comments at Father Deacon by the way,
I mean, how many times have we had Father Moses on,
Father don Whyford on, like multiple ro Corps priests, Father
Deacon Patrick, which I don't know if he's in ro Corps,
what jurisdiction he's in, but it doesn't matter, like they'll
just come out with some say By the way, that
was the letter was five years ago, so maybe that
was around the same time as he wrote the email
saying that he liked my work. So maybe five years
ago there was some level of questioning in the mind
of you know much Politan Nicholas, and it had to
do with the very same people online that Father Degan
and Nice was talking about and the stuff that they
were spreading online, because at that time they were saying
that I don't actually go to any church, I'm not Orthodox.
I made up that I converted. The same people were
saying the same stuff five years ago, right, And so
in response to that person, the original email was about
his work is good. And I mean, do you notice
that none of these people even mentioned that email from.
Speaker 12: Now they won't And by the way, don't be naive
that while they're just missing information that they knew and
you should showed them. You could pull together an ecumenical council.
All the bishops is she like, you know what they'll say, well,
all those bishops are Soviet bishops.
Speaker 5: Is a Surganism and it's a robber council.
Speaker 13: Yeah, it's Roman Catholics, it's people who are Latinizers in
the Orthodox Church. And it's literally like a group of
like ten people. It's not even like It's not some
like massive network. It's like a small network of people
who are allowed on Twitter. It's a bunch of nobody's anyway,
big time five dollars. I wanted to ask, since not
so Aridise said that Paul the Apostle was a postmodernist,
did she learn this at the College of the Apostles.
I thought that was one of the funniest statements, for sure,
that I've heard in a long time. But it would
fit well with misfit Patriots line of argumentation, because the
College of the Apostles is where they studied at school.
Right Hush tones ten dollars. Our Road Corporish in Saint
Louis had our Chbishop Gabriel present. We have a third
deacon now to complement our two priests. We just celebrated
our fortieth anniversary. What's the favorite podcast that you did recently?
I mean, I enjoyed them all in different ways. The
eight hour whatever podcast the second day was really grueling.
It was difficult, but it was it was still fun.
But I think I had the most fun on the
Hodge Twins and Sam Tripoli when we were out there.
I enjoyed Rouslan's too. Elie w became a member. What's up? H.
Brosey five bucks? That guy had a Skutle's voice. Boot him.
He's some other first guy, H. Brosie five dollars. A
zoom caller prayer group is the most Protestant thing I've
ever heard. I mean, might as well just have church
on the zoom, right. Luca Belvizo became a member for
three months. He says, Father, Deacon an I s or jay,
this is going brother Deacon, what would you say about
prayer with a Roman Catholic family member at a table
or dinner meeting.
Speaker 12: My recommendation, yeah, uh, try to lead the prayer, say oh,
I don't mind, Like, can I can I lead you?
Speaker 5: You know, can I start the prayer?
Speaker 12: That's not praying with them, right, that's leading them in prayer.
If you can't do that, just uh, you know, don't pray.
Just you know, be respectful and quiet. But yeah, don't
because like you said, it's confusing to them. It makes
the think like we're one one body and believe in
the same thing. And you don't want to do that.
You don't want to be united with the foreign body
like I said with the affair analogy. But you don't
want to confuse them and think that like, oh, fee,
we're all just the same faith.
Speaker 13: And ye, Tony says, for five dollars, I'm the guy
that wants to come up on ax. I have questions
about epistemology. Well, you're in luck because you have a
professor of epistemology here, doctor, father, deacon, doctor Annonias. What's up?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 13: What's on your mind?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 13: How's it going?
Speaker 5: Can you hear me?
Speaker 13: Yeah?
Speaker 5: Hey, just quick question for you. I was watching one
of I was watching a video of you and a
gentleman named.
Speaker 19: God Logic picking on viewers for an argument against prinitarianism.
And this gentleman said he you asked him do you
believe in the Bible? And he said, I believe the
parts that are true. And then you went on to
do like a line of questioning about like what his
epistemic principles are for determining what parts of the Bible
are true and what are true? And he kept appealing
to like self evident maxims like logic.
Speaker 13: I think was a Pentecostal guy, etcetera.
Speaker 19: Yes, and he said, he said, eventually got frustrated with
you asking like basic questions and he said the problem
with you, Jay is and then you said, now it's personal,
And I was wondering what you could have what he
could have said to be more I guess in line
with like, is there anything he could have said that
would would have been justifying his position.
Speaker 13: Or is he just found Well I think that it
just shows that a very basic type of foundationalism that
most people want to appeal to, especially in the apologetic world,
it's really weak. And they think that if we call
that out, we're just trying to be argumentative or something
like that.
Speaker 11: No.
Speaker 13: No, you understand that if you go into a debate
with a really smart atheist like a doctor Graham Api
or something like that, they're going to call you out
on the same stuff that we're calling you out on.
And so that's why we have to have as father
Deacon and I always says, it's not just having reasons
for your beliefs, whether it's foundational principles or for God's existence,
it's good reasons for those beliefs. And ninety nine point
nine percent of the time when people try to defend
their quote self evident axioms or whatever it is, they
have really bad reasons for doing so. And if your
whole worldview is built on what supposedly is a bunch
of quote self evident axioms and principles and the docsastic
basicality and all this kind of stuff, and the reason
that we're supposed to accept that is like just because
it's obvious or it's self referencing, or I don't see
any other way to do it, Like that's not a
good reason.
Speaker 19: Well, I guess my question is if I were to
be in his shoes and I were to ask you,
and you would ask me the same questions, and I
was trying to be good faith, would it be fair
for we're going to say something like I presupposed the
laws of logic. I presupposed that stuff, and it's not justified.
It doesn't therefore my position is not justified or not justifiable.
What would you say, Like if I just said to you,
like if you asked me, why what do you use?
What's your episode of principle for believing in the laws
of logic? And I responded to you saying, I just
presuppose that it's that that is true?
Speaker 5: It gets in exactly into the uh A Grip's trilemma.
It was the laws of logic. Suppose it was some
other belief, right, you have three options. Either those beliefs
aren't justified.
Speaker 12: This is what Agrippa, who's a famous philosopher from the
Parian school, Okay, what just is I don't.
Speaker 5: I don't have Okay, so then they're not justified.
Speaker 12: Number two, it just goes on for an infinite regressive justifications,
in which case, interesting enough, the principle of infinitism that well,
if you have an infamous that itself is not infantism,
it's it's foundation because that's your foundation of principle. Or
it's a circle, well it's you know, I don't need
to justify it, because that is the.
Speaker 8: Justification for.
Speaker 12: So replace put any belief in there. Suppose it's I
don't know about the economy or something. Would you accept
that and be like, well, that's just I don't need
to justify my first principle of economics because it just is.
Speaker 5: During a Gripa's.
Speaker 12: Trilemma, so why should I allow when it comes to logic,
it's like, yeah, just because in economics are certain necessary conditions,
does that mean it's a first principle that doesn't need
to be justified?
Speaker 5: You allow it to go, well, it's just justified.
Speaker 12: By an infinite other reasons that you never get to
the bottom of. Or I just come back full circle.
Would you ever let somebody get away with that on
anything else?
Speaker 5: So?
Speaker 12: Why, yes, we all accept logic and logic is necessary.
We accept a lot of things that are true and necessary,
but we don't give we don't let other people get
away with that with other topics and beliefs.
Speaker 5: Does why is logic get a special what's so special
about that one that? Do you see? It's it's special pleading.
You have to do it all for this but not
for my position? Why?
Speaker 12: Because if you did it for my position and I
lose my position, well you're being disingenuous.
Speaker 19: Well, could you therefore just say something like like in
the economics debate, could you really just apply something like
I can't I can't justify the use of logic, conduction
or any moral claims without presupposing like the Christian gut.
Speaker 12: Sorry I said it again, Like actually, maybe it's economics,
but maybe it's like I don't know biology or something
like that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, sure, Yeah, that's my question.
Speaker 19: I guess it's like, how would you in good faith,
like knowing that you don't have any justification epistemically, like
just wouldn't you just have to admit that you don't
have any justification for it?
Speaker 12: But then yeah, maybe they just like I don't know,
they probably to be honest, they probably don't care. As
long as you get this kind of pragmatics, well I
can get the job done and go to science school
without right. Isn't this kind of what's going on with
these people? It's like they ultimately don't care.
Speaker 19: I don't think anybody thinks of I think ninety six
percent of people don't think about like with their episodic
principles are or.
Speaker 5: Maybe they don't. Yeah, maybe they don't think about it.
Speaker 19: Yeah, I guess those are my main questions. But yeah,
I appreciate the U the dialogue with it.
Speaker 13: Thanks man. I'm laughing because there's a my leg is
sliding on the metal bar and it sounds like a fart,
and the whole chat is just talking about farts. So no, no,
it's just I was having a hard time not laughing
because the chat was going crazy. All Right, we got
a bunch of people in here. Now I got to
figure out who was next in line. Tristana, are you
I see two. I see two haggards in the chat,
which is kind of an omen so that's usually a
bad sign. I don't know it's yes, except it's like
it's like two, it's two mentally retarded birds flying into
the chat at the same time. It's like, I'm just kidding.
I love both of the haggards. Chase his thumbing down.
He doesn't agree. That's okay. I believe in libertarian freedom,
you're free to believe and do anything at all. Total nap.
I'll never I'll never aggress you.
Speaker 5: What Jay said is axiomatic, so you can't.
Speaker 13: It's actually self evident, and you can't argue. Basically, all
my positions are self evident.
Speaker 5: I've decided, Hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 13: Hey, what's up?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 10: Uh So I'm a Lutheran and added question about orthodoxy.
Speaker 13: A Lutheran or a Lutheran.
Speaker 10: Lutheran Lutheran f so, yeah, So my question is what
I noticed in Eastern Orthodoxy. So there's this concept of
I hope I pronounce it correctly.
Speaker 13: Economya, right, that's what orthodoxy, not orthodoxy. My god, I'm
just kidding. I'm just kidding. Yah, economy, go ahead, Yes, okay,
so by the way, I before you move on real quick,
I want to say I do believe not in brute facts,
but in brute farts. That's what was going on.
Speaker 20: Go ahead, okay, So I get the concept of like
receiving someone who was baptized outside of the Orthodox Church
into the Orthodox Church without a rebaptism under economia.
Speaker 10: I probably pronounced it wrongly again, my bad.
Speaker 5: But my question is now.
Speaker 10: I think you're you're part of the road car, right,
and I think the ro cart it's like sometimes takes
up RCC priests without a reordination.
Speaker 13: Yeah, they don't have to vest. Their investing is not
necessarily they receive them by investing.
Speaker 10: Yet Yeah, but then some Greeks say, no, that's not
valid because he needs to be reordained, because the Romans
are heretics and so on.
Speaker 13: Right, Well, the Russian Church agrees that their heretics. It's
just that, if you read the Canons of Saint Basil,
he's very flexible. There's always been flexibility about how independent
how jurisdictions receive these these different people in different situations.
So it's usually a case by case basis. But also
we believe that in equantumia that the grace of God
and the grace of the Church makes up for whatever's lacking.
So it's a very Roman Catholic type of attitude. I'm
not talking about you, but like it just in general,
like in Quas Primus, which is or may excuse me
quote Primus the Bowl of Pius the fifth at the
Council of Trent. It's extremely legalistic the way that if
anything goes wrong in the mass, basically it's an automatic
mortal sin and it might invalidate the entire mass. Right,
so if like you said the wrong words, or if
you coughed in the middle of the words of consecration
or something like that, it's like it invalidates the whole thing.
So we don't have it. No, that's that's in the Tridentine,
you know, quote premium text. We don't have that legalistic
attitude in the in the Orthodox Church as far as
I can tell. And so like the Serbian Church for
a long time received people who were sprinkled without corrective
quote unquote baptism or whatever, and we just think that,
I mean, it's just you have to argue that the
grace of God makes up for that. And by the way,
most Roman Catholics do conditional baptisms.
Speaker 21: Too, So.
Speaker 10: Okay, so like the grace of God prevails, and then
if like that the priest has taken up into the
Orthodox Church, like through the grace of God, that then
supplies him even if his ordination was invalid like the
necessary ontological Traine.
Speaker 13: So that's why I don't order. That's why I don't
like the term valid or invalid, because it's ambiguous, because
it's also a Roman Catholic mindset about how canon law works.
And even if even if you go back to Augustine
when he talks about baptism and sacraments outside the church,
what's funny is that he actually has a pretty consistent
strict position that even the Roman Catholics no longer hold to.
Like Augustine thinking that if you are baptized outside the church,
even if it's quote valid, and even if it's efficacious
in terms of grace, he also believes that you don't
get that grace until you remove the impediment to the grace.
In this case, it would be say heresy. So if
you're baptized in heretical church, Augustina would say that it's
quote valid, it was done correctly, and according to the
rules and the proper form or whatever. But the fact
that you have the sin of heresy is what's preventing
you from receiving the grace of the sacrament. So only
when you come back to the unity of the Catholic Church,
Augustine says, is that impediment removed, and do you then
receive the grace. So I think that is actually helpful
for understanding the Patristic mind on this, because when he's
writing against the Donatus is when he formulated a lot
of these principles. So I actually think that some of
these points that Augustine make we as Orthodox could even
appropriate because the modern Romancalolic Church doesn't really even hold
to the Augustinian view. They would actually just say, well, yeah,
it doesn't really matter. It's everything. Everything's kind of it's
all good. It's all good. I mean, but I mean
they're at the point where they will the novs Orto
is baptizing people in the land to see in the air.
They're using all kinds of weird terminology that isn't even
a baptism at all. So I just think that the
ancient canons, whether it's the Canons of Saint Basil or
the Canons of the sex Ecumenical Council, which talk about
in some cases, if it's a Unitarian baptism, it's not
accepted at all, and so there was never a baptism.
In other cases, if it was baptisms done by Donatists
or by Monophosites, it can be accepted, and then the church,
the people can be received in the ord dark Church
in different ways, so it doesn't really matter.
Speaker 10: Okay, So this is so I heard like for example,
like Aryan baptisms sometimes are accepted, while like a Mormon
baptism would be unacceptable because like their concept of what
Fodderson and Holy Spirit means is completely different even further
so than what the an Arian would think, and an
Aran would still intend to baptize into what he thinks.
Speaker 13: To cast the whole idea of intending to baptize the
way the Church baptizes itself as kind of fuzzy, because
that's the that's the basis of the Roman Catholics used
to say that atheists and Muslims can baptize too, which
we don't believe that, and I don't think I don't
think Augustina would say that, even though Augustin thinks that
in you know, trinitarian sects, you could still have a
quote valid baptism. I maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you could
argue this somewhere and Augustin, I'm just not aware of it.
But as far as I'm aware, it's a later question
that comes up in Denzinger around the eight hundreds to
the nine hundreds, somewhere in the Middle Ages early Middle Ages,
where the question is asked, can a pagan or a
heretic or a Muslim baptized in extremists and the Roman
se says yes, And for us we think that just
makes no sense.
Speaker 10: Is the great commission that was given to the believers
of Jesus not to the pagans? Right?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 13: So yeah, how can he give what he doesn't have? Right,
it's kind of the basic right.
Speaker 5: But could so? But any baptized Christian can baptize.
Speaker 13: Or I don't actually know about that in the Orthodox
can law father, deacon? Could you speak to that? Is
it only clergy? Technically? I think it's only clergy, right,
like a priest a deacon can't baptize.
Speaker 5: Kenny, No, I don't know if there was any like.
Speaker 12: An extreme situation like you said whether Bishop could authorize
somebody to do the off to look at it.
Speaker 5: I actually don't know the answer.
Speaker 13: But hey, man, great questions. I appreciate those questions there, Julian.
Let's see, we've got a lot of people in here. Johnson,
Steve do got a last name as his first name. Hi, beg,
could you mand me a couple of double shots? Thank
you very much, appreciate it. Hey, what's up man? You
want to I'm mute, Hey.
Speaker 5: Jay, do you have a j I'll I'll come back on.
Speaker 13: Go ahead, Johnson, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 21: So do you have any inflammation on Hungary over Central
Europe's political future or any books that you get recommend?
Speaker 13: Honestly, I don't. I tell you who you could follow
that does know a lot about that is a good
buddy of ours, Cameron McGregor. He's Colonel Douglas McGregor's son,
and he's been to Hungary. He's been to Hungary several
times and as well as like Poland and all those
European countries, and he meets with a lot of the
right wing parties over there. So look up Cameron McGregor's channel,
and I think his channel is called men in the City.
By the way, again, it's like all of the like,
all these ro Corps priests and even non ro Corps priests,
I've been on my channel, so it's like, uh, now,
I think I think every priest has been on my
channel's real Corps. Maybe there's a couple exceptions. By the way,
I'm about to do a podcast I think with Father Emmanuel,
the Greek guy, what's his name, he's getting a popular Lemmelson,
the Greek guy that's podcast is getting popular. He reached
out to do it a podcast today, So oh, I
guess it's all made up. They're all crisis actors. Known
of these priests are real fourteen G. What's up man?
Cameron's channel is let's see, I think he called it
men in the City, but he he knows the lay
of the land when it comes to hungry and it's
geopolitical future here it is right here. This is Cameron's channel,
So I would say go check him out. Neo masculinity,
Cameron McGregor, what's up man? I'm fourteen G.
Speaker 5: Hey Ja, thanks for what you do.
Speaker 22: Always enjoy the show. I'm recently baptized Orthodox about a
year ago, and I've been getting more involved in my
church and looking for ways that I can get back
to the community. And I've been a long term bitcoin
investor and it's really changed my life, and I've been
trying to do more bitcoin education in the community with
some success. What I tried was to donate about three
thousand dollars worth of bitcoin so that the church could
now accept bitcoin and teach them.
Speaker 5: How to do that.
Speaker 22: But I've received a lot of kind of reluctance or confusion,
and I really see bitcoin as the Christian ideal of money,
and I type time reference, sorry, I.
Speaker 13: Said, I agree. We did an interview with Jordan Bush.
He's an evangelical guy who co wrote that book with
Julia who's corp on Thank God for Bitcoin, which is
arguing that it's the most ethical Christian money exactly.
Speaker 22: So I guess I'll skip my long diatribe and ask
what would you suggest as some biblical arguments to maybe
convince people or explain to them how bitcoin aligns with
scripture and is a good thing and could create a
lot of wealth in the community, and maybe some of
the clergy members on the call good answer.
Speaker 13: To yeah, I think father, you can have to go.
But so if you guys look up this interview right here.
This is intended to be a very simple, thirty seven
minute introduction that Jordan and I did on the fourth
hour of Lord Voldemort's Show. And they wrote a really concise,
easy to read It's about one hundred page book called
Thank God for Bitcoin, and it basically just argues right here,
if you get their book, it just argues that, like
he was saying, it's really the most ethical money. I mean,
it really avoids most of the traps of money as
we think of money in terms of yacht currency and
all that. And it's a really readable book. It kind
of like it's kind of like a much more accessible
version of Ceiphidine's book, but like also with Christian principles
in it. So I would say everybody should get this book.
Get it, yeah, yeah, And and most of the chapters
are organized like around basic biblical principles, like you know,
what does Proverbs teach about money and economics? And then
what does Jesus saying the Gospels it's relevant for money
and economics, that kind of stuff. So this is the
book I would recommend for Christians who are new to
this principle. And thank you very much fourteen G. I
appreciate that and definitely keep spreading the orange pill for sure.
Let's see, we got a lot of people online here reformed.
What's the man? Also, by the way, before we move
on here, if you guys do want to get started
with bitcoin, I would recommend a very simple bitcoin only company,
swan Bitcoin. Right there. That's my referral code. You can
link right there and going over there to swan bitcoin
and get started there. Also watch the if you're new
to it and you have questions, and watch the interview
that we do with Jordan Bush here. It's a good
interest and it's funny because I'm not talking about that
guy that just called in. But like once, bitcoin doesn't
new all time hide and it's in the news where
that's when it suddenly everybody starts talking about bitcoin. And
then they come over here and they're like, what is
this bioco? How do I get storted in bitcoin? As
that dude, I've been telling you since twenty seventeen to
stag bitcoin? What are you talking about? You should have
been listening when it wasn't high, That's what that's the point, man, Well,
it's a new ultime high. I go so buy it. Well,
I mean in ten years, yeah, going to be okay,
because it's going to keep going up. In five years
we'll have what ten ax will have a million dollar bitcoin?
Speaker 5: Hey Jay, Hey, what's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 23: Me and my wife started attending liturgy three weeks ago
and we're looking from the inquirers.
Speaker 5: Uh. Former Presbyterian.
Speaker 23: I had a meeting with my former pastor about the canon,
and I had questions, and when I asked him about
soul scriptura, his only answer was like, God is canon
and that's how we know. Like, that's how they have
the sixty six foot cannon.
Speaker 21: By the way.
Speaker 13: By the way, this is very similar to the Roman
cala guy they called in the other day. Just just
one point, because I want everybody to notice the same
line of argumentation that doesn't actually work. So notice the
Roman Catholic guy when he was arguing a couple of
days ago when I was on the on the road,
he said, well, the way we saw this issue with
going through the papal documents and figuring out which things
are you know, acceptable or fallible, infallible or fallible, is
you just appeal to this quote the chair. And it's
the same with a Protestant when you say, how do
we know what the right list of the canon is? God?
Is the canon? Just saying that doesn't actually do any
of the actual work to tell you on the grounds
book by book or in the case of the papacy,
sentenced by sentence, incyclical by encyclical, which aspects are infallible
which ones aren't. So you see how useless it is
to just say, oh, the papacy, Oh God does it. Yeah.
Speaker 23: What's kind of funny is when we pray it. At
the end of the meeting, during his prayer, he said, Lord,
I know that no one went wrong with the sixties
six but Cannon. So he's like, he's like chicken. While
he was praying, I kind of feel bad for him,
But he asked a follow this question that was kind
of interesting, okay, was how do you have epistemic certitude
about the e communical councils? Like what authority do we
appeal to to know that the councils are true?
Speaker 13: Right? So a lot of times this comes up and
what people are missing and what he's missing. And actually
blame a lot of Roman Catholic apologists for this point
is that they're confusing individual existential certitude, the means that
we use to get that certitude, and then thirdly, normative authority.
They're all three different things. They're related, but they're three
different things. So in the first case, when it comes
to existential certitude, we would agree with a Roman Catholic
and a Protestant that at the end of the day,
the highest authority that we're all going to appeal to
and rely on is the work of the Holy Spirit.
There's no other thing that you can appeal to or
rest on. Where we differ though, is first of all,
the means between a Protestant and us. Right, a Protestant
is going to think ultimately it's them and the scriptures
right at the end of the day. I know that
Protestants believe in confessions and they have their Westminster Confession,
and I'm just saying that at at the end of
the day, the final authority is the Holy Spirit enlightening
the believer through the textas scripture. For the Roman Catholic,
at the end of the day, it's the Holy Spirit
enlightening the believer to understand the magistarium teaching in Rome. Right,
That's literally what their position is. And for us as Orthodox,
we agree that at the end of the day, it's
the Holy Spirit. But we differ from those two by
the means that he uses. We think it's the councils.
We think it's the teaching of scripture, it's the experience
of the liturgy. All of those things are part of
the sources of where I derive my belief systems from
or my system from. So lastly, though, the key element
of departure is not so much about certitude. It's rather
about authority and whether Jesus gave any body of people
normative authority, that is an aught that you ought or
must believe these things, these doctrines, this canon, etc. And
it's just like the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Right,
you have a document, but there's not just a document
that everybody gets mailed out to them when they become
American citizens or when they're born. You also have a
body of people who have normative authority in our country
at least to bind people to that interpretation. And so
when we look at the Comes of Nicia, for example,
they are binding people to that interpretation of the deed
of Christ, and they're saying if you follow areas, you're
excommunicated and you are outside the church, So we bind
everyone to this interpretation of what it means to be
homo usius. You see, that's normative authority, that whether there
is any body to bind anybody to an interpretation. And
in fact, classical Reformation theology is actually built on the
denial of that principle, because the Reformers taught pretty much
across the board. If there's one that doesn't, I'm not
aware of it. There could be, I'm just not aware.
But most of the known reformers teach the right of
private interpretation and the freedom of conscience, and that no one,
no pope, counselor bishop, can bind any individual in terms
of their conscience. And that is not the teaching of
the Orthodox Church in terms of normative authority, nor is
it the Roman Catholic churches teaching about normative authority. So
both Rome and Orthodoxy admit the existence of normative authority,
and it's rather the Protestant position than it is severely lacking.
Of course, I think the Roman Catholic position's crazy, but
they at least have the notion of normative authority. Whether
it's consistent or not a different question. But in Protestantism
it's explicitly no normative authority that can bind a person's
conscience to an interpretation.
Speaker 23: It was kind of funny if they're like threatening to
excommunicators because we're becoming Orthodox, and I kind of laughed
because I'm like, that doesn't really mean anything, because we
Presbyterian churches on the same street.
Speaker 5: Like I'm not joking, there's a.
Speaker 23: PA, a PC USA, and a OPC on the same street.
Speaker 5: Within them, all of each other just.
Speaker 13: App just appeal to the Reformation teaching of the right
of private interpretation of freedom of conscience. So because I
had the exact same thing come up to me when
I was leaving Calvinism, my Protestant Calvinist church when I
was like nineteen or twenty and I was beginning to
doubt it and looking into Catholicism, and uh, my Protestant
pastor was like, our presbytery will excommunicate you. And I'm like, well, okay, so,
like I mean, it's it's Protestantism. Can I just start
my own presbytery? You know what I mean?
Speaker 5: Is it like a church LARPing?
Speaker 23: When they threatened to excommunicate, like we promise we're gonna
ex communica.
Speaker 13: Well, actually, it's funny because what my my pastor would
do and that the elder is the well, there's only
one elder in our in our is a mission church.
But they would send a male certified letter. So you
go to the Post Office and you get it CERTI
of I'm not joking. He would do that. He thought
that made it like more official if he went to.
Speaker 2: The Post Office approval.
Speaker 13: No, I'd had post office approval. It's a certified letter
of the book. I'm serious of the US Post Office.
I'm not joking. He would do that, which we all
thought that was actually pretty funny though, I mean he
didn't think give us funny. He wasn't doing it to
be ironic. Like he thought like, no, this will actually
ratify like a government authority on this document, and that
that like contributes to the church authority.
Speaker 5: Well, that's crazy. I got one last quick question here.
Speaker 23: Me and my wife were in deliverance ministry, you know,
like three or four years ago, and what's a good
refutation of that whole demon slang movement.
Speaker 13: I mean, we just did a pretty lengthy reputation of
the whole Pentecostal charismatic stuff. I would say, go back
and watch that stream.
Speaker 2: That I did.
Speaker 13: It was pretty long, but we went through all the
charismatic stuff. I mean, I think the Orthodox Church would
agree that there are exorcisms. I don't know that that
necessarily means that we're not affirming all this kind of crazy,
wacky Protestant stuff, but I would say that livestream would
be probably the best debunking of all the charismatic nonsense. Zelmoxist,
what's up. Yeah, it's not papal authority, it's postal authority. Correct.
I'm not kidding by the way that those I thought
that was funny, but my Protestant pastor's mind that like
added to the status of the officialdom because he did
a certified three dollar certified mail at the post office.
What's up man?
Speaker 8: Hey, Jay, I'm an Orthodox Christian and I just wanted
to make a quick comment on all the dialogue coming
from this, like Ubipetro's Voice of Reason debate on the
papacy and how Roman Catholics tend to argue for their
version of the papacy in the first millennium. So I
am a lawyer by trade. I'm a litigator. I've been
litigating for six seven years now, and whenever we analyze
it like a court opinion, like not every word in
that opinion is binding on people, right, so we make
a distinction between like the dictum in an opinion and
the holding of that opinion. Uh. And Catholics I noticed
a little like stray remarks instead of or like the
meeting minutes in like one of the councils to try
to prove their position. Yes, and they're like missing the
whole point of a council to begin with, where they'll
ignore the canons of that council and they'll go to
like a quote from a papal legate.
Speaker 13: Yeah, just legate said this. Therefore it's proof that the
Council of Ephicis teaches back in one people supremacy. It's like, no,
that's just what that legate said.
Speaker 8: Yeah, or like some flowery language in a letter, and
it's like, okay, fine, but of course a papal legate
is going to talk up his own bishop. You know,
that's not binding. And then you have the canons that
are agreed upon by.
Speaker 13: All the bishops, that right, and which is authority.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Yeah. And that's another thing that I've noticed is this
inability to distinguish between different levels of authority that we
do have in litigation. Right, If I went to a
judge and presented an opinion of another local judge and
my opponent comes as like a Supreme Court opinion, well
it doesn't matter at all. Well my argument is because
he has a higher authority than me. So, like I
noticed Roman Catholics appealing to like the Council of Orange
for example, to say like, oh, synergism was not approved.
It's a monarchist model that the early Church thought, Well,
why do I care about that when I have the
six documentical Council.
Speaker 13: Yeah, that trumps the Council of Orange exactly. And isn't
that funny too, because usually it's the Roman Canfolics using
litigation models to try to show that there's different tiers
of authority in magisterial documents, but they don't recognize the
same principle when it comes to flowery language or statements
of various league gates in the Council which are subordinate
to the actual teachings and canons of the Council.
Speaker 8: Yeah. I don't know how you feel about naming names,
but I will go ahead and do that.
Speaker 7: Eric.
Speaker 8: You Bara in particularly seems to be a huge purpet
of this where he'll like grab a line from a
letter here, He'll grabbed the statement of a papal legate there. Hey,
but what about the canons that all of the bishops
agreed on that reinforced the autocephaly of the churches.
Speaker 13: Well, in their mind, that doesn't matter, because whatever supports
the papal position, which the papal, the papacy itself, is
what picks out of the councils what's relevant from their perspective.
So it's a vicious circle. But no, I'm glad you
mentioned Ibara doing that, because that's actually what Ubi has
been When Ubi started his blog in twenty eighteen. That
was some of the first stuff he started calling out
about Atbara. Was it Barra's ignoring of the context and
the differentiation between various people's opinions, flowery language and then
picking and choosing quotes and reading back into them the
isogesis of Vatican one.
Speaker 8: Yeah, Anyway, I just wanted to point that out because
it's my background, Like, that distinction seemed very clear to
me when I was looking at it. Oh, this is
a letter with flowery language. We have the literal administrative
rules here within the canons. Yes, they're not on the
same level. Yet they're appealing to flowery language where I've
noticed people canna. They're maybe because of the way they're raised,
they're the background or something. They don't see it that way,
and maybe I have.
Speaker 10: A a No.
Speaker 13: I think you're absolutely spot on. This is actually a
really important perceptive point that many people don't know. And
by the way, Tim Gordon, who also is you know,
studying to get his law degree or has a law
of gogre, I don't member. I'm not trying to be
you know, defamatory to Tim. I don't remember if he
said he has his law degree or still studying it
or whatever, but like he oftentimes makes these same points too,
about analogies to law and how law works, and like
it's just so weird that like the Roman Callolic system
is just so fraught with you know, on the one hand,
we want every like place for proper legal procedure, except
when it comes to proving the papacy or magisterial statements.
At that point, throw all that out and it's literally
just like a free for all. Yeah.
Speaker 8: Absolutely, But anyway, I just wanted to point that out,
and I think if you follow the arguments, and you're
consistent and your methodology, it will inevitably lead to orthodoxy.
I mean I've been following you for the last like
fifteen to sixteen months now. Oh, and I have converted.
I've been going to liturgy for the last six months.
It just became a catechumen. So I think just following
the arguments, you know, actually doing the readings instead of
just watching a video. I think one of the most
helpful things from you, j is that whenever you make
a claim or an argument, you'll be like, hey, I
read it in this book right here. You can go
read it if you want if you don't believe it.
And you know what I did right when, and I
bought all the books that you reference, Jay, and I
read them all. And guess what they say, what you say, they.
Speaker 13: Say, thank you amazing. Zalmoxis is the hero of the
day because he actually did the work. He did his homework.
You know how many how few people actually do the home.
It's like some people are just super lazy, like they're
not actually going to do any of the work, but
they want to yap on the internet and sell this nonsense,
but they're not actually going to go do all the work.
Speaker 8: An exhibit A is not so erudite. I think that's
a particular example of someone who has like is kind
of LARPing as you know, I've done the readings, but
like maybe she's watched a podcast or watched a video.
But when you actually go through like the work and
underline and you know, redline everything that you're reading, it's
a different level of confidence.
Speaker 13: So absolutely, well, hey, really really great points there is
zelm ma Oxis. Appreciate that. God blessed elm ma oxis.
And hey, some of the best coolest guys in our
sphere are guys that study law. Shout out to all
of our law bros out there, you know who you are.
They usually come with like some of the most helpful
and useful insights because again, churches are governed by church law.
It's not identical too, but church law in Western civilization
was very influential on modern American law, on English common law,
on you know, the US legal system. It all is
historically speaking, sort of bound up together. And even when
I was a Catholic, I read a bunch of books
on the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, and people don't
even realize that, like a lot of modern theories of
the rights of the accused. Believe it or not, it
actually comes out of the Inquisition because they wanted to
set up rights of the accused so that they couldn't
just be you know, willy nilly accused. You had to
have proof, you had to you know. I think maybe
even habeas corpus something like that. I'm going from memory.
I haven't read about this in many, many years, but
I think it's stuff like that actually goes back to
like church law in the Middle Ages. And another thing
too about the Inquisition is like people, well, there was
more than one inquisition. There was the Spanish Inquisition, and
that was distinct from it was the same idea. But
as just sink from the Papal Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition
was pretty closely allied with whatever Isabella and you know,
the Spanish monarchy wanted. They were pretty strict, they were
pretty when you hear about like Audo de Fay ceremonies
like mostly that was the Spanish Inquisition, and then suffer
from that was what was going on in Rome with
the Papal Inquisition. And I'm not saying that the Papal
Inquisition probably didn't overstep their balance. But actually the idea
of it isn't that crazy if you think about medieval society.
I mean, that might make some Orthodox people mad, but
it's just something that I found really interesting when I
was Roman. CALLI a tradcat, and I read a bunch
on it, and it's not as crazy as you think,
especially if you watch my talk on medieval heresy, because
what would happen is they would hand the person over
to the state, which is kind of what goes on
or went on in Byzantium to a degree. And even
though Byzantium, to my knowledge, didn't immediately execute they there
may have been some cases where there was a heretical positions,
but usually it was just your banished from the kingdom,
like you're booted, like you can't can't live in the
businessing empire anymore, something like that. Right, I'm going for
a memory, because there's some gonna be some specialist who's like, oh,
he's wrong among this. In the thirteen twenty two there
was the case of Blah blah blah. I don't remember
every detail, but the stuff I read ten years ago anyway,
fifteen years ago, elder millennial, what's up? Dog? Just one
second before you speak. I forgot to mention shout out
to Orbit Productions, which is a great channel name. They
put up a clip a series of clips, which is
I think a pretty good summation of the basics against
west Huff. So you want to know, like my basic
critique at WES up just because I don't think I'm
pretty sure Wes He replied the other day on Twitter
that he's not interested in a debate, and then I
suggested just an informal civil conversation and he didn't reply,
So I'm guessing he's not that interested in that. But
if I did have a debate, it would go along
the lines of what basic principles I put in this
video or they put in this video? What's up?
Speaker 11: Man?
Speaker 24: Hey Jay, it's in a while.
Speaker 5: Have you noticed.
Speaker 24: The recent I'm sure you have, actually, but I haven't
heard you touch on it specifically, a subset of all this,
how shall I put it? I've noticed a lot of
the people pushing the whole woke right narrative are trying
to lump in high church economics in with it, regardless
of what whatever else proponents of.
Speaker 13: When you say high church economics, do you mean like
just traditional critiques of like libertarian.
Speaker 24: What do you mean, Well, something you could maybe maybe
the basic ideas of G.
Speaker 5: K Esterton on economics.
Speaker 24: I've noted that there's that old maybe you've heard that.
Maybe maybe back when you were tried cat you heard
the old saw.
Speaker 13: Distributism distributis positions.
Speaker 24: Yeah, yeah, distributism is just communism with rosaries, that kind
of thing.
Speaker 13: The woke h the Lindsay crowd would would definitely be
saying that.
Speaker 24: Yeah, Yeah, I've been I've been accusing Lindsay of being
an economic nativist, an economic Calvinist lately.
Speaker 13: I think, I think inadvertently is even though he's not Christian,
if you look at if you look at the circles
he's in, he's in the circles of like Southern Baptist stuff.
Speaker 24: Well, I've been saying basically, Lindsey doesn't believe in Adam
Smith's God, but he believes in Adam Smith exactly.
Speaker 13: And by the way, he often tours with Michael o'fallen,
the Calvinist Baptist preacher.
Speaker 24: Oh Fallin, Oh Fallen, the miser, Oh Fallen, the shanty,
Oh Follen, the.
Speaker 5: The soup taker who's.
Speaker 24: Bringing back the I say this as an orthodox Christian,
and I agree there's only one good nativist argument, and
that's the problem with papal supremacy. But they lump in
all this. But they are fundamentally anti high Church across
the board, absolutely, and they are they they don't care
if we believe, if we agree with that starting position,
but disagree with him on all other ideas. I mean,
they're against clericalism and and priest craft in general and
the and Uh we say, well, we're decentralized. Our bishops
are autocephalists.
Speaker 8: But they don't even know.
Speaker 5: But they don't want to hear.
Speaker 8: Any of the high Church. Uh.
Speaker 24: And uh, there's and or the virtues of and and
this this I when I I began to pick up
the past November. Uh, the these uh accusations, these this
attempt to lump high Church economics in with with communism, uh,
which is an absolute libel, an unscrupulous slander, depending of
it's written or spoken.
Speaker 8: Obviously, Uh.
Speaker 24: And it's uh, it's it's just beyond my ability to
endure and not to mention. It's kind of creepy and
not as well, was kind of ironic when they're starting
to sound like Bill the butcher from Games of New York.
Speaker 13: That's fun.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you polpish persons.
Speaker 24: I am't gonna cut your heart out.
Speaker 5: And that's the kind of thing that.
Speaker 24: And yet it was from those kinds of native Is
that the Kolkoks kind of a rose. It's Lindsey likes
to blob on about my grandmother is a Roman Catholic.
I oh sure, yeah, yeah, you don't mind Roman Catholics
as law or other high church denominations, as long as
they keep they keep their damn opinions about economics to ourselves.
Speaker 13: The fundamentally, well, just notice what's the most important thing.
They're economics, right, that's the god of that system and.
Speaker 24: The it I have noted that the last one hundred
and fifty years has pretty much been a chess game
between two princes of Hell, Mammon and Belpha Gore. Mammon
Adam Smith is gonna It was the prophet of Mammon
and Marx was the prophet of Belpha Gore.
Speaker 13: That's a good way to put it. I like that
really perceptive, and I did want I'm glad you mentioned
that Elder Millennium, because I wanted to discuss I forgot
to mention this ridiculous podcast and no one listens to
Universe next Door. They responded to me by saying that
we invited Lindsay to speak at our church because it's
better to hear what's going on rather than this is
a reply on my tweet, right, rather than people that
are stealing his material. Stealing his material? What in the
hell would I steal from James Lindsay Nothing. I've been
on two podcasts with him and we had very cordial,
excellent conversations. There's nothing in that that I stole from him,
So that's crazy to begin with. Secondly, I think that
the I want to add too, that this is my
fourth offer to debate, So I've offered debate James only
three times. He won't debate. He says he's not into debating.
Now he'll debate all day on Twitter, but he won't
do a public formal debate. So what does that tell you? Like,
people can't really defend their ideas other than to just
sort of throw poop on Twitter and call everybody names
like wop right, which is his own op. Calling everyone
woke right is itself an op to keep conservatives on
the neoliberal plantation. That's the point of that, and it's
absolutely correct to link it to their hatred of high
Church stuff, because if you remember, this all kind of
started when last year Lynn he was going after Peterson
and Pagoe and I have criticisms of Peterson. I've had
been criticizing Peterson's classical liberalism for like ten years, right,
You've all seen the video that I put up ten eight,
nine years ago. And what's interesting is that Peterson actually
moved away from some of those classic liberal positions that
has put out these tweets, and I think Pago has
had a role in that, right in terms of trying
to move him away from the classical liberal Enlightenment positions. Now,
I'm not saying that Peterson doesn't have a long way
to go. He still does. He's made some huge mistakes
in the past few months, obviously, but Pagoe and Peterson
are more in the right direction for sure on this
issue the Enlightenment than Lindsay. And it's just funny that
all this kicked off with Lindsay going after Peterson and
Pagot last year, and then I didn't. I only saw
one clip from when Peterson had Lindsay on the podcast.
The other day, And it was like Lindsay doing the
silly word concept fallacy of like what is Lucifer the
light bringer the sun of the morning. What do you
do in the morning you wake up? That's woke. Like
we're talking like Jordan Maxwell level word concept fallacies.
Speaker 9: What is the birth of a ship? The birth is
where the ship enters the water from the front. You
are birthed through your mother's canal through water. That birth
then makes you under the admiralty.
Speaker 13: Law of the New World Order, right, just like insane
schizo level. I'm not saying James Schidzo. I'm saying that
the level of word concept fallacies that are classic to
the Jordan maxwellsphere are are identical to the argumentation of
James Lindsay and that and again he's in the Baptist
Reform Baptist sphere. Of course he's gonna think that anything
High Church. If you say the mysteries, right, which we
mean the sacraments, And I remember when I was Protestant,
my Reform pastor would say the mysteries, that's the ancient
pig and mysteries. Even though Paul uses the word mysterio
in the New Testament, mysterion in the Greek. It's like, oh,
that's the same thing as the pagan ancient mysteries. Like
you couldn't say the mystery of the Trinity.
Speaker 8: This is just so silly.
Speaker 13: And this is why the Church Fathers are absolutely correct
say that heretics get confused and stumble over words. They
actually can't do grammar. I mean, I mean, it's true,
they can't do metaphysics either, But we a lot of
times get caught up in the metaphysics of this or
that heretical position. Oh, the arian position is subordinationists, it
denies you know, Homeleusius, it's Homoleusius. But just like with
Orientals or Monophysites or whatever, like, they get hung up
on words and they can't understand flexibility with language. It's
really weird. We've talked about this so many times on
the channel, how people have such a hard time with
the flexibility of language, right, and saying that language is
flexible and it deals with intentionality and with context doesn't
mean that it's totally relative. There's some middle way point
here between a stupid position that a word can only
have one reference or one meaning. Okay, that's really dumb,
versus some other position of like, oh, well words or
you know, postmodernism or something like, well, you could never
know the meaning of the word and the author's intent
or anything like that. So there's two extremes of this,
but in the middle is a position that says that
words aren't totally relative or flexible, but they are to
a degree relative and flexible. Again, look at doctor Branson's
classic example. Does the word kid have one reference? If
I say I'm going to eat a kid, well, that's
a goat, okay, and there's nothing wrong with eating a goat.
But a kid can also refer to a human child, Okay.
So no, no, no, not semantics, no no no. So
it's true that esophagus. Sometimes there could be a dispute
over semantics grammar. This is why doctor Branson makes it
a key point to stress that when Basil was outlining
the one in the Mini and Ussia and Hopistasis in
his writings, he was actually just using existing grammar works
at that time. So it's the way that grammar works
to pick out a subject and a predicate and literally
like heretics and uneducated people like they just makes really
fundamentally stupid mistakes over this kind of stuff. Father deacon,
and I have invited you to co host. You have
to accept the invite. Ai Angel, we got We're gonna
have to debate a bot here. You know what's funny
before Ai speaks, the very example of James Lindsay itself
actually disproves James Lindsay because the Bible refers to Jesus
as the morning star and Lucifer as the morning star.
So does that mean Jesus. This is like Charles Manson
level thinking, right, that means Jesus as Lucifer. No, that's
actually a fallacy. It's the same word referring to two
different things in two different ways. Right. So Lucifer the
light of the morning, the bright morning star. Right, Paul says,
Satan can come to you like an angel light and
deceive you. So Lucifer is like that light in that way,
as a appearing as an angel of light and so forth,
but being deceptive. But heyk, but because the light rises,
it's like a resurrection, and that way, the morning star
is like the resurrection of Christ. So it's it's it's Satan,
the lion of the tribe of Judah. Okay, is Jesus.
But Satan goes around like a lion. How can people
not see that? This is just a basic feature of grammar.
Speaker 12: Go ahead, father Degan, can you tell the audience remember
when we were in La with Jamie Kennedy and and uh,
after you're saying books and that guy came up and.
Speaker 5: He was playing that like word. He was like, see,
lion has the word lion in it.
Speaker 12: Liar, right, which has an L and if you take
the l which is what for Lucifer the morning.
Speaker 5: Star, right, which, if you think about.
Speaker 8: It, Lou read Lou, Lou read.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 5: The he was saying that I don't remember, I'm just kidding.
Speaker 13: He said that in Genesis, I can tell you what
it was. He said, in Genesis you had the biding
out of biding of the apple, which signifies the fall,
and the the bitten apple is the symbol of Apple computers.
And he said Apple computers was who was in the
garden of Eden testing Adam and Eve and that, I'm
not kidding, that proves that we live in an in
an Apple computer simulation.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, that's right.
Speaker 13: So he had a he had a vast Yeah, I'm
not I'm not being rude. This is actually the way
schizophrenia works. You know, not in an internet calling everybody
skitz away. But like the actual way of schizophrenia, they
will attach metaphysical significance to word concept fallacies, so you'll
get the same usage of a word in two different
contexts actually refers to the same thing onto logically, And
that's exactly what Charles Manson's doing, right. Manson says, like
Carl Young does this. He says, the Bible calls Lucifer
the morning star. It calls Jesus the morning star. So
Jesus and Lucifer are the same thing.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I had a friend. I've told you the story.
Speaker 13: Ahead.
Speaker 12: I had a friend who developed a schizoid effective disorder when.
Speaker 5: We were eighteen years old. And it was exactly like this.
Speaker 12: So it was what you notice about schizoid effective or
schizophrenia for normal mind, after the very last thing you conclude,
after you exhausted all other possibilities, So the farthest out
thing for the schizophrenic mine they immediately attached.
Speaker 5: That's the first thing they attach.
Speaker 12: And so they give significance and meaning where that there
is no evidence of that whatsoever.
Speaker 5: And they it's a story, it's a.
Speaker 12: Narrative, right, And they're really concerned and obsessed with numbers
in words and so and that they everything has meaning
and they have to interpret it. And so one of
the things that my friend who developed I'll give you
an example what it was like, he had some guy
borrowed his lighter to light his cigarette or something, and
the guy forgot to give it back, and so he
drove away thinking about like started, you know, obsessing about.
Speaker 8: This, like who is that guy?
Speaker 5: Why would he take my lighter? Blah blah blah. It
was my only lighter that I had.
Speaker 11: It was a.
Speaker 5: Red lighter, and like he was just he was going
on anyways.
Speaker 12: Then later in the day somebody a friend pulls out
a red lighter and what does he do. He's like, huh,
I had my lighters going Now you point out it
could have been any lighter, but it was a red lighter,
but red as the universal sign forst stop to stop.
Maybe you're telling me to stop smoking. Maybe this whole
thing was organized by you too, So do you see
these things? And then he would take numbers.
Speaker 13: It's the same. It's the same thing. Every conspiracy, I mean,
not not a real an analyst, but like a legit
paranoid conspiracy theorist does the same thing.
Speaker 12: It made it extremely anxiety inducing to be around him
because you knew anything you could do that was unintentional.
Speaker 5: Right, it's like, what if I move my hand this.
Speaker 13: Way would be misinterpreted as it's going to be misinterpreted.
Speaker 12: It'd be like, that's the Mason's hand, Like why would
you give a mason signal?
Speaker 5: Are you a mason?
Speaker 13: Are you again?
Speaker 5: Like it was all like this kind of.
Speaker 12: Yeah, just elaborate and any sounding word that sounded like
another word, if if it was the same word, if
it was a color.
Speaker 5: If it was a number.
Speaker 12: Everything started getting connected right into a grand kind of
narrative that again maybe as logically possible, but that would
be as far out as possible after everything was exhausted.
There's literally no evidence for it. But that's the very
first thing that they go to. It's it's it's unfortunate,
it's it's and you can see it's not it's actually painful.
It's for them, it's not something like they're enjoying that
they're doing this.
Speaker 13: Can you see Actually, But it's also as you pointed
out when we had this, when you were first telling
me about him, I remember you saying that there's another
part of it which is is weird too, which is
that it's almost like everything that's happening in the world
revolves around them, you know what I mean. It's like everything, right,
like the things that appear on a on a billboard
as you're driving down La, like that's a message to you.
You know what I mean?
Speaker 12: Because I had another friend that that developed mental illnesses
as well, and I talked about this in the same
Pacius Brotherhood and the theme of betrayal and forgiveness. So
what you see in this is a trauma. These people
have soul trauma, psychic trauma, like something came to PTSD. Now,
when you experience trauma, you experience an excommunication.
Speaker 13: Right, go ahead and keep talking. I got to use
the rustroom. Go ahead.
Speaker 12: Yeah, you've been betrayed by your fellow man, by a girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse,
a community, god forbid, a priest.
Speaker 5: You know sometimes that happens.
Speaker 12: What happens, Well, you were once in communion with somebody
and now you're excommunicated and you receive like a soldier
who is in war, which is an enemy. Right, combative situation, spiritual,
psychic and soul harm and moral harm in which you
feel isolated and excommunicated, and the self, because it's made
in the image of God, who is community, it's meant.
Speaker 23: To be in community.
Speaker 5: You begin to lose yourself and you begin to unravel.
As I spoke, the very notion of self.
Speaker 12: Begins to you start to slip into non being. If
you're beings constituted by love and communion and liturgy. When
you experience trauma, hatred, right, abandonment, or any.
Speaker 5: Moral atrocity, you're excommunicating and.
Speaker 12: You start to lose yourself. And so what you desperately
try to do is reach out to something to re
establish that, and you reach out to the wrong things.
So the therapist to talk about my friend is that
he'd experienced this. There was abandonment, in betrayal, He didn't
know who his real parents were, finally found out his mom,
who abandoned him, went from.
Speaker 5: Foster home to foster home, was then.
Speaker 12: Kicked out of our school in junior high and sent to.
Speaker 5: A crazy like Baptist.
Speaker 12: Rehabilitation camp for troubled teens in which there was a murder.
He can't have to be shut down right, moral harm
and psychic arm, over and over and furtherman of excommunication,
until he began to lose himself. He began to unravel
his very identity and being so with these kind of
moral and psychic arms, what happens oftentimes is this, you
have a literal mental diagnosis of schizard affective disorder, in
which the therapist had said, he constructed a narrative, a story,
an imaginative story.
Speaker 5: And guess who the star of the story is. It
wasn't about me.
Speaker 12: All the stuff that was he was telling me about,
like the government and they're doing this, and it was
never about me.
Speaker 10: He was the star.
Speaker 13: Care We're just the the extra, the supporting extras in
his place.
Speaker 5: So why was he doing that?
Speaker 12: Because he had a loss of what is doctor Strangelove
man Drake, I perceived a loss of essence, do you
remember that scene? And so there's a loss of essence
and identity. He was unraveling and he stopped to reconstruct
an identity and when doing so, of the story. You
are the center of the story.
Speaker 5: And it's madness too. That's the other thing. If you've lost.
Speaker 12: Yourself in your mind and there's nothing to hold on to,
no wonder you reach out to like well five three
seven eight. Now that was the license plate of the
last and if you add those numbers, it actually does.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and if you actually.
Speaker 12: Translate into the Hebrew, that does spell red. And now
you're here with the red lighter, which means stop. Why
don't you stop talking?
Speaker 5: Or do I stop talking?
Speaker 15: D you see?
Speaker 13: Have you seen? Do you remember the movie PI, the
Darren Aronofsky movie from that any eight? Yeah, So it's
been it's been probably twenty twenty five years since I
watched it. But if I remember, doesn't he go crazy
at the end. It's it's the same situation where you
have this, Yeah, he really drills.
Speaker 12: He can't even get a fos to stop. And doesn't
he take a drill and drill a hole in his.
Speaker 13: Something crazy like that? Yeah? Like, And it's like he's
in the rabbinic Jewish community and he gets interested in gamatria,
yes and cabala, and so he starts seeing everything as
you know, math code, just like the gamatry idiots on
the internet do, and he basically just goes insane. I mean,
it's a pretty good figure.
Speaker 12: Out the stock market because you think the stock marker
and number that all humans, So notice it's thoroughly reductive
of what a.
Speaker 5: Human being is.
Speaker 12: A human being can just be reduced to propositions, numbers,
and formula, right, So.
Speaker 5: It's just way too complicated. But see, he's smart enough,
so he's the star of his own story too. I'm
smarter than everybody. I'm the mathematician.
Speaker 12: I'm actually going to come up with this formula to
understand the stock market, and then I'll be able to
predict all human behavior. All humanity would be able to
reduce to a mathematical formula. And in his attempt to
understand humanity, he loses humanity and loses himself.
Speaker 13: That guy who called in the other day Derek Brose,
and I'm pretty sure it's the same Derek Brose that
is the conspiracy guy. I'm not sure because it's different
profile names. But it was a very large account, like
one hundred thousand that called in. Did you You may
not have been on here, I remember, but he was
the guy saying that he's decoded the real message of
Jesus through cryptography. Did you hear that guy?
Speaker 5: By the way, John Nash came to give a lecture
at my college. Yeah, somebody put John Nash in in
there too. No, I miss that. That's interesting.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I mean, it's just it's a it's a demonic
delusion that is