Speaker 1: All right, welcome to another open chat. Hopefully it will work.
Speaker 2: As I'm on the road, it's always a toss up,
you never know, but we'll go to shot.
Speaker 3: Hey, how's it going.
Speaker 4: Or I was supposed to speak earlier on my personal
account and then I don't know what happened. It's like
I got banned or something, but that it was really
weird and I wasn't able to actually.
Speaker 1: You multiple times.
Speaker 3: My bad about that. My headphones must have been glitchen.
Speaker 4: But so I want to first of all say that
I'm a huge fan of the stuff you've done exposing
like Hollywood occultism, and you've been an influence on me
as far as like orthodoxy goes. My girlfriend and i've
been attending Orthodox churches when we can for the last
several months. So definitely a big fan of you in
that regard. But I've never been I don't fully I've
been like an advocate for libertarianism for quite a long
time now. I you know, I've seen the last twenty
or so years of like socialism and war in central
banking and forced integration and all this horrible stuff and
seems to come from the state, and I've always seemed
or I've always felt that libertarianism or anarchic capitalism or
whatever do you want to call it would be a
pretty you know, logical response to all that stuff like
reinforcing property rights and whatnot. What is I don't fully
understand where you're coming from when you criticize libertarianism.
Speaker 3: Maybe you can.
Speaker 5: Oh, I have a question, are you are you? Are
you orthodox? First of all, I'm just was curious.
Speaker 4: I have not converted yet, I'm planning on doing so.
There's a lot going on in my personal life right
at the moment, So I'm in. I talked to my
priests on a weekly basis and he's, uh, I had
to move to a town.
Speaker 3: It's a long story, but I'm I'm getting there.
Speaker 2: Well, so you're are you inquiring or are you a catechumen?
Speaker 4: I am not a catechumen yet. I guess I guess
you would say I'm inquiring, but I was gotcha, gotcha?
Very recently my priest has very recently been urging me
to become a catechumen, and it's definitely like something I
really wanted to.
Speaker 5: Well, I just I'll add.
Speaker 6: This because I think it's just generally a correct Christian
principle and cleaveyord member that this came up when we
were talking last for Father Stephen Deyong about obedience, and
so clearly an Orthodoxy there's a stress on and it's
not blind obedience, right, but the notion of kind of
a hierarchy, and that you make yourself obedient to somebody,
not when you I'm only obedient when I agree. And
I was thinking about that, I'm like, well, that's really
interesting because that flies in the face of libertarianism. No,
it doesn't, based on voluntarism.
Speaker 1: That's wrong.
Speaker 4: So libertarianism is libertarianism is fine with hierarchy if the
hierarchy is not coercive.
Speaker 2: Well, well, yeah, that he's not talking about. He's not
talking about physical coercion. He's talking about within the church.
Speaker 5: For example, Orthodox somehow, Yeah, Orthodox you would maintain that.
Speaker 6: You're bound legally by secular even legal authorities, whether you
agree to it or not.
Speaker 4: So that's interesting and that's not something that I've delved
into deep into too deeply myself. I have asked my
priest the question of like, well, how does what does
what does Orthodox you have to say about this, like
the role of the state or whatever. And he didn't
really He gave me an answer that was more like, oh, well,
like we don't endorse politicians at this church.
Speaker 3: I think he kind of misunderstood my question.
Speaker 2: But so the role of church and state is a
classical Christian teaching that the state has a duty to
obey God into enact Christian principles.
Speaker 1: That's the tradition of the church.
Speaker 6: Okay, So, and there's a good document I'd recommend it
was a two thousand and it's from the Russian Church
a two thousand.
Speaker 5: It was the Year of Jubilee.
Speaker 6: On Relations of Church and State, where it kind of
defines these things and it admits that we live in
a fallen world. There's no kind of perfect in practice
form of government. But it does say that the only
in theory sanctioned form of government is monarchy. And in
principle absolutely the state has the right, is a God
given right to course force you against your will. And
so I was just thinking about it, like it's just
totally incompatible with libertarianism.
Speaker 4: So what was that document called? You said it was
on Relations of Church and State? Who is that by
the Russian Church?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Russian Church Statement on Christian Government and nationalism. It's
just for stating kind of the classical view. But the
Church has always had a coronation service, which is a
quasi sacramental service for the anointing of a king. So
there's thousands of saints that are monarchists, thousands of saints
that have been under monarchies. They talk about Christian monarchy,
none of them talk about democracy, none of them talk
about libertarianism. So the mind of the saints, the mind
of the Church, is not classical liberalism out of the Enlightenment.
Speaker 4: Okay, So you're saying, you're basically saying that the Church
advocates for monarchism. That's just not something that I'm that
aware of and the something I certainly need to do
more research than my own into sok.
Speaker 2: Entire, entire history of the Church is the imperium, the
Byzantine imperium, So from Constantine all the way up to
you know, fourteen ninety three, nineteen niney three with the
fall of Constantinople, and then even after that the Russian
state has you know, there's a Christian state. So the
idea of a Christian state is Christianity. That's antithetical to
classical liberalism out of the Enlightenment. So but the stuff
that you mentioned is like, that's not really essentially libertarianism, right,
private property, that's based on the Tank Commandments. Uh, you know,
but the question of whether the state has a role
in one's life and whether God providentially established the state. Well,
in Romans thirteen, Paul says that Nero has the sword,
he is a diaconos.
Speaker 1: Even if he doesn't act right, he is still the authority.
Speaker 4: Are you saying that libertarianism doesn't advocate for property rights,
private property rights.
Speaker 5: No, we're saying, oh, how.
Speaker 1: Could you get anything like that from what I said.
Speaker 3: I thought maybe I misarged you. I thought you said
you were like.
Speaker 5: That's not the defining simply the defining feature.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, So that's not orthodox especially property, private property rights.
Speaker 5: It's based in the Ten Commandments, is what Jay was saying.
So you can't simply define libertarianism is in terms of
private property. And that's why I said libertarians is committed
to voluntarism, and voluntarism is rejected by orthodoxy. Now in
the Church there's voluntarism right, like, but that's what we
call is the way the church and ecclesiology works is
different than state because they're two different spheres. But the
Church ordains ideally.
Speaker 6: You know, the king or the emperor, and that the
politicians are informed in terms of virtue in their.
Speaker 5: Spiritual life by the Church.
Speaker 6: But the way that the state can actually coerse it's like,
so voluntarism doesn't exist in an Orthodox state because the
state has the right to course you to do anything
by virtue of the law.
Speaker 5: In the church practice, priests wouldn't do.
Speaker 6: That, right, they have a prescriptive much like a doctor.
It's like, we prescribe that you do this, but you're
free to be wrong, and you're free to hurt yourself,
like we just recommend that you don't. So there's a
type of kind of voluntarism in the way of kind
of practice in the church. But in terms of state relations, absolutely,
the Orthodox Church believes the state and statesmen have the
right to course you by by law and power.
Speaker 2: This off it comes up if you look at the
first debate I did ten years ago.
Speaker 1: It was with Adam Kokash, the libertarian dude.
Speaker 2: Anyway, okay, well we we've go and check out our
debate from ten years One thing that one thing I
think is a good example of this is like, you
don't have the right in a Christian state to erect
giant billboards of bastiality on your property because it's your property.
Speaker 1: So even your property.
Speaker 2: Has limitations on what you can do. And the state
has the right to tell you. No state has the
right to enact the death penalty. All these things are
rights that the state has. Now, the state can go
out of its bound and become you know, rebellious and
become attempt to be godlike, but that's when the Christian
has the duty to be a martyr. Uh, And the
state has a duty to a higher authority who's to God.
Speaker 4: So well, I'm glady, because my next question was going
to be like, how do you maintain a state that
is acting godly?
Speaker 1: Like?
Speaker 4: It seems to me that the state is very prone
to outgrowing the bounds that it was set for, and
it'll always.
Speaker 1: That's always the temptation for the state.
Speaker 2: But there's also countless Christian kings and saints in the
history of the Church who have had and maintained Christian kingdom,
so it has happened. But also you're right that there's
signs where the state goes outside the bounds of its
own authority and for example, tries to control the church,
right the American's deep state right now try to control
the Orthodox the Catholic Church during the Cold War.
Speaker 1: So they stopped this all the time. So this is
absolutely true, right right?
Speaker 4: Okay, Well this has been very eye opening for me,
this short interaction. I don't want to take up too
much time. And sorry, that's a great question at acting.
Speaker 2: If you look up, I've got a lot of videos
critiquing you know, sort of the basic the Pratrian dug
ideas of perspective going back about ten years.
Speaker 1: But great questions.
Speaker 2: Appreciate that, father, you get you didn't say much on
the preemptive strikes topic. Did you did you not want
to opine on that or is it too is that
too harry of a topic for clergy or what do
you think about that?
Speaker 1: I just don't think Marco Rubio, is this never.
Speaker 6: And it's kind of similar to it's kind of similar
to the libertarian kind of arguments about like well what
constitutes uh, you know, aggression and stuff like that. So look,
we can start with the clearcases and then move it's
going to get into you know, as you move farther
away from the clearcases, it gets muddied, and there are
obviously positions where I'm like, I don't know, but the
clearcas is obviously a pre exemptive strike is if there's
an imminent threatned physical danger.
Speaker 2: Well but but the but if if but if you
see he said that before, he said that should have
happened fifty years ago, preempt to strikes. But I'm thinking, well,
wait a minute. If that's the basis for why you
would do a preemptive strike is their capabilities to attack
the West, then you would essentially have to do a
preemptive strike on any country that's not aligned with the
West because they have the ability to attack the West.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and that's I've made that argument too, where you know,
there are some boomers like Iran's the greatest threat to America.
Speaker 5: They're probably killing babies with.
Speaker 6: Gas, right, like all this kind of stuff. I'm like, well,
first of all, make the argument without lyne. Right, I'm
not saying they're a great nation. But I brought up
that point too. Then why not the other nation? Like
like there's something not being truthful, right, if like if
that justifies and I'm not even against in principle, then.
Speaker 2: We would have to do preemptive strikes on Russia, we
would have to do on North Korea, China, every country
would have to have premptive strikes.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and that's like, well, no, no, you can't do that.
So it just there's ways to show.
Speaker 5: Like somebody's kind of inconsistency with But I.
Speaker 6: Mean, first and foremost, if it really is an immin danger,
but also you know, there's probably you know, threats ideologically,
I think maybe in certain situations that might even address
even if somebody is not capable of having a physical
threat but could get to that point.
Speaker 5: Maybe yeah, like maybe that would be justified.
Speaker 6: But you see what I mean, It gets it gets
more fuzzy the further you go out, and I feel
less confident in being like, well that's what I mean.
Speaker 2: At the CAD, the Roman Calvic Church be a greater
immediate threat because it's behind all the millions of undocumented
illegals coming in, even more so than Israel. So that
I guess we're supposed to like premptively strike the Vatican
or whatever.
Speaker 5: Yeah, see what the problem is?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, like really.
Speaker 2: Look to your level stuff and how do you determine
like you're saying, like what the most dangerous imminent threat is,
because I mean, yeah, perhaps in ICBM if if it
hit the right target. But at the same time, it's like, well,
that's thirty forty fifty million illegals coming into the country.
I mean, how do you It's hard to determine, you see,
which of those is quote worse right, Miles, what's up?
Speaker 1: Hello? Yeah? What's up? Hey?
Speaker 7: How's it going.
Speaker 8: I'm baptized Eastern Orthodox and I'm trying to learn more
about it. So just a disclaimer, I might be asking
some very very basic and elementary questions.
Speaker 1: Firs.
Speaker 8: Yeah, if it's too basic, just let me know and
I can maybe go to somewhere that you can.
Speaker 1: Everybody in here is a basic bitch, all right.
Speaker 8: I wanted to ask, like, when when a priest blesses
let's say the anaphora or I take you know, holy water,
or I bless the house, what is it? What is happening?
What does a blessing mean? If I get blessed by
a bishop? What is blessing?
Speaker 2: I think it's just supposed to signify, sanctifying, setting apart
for God's service and also hopefully a participation in the
divine energies, because we think that all of these sacramental reality,
whether they're icons or holy water or you know, being
annointed with oil, you know, we are looking towards and
praying to be participating in some measure of divine grace,
which is the unfitted energies.
Speaker 7: Okay, so divine grace is the uncreated energies.
Speaker 1: Correct?
Speaker 7: What's a I only.
Speaker 8: Understand the uncreated energies at a very introductory level.
Speaker 7: What does it mean if I.
Speaker 8: Have, like is, are the uncreated energies now in the
holy water?
Speaker 7: Is that what that means?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Actually, in the baptism, right, the priest prays and puts
the cross in the water and asks that God's uncreated
energies come down into the font. So, just like in
Christ himself, you have, for example, the incarnation, a joining
of the human nature and the divine nature.
Speaker 1: There's a synergy there.
Speaker 2: So likewise, the same idea with the sacraments is that
there's a joining of the uncreated power of God to
the created elements of bread, wine, water, et cetera. The
idea is that there's a synergy a both and in
this in these sacraments.
Speaker 8: Okay, and in that way, when I annoy myself with
oil or drink holy water, I'm directly experiencing God's and
created energies.
Speaker 1: Well that's what we're praying for.
Speaker 2: Whether or not we experience that is actually up to
ourselves on our own disposition. So God's energies are actually
everywhere present, and were we to be in the right
disposition and state of repentance, we would experience them. So
really that's up to us on our side of you know,
human action and repentance as to what we what we
get out of these rituals and liturgies.
Speaker 8: Okay, so the same the same holy water could be
I don't know, edifying for me. Let's say if I'm
in a state of repentance and belief, but does absolutely
nothing to an atheist for example.
Speaker 2: Yeah, or it could actually drive them crazy if they're
demonically possessed, they could actually hate it.
Speaker 1: So yeah, oh wow.
Speaker 8: Okay, And so let's say I am in a state
of repent and belief and I have this holy water.
Speaker 7: What happens to me? What actually changes?
Speaker 9: Will?
Speaker 2: The Church Fathers described the process of grace as a
never ending upward spiral into God. So basically, the Bible
speaks in a kind of a mysterious way that we
partake of God in greater and greater measures, even though
God cannot be apportioned by measure. So this is kind
of what's called it antonomical statement.
Speaker 1: It's a statement that appears to be a contradiction, but.
Speaker 2: It's not, because we're speaking about something that's above the
laws of logic. So even though God can't be contained,
he still willed to become contained in the womb of
the Virgin. Even though God can't be apportioned out by measure,
he willed to be divided by measure amongst his saints.
So Paul talks about in the Escaton greater and greater
degrees of deification. So there's a mystery involved in this,
and the mystery.
Speaker 1: Is that you can never get full of God's grace.
You will always be infinitely moving into God's grace.
Speaker 7: Uh okay, that makes sense. So okay.
Speaker 8: The definition that I understand of uncreated energies is like
the word energy is God's actions.
Speaker 7: Is that correct?
Speaker 1: It's God's actions, It's God's mind.
Speaker 2: It's excuse me, this God's divine ideas that are called
the logi. It's God's attributes, it's God's operations. All of
those things are at times called energies or works or operations.
So the word is welf means work and are gay
at work. But in the New Testament multiple things are
ascribed as works. Sometimes they're called God's powers plural.
Speaker 10: Uh.
Speaker 2: And then when the Western Church sometimes they say, you know,
the attributes of God for us, that's the same thing
as the divine energies. So when Jesus says, for example
John seventeen, that he came to give us a share
in the glory that he had with the Father before
the foundation of the world, uncreated glory is uncreated, grace
is uncreated, light is uncreated, love, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 8: Okay, And so sorry, how do we define attrib You
see like God's attributes?
Speaker 7: Is it like glory, light, love? Are those attributes?
Speaker 5: Sure?
Speaker 2: I'm just saying the Western Church tends to talk about
the divine attributes. God has the attribute of omniscience, omnipresidence, love, justice,
et cetera. And all I'm saying is that when the
Orthodox Church says energies, they're referring to the same thing
that they mean. But our theology is a little more
precise because it's also God's creative actions and powers that
are energies as well.
Speaker 8: Okay, okay, because my confusion was I originally thought energies
men actions. And when you say that divine, his uncreated
energies are in like the holy water of the oil,
I think, how are someone's actions in a thing?
Speaker 1: Well, it is that.
Speaker 2: If you look at letter two thirty four, Basil says
God's essence is unknown, but the divine energies or operations
come down to us.
Speaker 1: And so what comes down to us.
Speaker 2: Is his love, his foreign alogy is providence, his power,
his mercy, et cetera. So it's referring to the same stuff. So,
for example, God is omnipresident omnipresence is a divine energy
for us.
Speaker 8: Oh wow, okay, that's new to me. Okay, I think
I had just one more question and it just slipped
my mind. Oh okay, So the oil is blessed by
the priest when we annoyed ourselves water, you know, the house,
but when we I don't know if this is an
Orthodox thing.
Speaker 7: At least I've been doing it.
Speaker 8: You know, you kind of pray before a meal, ask
the Lord to bless the food and drink for a servant.
So can anybody bless because from what I understand, it's
always the priests that are blessing things. But I'm now blessing.
Speaker 2: You're the priest of your household, right, so yes, you
can pray and bless the food. However, if a priest
is president, you defer to the higher authority, and the
priest blesses the food, just like the priest would defers
to the bishop of the bishops around.
Speaker 8: Oh wow, okay, wow, all right, now, okay, I'm the
priest of the household.
Speaker 7: Do you mean like as virtue of being a man
or like a man of the household?
Speaker 8: Oh okay, okay, okay, So if I'm in like the
presence of my wife, I should be the one asking.
Speaker 2: Says that the house hold is a little church.
Speaker 11: So yes, great, wow, okay a j thank you so much.
I really appreciate I appreciate the thank you. Yeah, okay, care,
I appreciate it, aid he can you hear me, Jake Aiden?
And then Jay, Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 12: I had a little bit of a question about the
like Iran more in a little bit to do with
the elites. If that's all right, sure, So, like I know,
if I'm correct, both are of course the right wing
you had, like the heavy Zionist fund by Israel and
the Rothschild's Like is the left the same way?
Speaker 1: Would you say, what do you mean, like, uh.
Speaker 12: Is it like the same elites? You would say behind
the left ultimately.
Speaker 2: I mean, for example, left socialism that supports Palestinians. I mean,
they might have a difference on the issue of Israel self,
but in the big picture they're all still pretty much
under the aegis and the banner of globalization. So there's
a little bit of disagreement, but in the long term, no,
it's just a disagreement over whether you know, there'll be
an Israeli priority to the new world order or will
there be some sort of just international socialists United Nations
style technocracy.
Speaker 12: So just like two different sides of the puzzle.
Speaker 2: I would say, two factions of internationalism or two factions
of how they would like to see.
Speaker 1: The future cut. There's also overlap.
Speaker 2: There's also over lot because all the early Zionists were
all socialists. So yeah, I think socialism, you know, is
always kind of bound up with a lot of Jewish worldview.
Ideology and in terms of its origins and ethos, I mean,
it's not totally bound up with that, because you can
find it in Plato. A lot of modern socialism marks
within communism obviously is oftentimes tied with you know, Jewish
type movement Bolsheviks, et cetera, as well as utopian socialism
coming out of Moses has the forefather of modern Zionism.
Speaker 1: So those things overlap.
Speaker 2: But you might have some internationalists who don't even think
there should be a nation's date. They don't care if
there's a nation state of Israel, whereas others think that
Israel itself could be the center of the future world government.
Many of the Zionist writers wrote that way Joe Ziowa's up, dog.
Speaker 9: Do you hear me?
Speaker 1: What's up? Man? Hey man?
Speaker 9: I was just asking, so my wife and I she
went to her first divine energy this past Sunday. Okay,
I've been this probably my fourth time this week. So
she is you know, we're used to a Pentecostal type environment,
charismatic and what is the easiest way to I mean,
I've heard not to even really even try to debate her,
you know, but just the Mary stuff and the saints.
Speaker 13: Yeah.
Speaker 9: Sorry if I sound that out of us, I'm at
the gym.
Speaker 1: So yeah, go ahead and repeat your question. I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: So yeah, just what would your advice be on guiding
her into the what seems to be very weird environment
of liturgy and saints and all that.
Speaker 5: I guess that's the question.
Speaker 2: Oh, I mean, I guess that really just depends on
how interested in the theology she is, or is she
just kind of looking for community. A lot of times
women and wives and girlfriends aren't that interested in the theology.
They're more interested in meeting nice people. So, or is
she interested in theology and she wants to know why
we do what we do? It depends on who she
is and how she operates.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I would say I'm the one that's more interested
in the theology. But at the same time, I feel
like that door is popping open here here and there
when he.
Speaker 1: Could explain that.
Speaker 2: You know, like when I went on that podcast with
that evangelical dude a couple of days ago that he
just posted yesterday. I mean, he was asking very similar questions,
kind of coming from a evangelical, you know, do it
yourself background, and it's like, well, do we ever think
about how did Jesus himself worship the Father. Well, he
went to the temple, into the synagogue, and he worshiped
in an ordered liturgical way. They didn't worship like Charismatics
and Pentecostals do with hooting and hollering and flopping around
and barking and yapping and laughing. None of that is
the way that God laid down worship all the way
back to the very beginning. So even Abraham, you know,
Abraham built an altar and called upon God. So there's
always been an altar and liturgical worship for the God
of the Bible. And if you don't have that, then
you've got something else. And you know, worship, if you
read Leviticus ten and eleven, is very important to God.
And if the New Testament doesn't give us a liturgical
worship service, then why would he leave us kind of hanging?
Why is it all up in the air. Why do
we have to just figure it out? Like wouldn't there
be a pattern of worship laid down? And I think
if you start asking those kinds of questions, you know
that kind of when I was Protestant, those kinds of
questions began to click with me because I was like, well,
if I believe in solar scriptia, it doesn't it seem
like God would have laid down the specific like there
would be a new text, you know, a letter from
Paul about how to do the liturgy or something. But
you don't have that, So there's a reliance on the
history of the tradition of the church.
Speaker 1: But also, you know, when.
Speaker 2: It comes to speaking in tongues, I mean, in the
New Testament, that's always languages.
Speaker 1: It's never gibberish.
Speaker 2: It's never a so called angel language.
Speaker 1: Sorry.
Speaker 9: She asked me about that specifically, and when I told
her with an as church believe the way you were
talking about that, she was like, thank God because she
always thought, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, it sounds like she's on the right path.
Speaker 2: I mean, I remember at one time I thought that
Paul was saying there's a secret prayer language that you say,
that's gibberish. But then I realized, right when he says that,
he's actually just using rhetoric. He's saying, even if I
speak with the tongue of ben and angels, then if
I don't have love, it's worthless. He's not saying there's
actually a secret angel language that you can learn by yapping,
and then some other Pentecostal pastor stands next to you
and quote translates it. It's just silly, but great, great
question at the age you want to comment on Pentecostal stuff.
Speaker 1: Also, I don't know if you guys saw the stream.
I just did. Tell your wife to watch Testament of
ann Lee.
Speaker 2: I've been telling people, all of you with Pentecostal cares.
My friends tell your tell them to watch that movie,
and then after they watch the movie, say so, don't
you think this is kind of crazy?
Speaker 1: It's like, oh, yeah, well that's what you guys.
Speaker 6: I was gonna add that I think was the Those
questions were the start of me, you know, twenty years ago,
even twenty five thirty years ago, moving into Orthodoxy because
having grown up in Calviy chapels that have kind of
depending on what Calvi Chapel does has kind.
Speaker 5: Of more charismatic flares and different places. But it rubbed
me the wrong way. And I remember asking questions, liturgical questions,
even at eighteen years old. Can you just worship however
you want? Is there a standard?
Speaker 6: And that eventually, you know, many many many years later,
led me to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: Absolutely questions and answers. What's up?
Speaker 14: Go ahead, Hey, Jay, thanks for taking me. I just
have a question. I grew up Protestant, and I've heard
you talk about classical Protestantism, specifically you know, Luther and
other major figures of the Reformation, and the difference of
what they think or thought about certain topics versus what
many Protestants today hold to or are against that are
Orthodox or Catholic doctrines. I was wondering if you could
just give me a couple of those that you feel
are the most significant or impactful.
Speaker 1: I guess say it really quick again. What was the first?
Speaker 2: What's the difference between modern reform or modern evangelicals and
classical Reformation guys.
Speaker 14: Yes, yeah, that's pretty good summary.
Speaker 2: Well, I did the last stream that I did for
members on this very topic, which was that, basically my
thesis is that the radical Reformation is what ended up
winning out most of the magisterial reformers.
Speaker 1: And what we know of as the classical Reformation.
Speaker 2: Guys, their churches and their theology has pretty much died out.
Speaker 1: And what you see in a lot.
Speaker 2: Of these evangelical churches, non denominational megachurches is really no
different than the overall ethos of the Radical Reformation people,
because again go watch Testamon van Lee. She believes that
there's an inner guiding light. It's telling her what to do.
The scriptures don't or that much. All that matters is
their personal relationship with Jesus. She's gonna he's going to
be a pacifist, She's going to try to set up
an earthly commune. I mean, all of the ridiculous teachings
of evangelicalism and charismaticism are actually what the Radical Reformation taught.
And by radical information we mean people like George Fox,
the Quakers, the Anabaptists, the Shakers.
Speaker 15: Right.
Speaker 2: Uh, that's the proto Pentecostals and Charismatics and Evangelicals today.
If you look at the mainline Reformers in their churches,
like they're all dying and dead and all.
Speaker 1: They're all gay churches. Right.
Speaker 2: So you have the pc USA, uh, mainline Presbyterians.
Speaker 1: You have the Lutheran Church, Anglicans.
Speaker 2: The mainline Anglicans, mainline Lutherans, those are all dying out
and they're all ordaining you know, trans bishops and all nonsense.
Speaker 14: So yeah, the archbishop of Canterbury is like a woman.
Speaker 2: Now, yeah, that just happened two days ago, but you
know what, everybody's laughing about that.
Speaker 1: But actually they already had a woman head of the church.
For the last hundred years.
Speaker 2: The queen was the head of the church, so they
already had a female head of the church.
Speaker 1: Anyway, it's true. That's that's true. Okay, well, thank you
very much.
Speaker 2: I think the big difference is that even the product
the mainline evangelicals, which are the majority now I guess
nowadays of Protestants, I'm guessing they don't care about really
the so called classical Reformation doctrines except for something like,
you know, some water down idea of faith alone, or
some water down idea of I just followed my Bible,
which is some version of soul Scripture, right, so I think, right,
I think that's where evangelicalism is today.
Speaker 14: Okay, thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which is interesting because it's pretty far removed from
Lutheran Calvin, right, I mean Lutheran Calvin. You could perhaps
make the argument that they may be Lutheran more so
than Calvin, Like they're more close to Orthodox and Catholicism
than they are to the radical reformers in certain respects, right, father,
you can do everything on reformation teaching and today's evangelicals.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, Luther wasn't an iconoclast.
Speaker 6: He had at least two seconds believed in the real presence,
the old Lutheran liturgies are much higher liturgically. It's you know,
modern Lutherans today unless you go to Germany or something
like that.
Speaker 5: But they're all gay.
Speaker 6: The higher liturgical kind of Lutherans are all woke and stuff.
But yeah, they're a lot closer than to too orthodoxy
than you know, the Lutherans than modern Humangelicals for sure.
Speaker 1: By the way, we were driving out here the other day.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you heard me say this on
the stream FDA, but I was actually Jamie was like, hey,
this is a Zuza Street who were literally on his
Zusa Street where the whole Pentecostal movement.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, how crazy is that? Well it wasn't far
from actually where we ain't exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I realize that of course, right wing. What's up
you want on you? Hey, thanks for having me up.
Speaker 16: You're killing it with all the collapse by the way,
great stuff, Well, well guess what.
Speaker 2: Only about like one tenth of it has actually dropped yet,
so nice. If you're liking the collapse, there's about ten more.
Speaker 16: So I was just wondering your opinion on the new
Anglican archbishop and how the ceremony was on the twenty fifth,
which is their feasting and annunciation. There's there's got to
be some compounded underlying heresy or symbolism to why they
chose that day, right, I.
Speaker 2: Didn't even know that, and I haven't. All I saw
was people making fun of it on Twitter. But my
guess would be, well, this is the idea that the
feminine is now replacing the masculine. Right, and again, go
watch Testamon of van Lee, because she says the future
of Christianity is that women will replace what the men did.
Speaker 1: Because she says.
Speaker 2: God is man and God is woman, and if he
came the first time as a man, he must return
as a woman. And so she taught that she was
the second advent of Christ, but as the Holy Spirit.
So she's like the incarnation of the Spirit, which she
thought was feminine, which is odd because.
Speaker 1: She couldn't read.
Speaker 2: But it's almost like she's repeating these Talmudic doctrines that
God is bisexual and that God has a you know,
female body parts, all this kind of crazy nonsense. My
guess would be that it's the same demonic spirit that's
influencing the heretics of today.
Speaker 1: Bird are you there? Go ahead?
Speaker 17: My question is about the residue of sin. So, like
I've heard people say that sin doesn't have a positive ontology,
but it seems like committing sins leaves some sort of
like it's called like a spore or like something unclean
that needs to be washed away.
Speaker 1: And now that's all that's that's gnostic, Maybe that's Manichian.
Speaker 2: So I mean, you could have an addiction or a
passion that you are tempted with, but there's no such
thing as an ontological thing that has to be watched life.
Speaker 17: So when like when Noah gets off the arc and
he makes atonement for the land, like it's kind of
portrayed in a sense that like this the sins of
the or like if you have an Orthodox priest come
to your house and bless it is that not to
deal with like some sort of effect of the sin
that's been committed in that house, or.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean you could you could say that there's
the presence of evil spirits. That's what's being cleansed. But
there's not residue of evil or something like that. That
evil doesn't have to even even the demons in their
nature are still good, but they use their will and
their their powers constantly for things against God. So it's
the actions that are the bad. Part is not some
thing or some I don't know what you would call it.
And you know there's no substance or there's no gack,
there's no nickelodeon gack.
Speaker 17: Yeah, that's kind of what I'm asking. Is there like
an ick ontology.
Speaker 2: That would be not it would be menichi and you
could do incorrect actions.
Speaker 6: I mean even if you think like biologically, like with
a plant or something that do you put it in
bad soil, or like you do something that harms a
plant or something so that it's leaves shrivel up and
something like that, Obviously you're not creating a substance. You're
doing something that's not good for the plant. So you
can damage things. Demons can damage stuff. We can damage
stuff by not you know, doing the right sorts of things.
And that's just you know, even the biological sphere, but
like also morally, but it doesn't mean that there's like
there's some evil substance on the plant or in the
house or something like that.
Speaker 17: I'm just wondering from a perspective of like the wages
of sin, like what you earn through sin is death,
Like where's the transition between the sinful action and or
am I just taking are we talking about spiritual death?
Speaker 1: Like I sometimes.
Speaker 2: Death is death is the severance of the soul from
the body, and it's you know, the person willing against
God and it gets the good. That's the first is
physical death, second spiritual death. So that's all death is.
All right, Thank you guys. I appreciate it. Yeah, that
those great questions.
Speaker 6: Substance, it's the lack of life. So you can do
actions two things that kill something kill yourself both physically,
you know, or biologically and spiritually too. But like, yeah,
it doesn't mean death is an actually thing that you
can trap in a jar and you know, take it
to show and tell and class and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: Or like you could give somebody death cooties and then
they have the death on them that gets cooties.
Speaker 1: Uh. It's funny you.
Speaker 2: Say the FDA because one of the one of the
parts of the discussion with Jesse Lee Peterson was where
he started because what he I don't know if you've
ever seen what he does, but he basically asked you
all these really bizarre kind of questions that are really
ambiguous leading questions because he wants to get you to
understand and accept his kind of weird process of what
he thinks counseling is spiritual counseling.
Speaker 1: So ask all these.
Speaker 2: Questions like do you have your your mama sins nature?
Speaker 1: And I'm like, my, what do you have? You have
your ma sin nature?
Speaker 2: She put that in you and I'm like, well, there's
not a sin nature, Yes there is.
Speaker 1: For your mama.
Speaker 2: It's like, there was no way I was going to
ever be able to explain to him that, Like well,
I said, well sin doesn't have any being.
Speaker 1: He's like, what do you mean being?
Speaker 5: Oh no, that's well.
Speaker 6: It's interesting because Protestantism is influenced by that kind of
man a ken where they you know, you get it
from Calvin to you and like a sin nature. It's
like that entails that they're a positive being to see
when it's actually a privation.
Speaker 1: Right. But the funny thing about Jesse Peter Lee.
Speaker 2: Peterson's view of it was that, you know, most people
who are are Protestants or whatever, they think the sin
nature has passed from Adam right.
Speaker 1: He thinks that it's a thing that the mom.
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh, interests, it's really bizarre, Scott, what's up?
Speaker 1: Just I'm you, guys when you I'm you when you
come up. Yeah.
Speaker 18: Sure, I think these strikes were justified. I assume you
sort of disagree.
Speaker 1: Okay, how would we know what? What? What justifies them?
Speaker 12: Well?
Speaker 18: I just mean from like geopolitical facts. I don't mean
from an epostomach.
Speaker 1: Basic what well, No, I mean morally speaking, it's it
is preempted.
Speaker 18: But I think you can justify preemptive strikes in many cases.
Speaker 2: Okay, And what why would Israel be in the US
be justified INTI strikes?
Speaker 18: I don't I'm not like defending associations with Israel or
any of that. I just mean from here from American interests.
Speaker 1: But okay, well, what would the American interesting? So I
ran had.
Speaker 18: Well, apparently they launched at Diego Garcias. It means they
had ICBMs that were up to four thousand kilometers I believe,
I don't know the exact Heart, but that that would
reach Western Europe as well if they reached Diego, Garcia.
And they claimed at least to have two hundred kilograms
or thereabouts of sixty percent uranium, which I'm not a
nuclear scientist, but they say that's something like ten or
eleven warheads.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but they don't have the ability to launch those
even if they did. According to Kerioka, they have.
Speaker 18: At least one with four thousand, like they launched at
least one ICBM at four thousand kilometers. I didn't actually
watch the Kariaka.
Speaker 5: One, so I guess I'm a little uninformed there.
Speaker 2: How are you Ortho bro Oca supremacist? That doesn't make
any sense? Sorry, how are you? I don't believe you're
who you say you are, Ortho Broo Eastern mystic o.
Speaker 5: So those are just pejoratives I've been called.
Speaker 1: This is a little joke.
Speaker 2: And is there any precedent for preemptive strikes in the
history of like Christian warfare?
Speaker 18: I I don't think there is, but I think that
like logically you can extend you know, like proportionality to
preemptive strikes in some ways, I mean, but but no
there to answer your question, No, I don't think there's
an exact like uh one to one with like.
Speaker 1: Do you think that that Israel would provoke this at all?
Speaker 18: I go back and I think there's obviously there's some
influence with Israel, but I think that in this case
it's overlapping interest with the range of the ICBMs, a
potential range if.
Speaker 1: It you know, if indeed that those could carry their ward.
Speaker 2: Okay, butt this was that the Well, then why wasn't
this done twenty years ago?
Speaker 18: If that was the case, I think it should have
probably been done prior, but probably when the shot was deposed,
so like it should have been done with a better
causus belly, but it wasn't, and I think the problems
went bestering for I think it's almost fifty years, forty
seven years, that's so. I think it's kind of we
had we had to make a decision at a point
in time now where they would gain according to market
immunity from future strikes.
Speaker 1: Do you think Marco Rubio is a reliable source?
Speaker 2: I think you'd have to Okay, why is why is
Marco Rubio reliable source?
Speaker 18: Well, I mean, obviously everyone in any given administration has
been trying to BELI to.
Speaker 1: You, why is Marco Rubio a reliable source?
Speaker 18: Because I think that there would be more leaks if
you was like objectly lying about just neutrality or the blocking.
Speaker 1: I'm moving on, Maddie, what's up?
Speaker 2: I'm going to listen to some dude who says he's
an OCA sparentcys Madie, what's up? That's that feels like
fed energy because he's got a giant Confederate flag with
Biden and she says he's an OI.
Speaker 1: Maddie, what's up? FDA? Do you have any comments on that?
That was odd? No?
Speaker 5: No comment?
Speaker 15: Yeah, was popping my dog. Congratulations on the on the
podcast too. I've been fairly enjoying it over here in
the UK. It's been amazing to watch. There's more questions, father,
I heard last week or the week beforehand. Maybe you
spoke upon Agent's video about the whole possible hoax with
the Holy Separaka and Holy fire issues associated the Jerusalem Patriarch.
Speaker 8: Is that correct?
Speaker 5: As I think it was.
Speaker 6: Jane and I had one of these things, these spaces,
and it was brought up.
Speaker 5: Somebody was doubt I didn't know who was doubting it.
Speaker 6: I didn't know it was agents, and I made a
comment about why I think it's legitimate.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I watched the video just out of curiosity, and
I mean, from what I can say, I don't see
it doesn't seem to me that he's kind of imposed
any sort of his personal opinion on the story. But
I just wanted to know whether or not it's true
or not. I spoke to my spiritual father at church
a Sunday to try and get his view.
Speaker 5: Up on things.
Speaker 15: Not because it caused any particularly down inside of me,
but I want to understand if there would be any
sort of issues or repercussions with people faith wise. It's
not necessarily the case that even if, for instance, hypothetically
this was proven that maybe this has been a hoax
for maybe all of time, but maybe a certain period
of time, that this would jeopardize individuals in the church.
Speaker 1: I don't think.
Speaker 6: I don't think it's like you said, it's necessary that
it's not a dogma or something like that. Is there's
no good reasons I do not believe it. I've never
heard all of them have been kind of debunked or
just to just kind of ad hoc, and only the
best sort of reasons to believe that it's actually legitimate.
Speaker 5: But I mean, again, it's not binding on It's not
like you have to believe it to be orthodox.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's just I mean, given the content annuity, how
far it goes back? And I mean think about the critiques,
they're very much like the kind of atheistic critiques of like, yeah,
the Resurrection, Like they have that same kind of spirit that, oh,
we have to like everybody's conspiring and this is I mean,
it just gets ridiculous the amount of ad hoc kind
of skeptical arguments and reconstruction to explain what obviously seems
the case that it's the continuity, the fact that they
didn't have lighters or anything back in the day, and
what it would actually take to fake something like that.
It's just it's virtually almost impossible to you, So that.
Speaker 5: Skeptical arguments.
Speaker 15: Yeah, yeah, honess what you're saying. Yeah, I guess it's
one of those things where I guess, like you said,
even if for instance, it was the case, and I'm
certain that will Agent said is true or the arguments
he brings up are true, But if I was to
hyperfectly agree this wasn't, this wouldn't necessarily put all one's
faith in jeopardy because it's not contingent upon that, nor
is a dogma. I think this is good for me
to clear up. Not that I had any explicit doubts,
but it's one of those things what kind of popped
up where it's like this. It's an interesting point of view.
But yeah, I appreciate your time, Father. It does reassure me.
Speaker 6: Jay.
Speaker 15: When are you coming? When is all the whole streaming
like podcast thing coming to an end, or when you're
gonna be back at the gaff? Okay, cool, all right,
I would like to see more cringe. Course, been a
bit minute since we heard the last one.
Speaker 1: Bro, I've been hopefully get back. What's up? Appreciate philth
what's up? Object? Go ahead? Hey?
Speaker 19: MYA was going down the rabbit hole of p S
A and a sacrificial system, and I had asked father
Stephen de Young. I think it was on Alex Alex's
stream or maybe cleavestream about the implied sacrifice and Jennifer
Genesis three with the animal skins and how he clothed them,
and he answered, and I'd never heard it before, and
I was wondering if you ever heard it that the
the skins that God clothed Adam and Eve with were
him actually changing their body from the pre fall state into.
Speaker 2: The biological it's the biological skin suit that we presently have.
As many church fathers say that, oh, guy, I just
didn't heard before tonight. I recalled it because I remember
you in a debate arguing with that one like weird
Christian vegan guy, and you use that as a I
get the point for as a rebuttal to his that
saying that you know, we can't even meet you use
that or that applyed sacrifice is the reason that we
you know, it's fine.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. Yeah, But whether or not God is
clothing us with animal.
Speaker 2: Skin suits to have biological bodies, or whether he's killing
the animal for a meal, covenantal meal, the principle is
still the.
Speaker 1: Same, that God is not empathetical to the killing of animals. Gotcha, Okay, cool,
thank you.
Speaker 2: And by the way, that yeah, the church fathers not
unanimous either on that interpretation. And if you'll notice, if
you read through their commentaries, some of them think that
it's a metaphysical change in their being to have kind.
Speaker 1: Of a biological component.
Speaker 2: That's like an animal has with these bodies versus the
type of body that they might have had in the
Garden of Eden, which was some sort of a higher
sort of spiritual body.
Speaker 1: Aiden, Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 12: Time One is about like Orthodox patristic series, which would
you recommend first, Dmitri Stineiloi's Experience of God or yourself
Pelicans a Church and tradition. I believe, I know you've
made a video on the well.
Speaker 2: I mean, Father Saint Eloy's is not Patristics. It's his
own dogmatic theology. So that's more like reading a pretty
advanced systematic theology. But Pelicon series is really good for
getting an overview of the ideological trek of the debates
of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth century. So
I would say, actually both would compliment one another. But
if you're new to Orthodoxy, I think Stunnyeloy would be
very difficult, so you might want to start with something
more like Palma Zansky before study.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 12: Second was on like Orthodox philosophical, like philosophical readings of
the Orthodox influence behind it, if you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: I mean Orthodoxy is not super interested in philosophy, but
I mean there are Orthodox philosophers like Tristan Inglehart or
David doctor David Bradshaw or doctor Bo Branson. I mean,
those are all modern philosophy professors who are influenced by
Orthodox teaching.
Speaker 1: So I guess I'm not what do you mean exactly
by Orthodox philosophy.
Speaker 12: I mean like kind of a less Western views, like
there's no.
Speaker 2: Orthodox Nietsche, you know, that's walking. There's not like an
Orthodox you know, Emmanuel Kant or something like that.
Speaker 12: Where would you recommend, Like, I'm a I'm a current
cate Cuman. Your content has helped me out a lot
of but where would you recommend the individual to start?
Speaker 2: Well, if you were interested in philosophy, I would read
the Yarslaw Pelicon book Metamorphosis of Natural Theology and the Cappadocians.
Speaker 1: Yeah I saw that. Yeah, that's really good. Yeah, I
saw that.
Speaker 12: When your video is uh yeah, I've kind of analyzed
like all your videos in but before you.
Speaker 2: Do that, I would actually, uh, now that you kind
of asked these questions, I think you would probably do
best to start with the Pelicon volume one, because it's
really good, and volume two is really good too.
Speaker 1: I would do one and two. Three is about the Reformation,
so it's not that necessarily. Yeah, yeah, one and one
and two are really good.
Speaker 12: What what all do you cover in your big red book,
like the theology book.
Speaker 1: It's just kind of a.
Speaker 2: Random collection of apologetic essays over ten years. So there's
a lot of Roman Catholic critiques, papal critiques, created great critiques,
arguments for essence, energy, philio quick critiques, and then it
gets into more, you know, kind of all over the place,
philosophical essays and critiques of the New World Order. So
it's kind of a broad spectrum. Yeah, it's like seven
hundred pages, right, Yeah, it's it's all that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's basically ten years of blog post in one book.
Speaker 12: All right, I appreciate Jay. I also want to say,
I really appreciate your content. Man, it's uh help. It's
helped me in convert to Orthodoxy. Like I said, I'm
a catech human.
Speaker 2: Well that's greatat appreciate that, man, appreciate you great question.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Those are always great places to start, you know, if
you want to start in the Church Fathers, I always say,
read on the Incarnation by Athenatious, you know, read on
the Holy Spirit by Basil, read uh five theological rations
record outs as great place to start to get the
idea what the.
Speaker 1: Patricial teaching is.
Speaker 2: And also, of course the post opseell for others as well,
ignacious and clements in Aeronaeus, it's open for them. I
have the renowned and esteemed father, doctor Deacon Anonius, the
creator of the Ortho Braro political movement that is seeking
to create a earthly kingdom, much like Ann Lee did
amongst the Quakers Thomas or something.
Speaker 20: Hey, so I come from a Protestant background. I'm curious
since Prosimism has a big emphasis on proselytizing, I'm curious
what the Orthodox viewpoint on proselytizing is, maybe in compared
to prosimism or just.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, we we have been here making thousands
of converts for the last eight years on the Orthodox
to Orthodoxy on the online, so we definitely believe in
proselytizing just means making converts. Prosepolytes is a convert in
the New Testament. So but we probably have different ideas
obviously from what evangelicals think. That is, for the Orthodox,
it means you become an inquirer, you become a cateicuman
that takes you know, one to three years. Then you
join the church for evangelicals, it's like you go and
pray at a service and raise your hands and cry.
Speaker 1: And Jesus becomes your boyfriends. So we have we have
very different ideas. Okay, all right, thank you, that's all
I wanted to know. No, that's actually a good question.
Speaker 13: Josh, hey man, thanks for having me as always, dude.
I saw that recent debate with Temple that was hilarious.
But I got a question for you. Quite welcome. So
me and my kids were reading Chronicles of Narnia and
I ended up watching a C. S. Lewis documentary which
is pretty interesting, but there was an aside in there.
I was curious if you had insight on this. Give
we lost it, Josh, I want to come back, try again.
Speaker 1: Go ahead. C. S Lewis, go ahead. Anyway.
Speaker 13: Supposedly, there was a debate he had towards the end
of his career and apologetics and maybe the end of
his life where he couldn't refute the materialist question or
their argument that if truth can't be explained by materialism alone,
how could await scale you know, be accurate that type
of an argument. I'm just curious what you do about
that debate, about that line of the argumentation, and you
know how you would refute.
Speaker 1: I've never heard this, but we might ask father Deacon.
Speaker 2: He's got really good arguments against the logical arguments against materialism,
but I'm not familiar with this since yes, so this
is his wife, father Dion, are you there?
Speaker 5: Yeah, you want to know the the logical problems.
Speaker 1: I think you would be good at this. Yeah.
Speaker 6: So this comes out of philosophy of mind and what's
known as the irreducible consciousness arguments. So in philosophy of
mind you had, like.
Speaker 5: You have competing schools.
Speaker 6: Obviously you have substance dualists and primary The substance duelists
and materialists both.
Speaker 5: Are like the opposite spectrums.
Speaker 6: Philosophically, and there's a whole variety of theories under materialism.
And so philosophers and philosopher and philosophy of mind came
up with a series of kind of modal arguments in
which like possible worlds or conceivability arguments that refute materialism,
and which because the materialist thesis is not simply it
just happens to be just true in this world that
everything's physical and empirical, and that there are no immaterial
properties or entities.
Speaker 5: But it has a modal strength in every possible world.
Speaker 6: So the way that you, for somebody is saying it's impossible,
it's logically impossible that there are any immaterial entities or properties.
All you have to do is think of a a
conceivability argument. Well, I'm conceiving of, for example, zombies, and
which are physically identical to us in every way, but
they lack consciousness. There's other arguments too, like Frank Jackson's
what Mary Didn't Know? That all served to basically refute materialism.
I can think of a world in which your thesis
isn't true and therefore materialism is false.
Speaker 5: That's basically the gist of it. I mean it's more
complicated that, but that's the general kind of structure of
those arguments.
Speaker 2: Can you explain why a conceivability argument would work in
this case? Because I think most people are going to
immediately think, well, just because you can, Okay.
Speaker 6: So let me just do the logical possibility of zombies.
If materialism is true, then the things that we think of,
like consciousness mental states can be epistemologically and ontologically.
Speaker 5: Reduced to simply material states, whether that's functionalism or identity
theories and things like that.
Speaker 6: So the fact that I can think about that structurally
something identical to me but lacks consciousness means that they're
leaving something out, and therefore it can't be reduced. Now
though of course say, well, that just wouldn't happen, you
would get consciousness. The problem is I'm not speaking about
whether it happened in this world. I didn't contradict myself
in thinking that. Therefore it's not logically true that materialism
because I've thought a counter example in a possible world.
The other one is what Mary doesn't know. And she's
like a brilliant scientist, and she's a genius.
Speaker 5: She's brought up in a black and white room and she's.
Speaker 6: Specialized in optics and color vision and stuff like that,
so she knows what it is to be read, and
so she shouldn't learn any.
Speaker 5: New facts of she.
Speaker 6: Let's suppose she learns everything about what red is, and
then she's released from the room, the black and white
room that she grew up in, and she experiences a
red rose, and she gains a new fact, namely what
it's like to experience a quality, a qualitative experience of red. Okay,
if physical is a materialism is true, she shouldn't learn
anything new because she learned all third person objective facts.
Then the response the response would be, well, she wouldn't
learn anything, But that's not the problem. The problem is, Yeah,
but I thought about a scenario and a logically possible
world where she would and I didn't contradict myself. And
if materialism says the materialism is true in every logically
possible world, all I have to do is think about
a possible world in which it's not the case. So
they all have that kind of structure. They are complicated.
Modal arguments and logical possibility arguments are really complicated, but
they're really good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's great.
Speaker 2: By the way, did you see, by chance in the
last few days when we did the review of Nick's
debate with Jake Muscle Metaphysician.
Speaker 1: On the Trinity.
Speaker 2: No, I didn't, So you would have liked them, because
basically what happened was I thank you for your question.
Josh Nick presented out of analytical philosophy just relative identity
as a way to logically show that something can be
one and also not one in different ways based on
different types of classification. So there's like there's pure relative
identity in logic, and then there's impure relative identity. So
Nick was just arguing and impure relative identity. And the
problem is that Jake didn't realize that. He strength that
the premise of the debate was is the Trinity illogical?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: All Nick had to do is show that through relative
identity logic, the statements.
Speaker 1: About the Trinity being.
Speaker 2: You know, one God in three persons are not a
contradiction because Jake said they're a contradiction. So when Jake
admits that in the way that it's formulated, it's not
a contradiction that date was over, but you would like
it because it's similar to what you're arguing.
Speaker 1: When what Jake said was, yeah, but.
Speaker 2: The Trinity has all this metaphysics, and the point was that, yeah,
but I don't have to get into the metaphysics, because
all I have to do is say that something can
be three m be one and it's not a logical contradiction.
Speaker 6: Yeah, because if somebody's position is it's a contradiction that
it holds across every possible Yes, So there's a necessity.
Speaker 2: But you don't have to get into the metaphysics which
give the metaphysics.
Speaker 6: That's that's why people misunder stand You're absolutely right. The
irreduced by the consciousness arguments that were like, well that
wouldn't happen, and it's like, well, that's the metaphysics. I
don't have to actually get into the metaphysics of the
universe to actually logically conceive of a situation that negates
your position.
Speaker 5: That's not a logical contradiction.
Speaker 6: If if that's possible, you're saying it's in how do
you refute somebody says it's impossible, Well, you either physically
show it empirically, or you say it's logically possible. I
conceived of it without contradicting myself, and so that that's
what's happening in that debate too. Yeah, I definitely think
argument with the Odyssey too, with the problem of evil.
If somebody says it's impossible that an omniscient, on benevolent,
omnipotent God exists and evil exists, all I have to
do is create. I don't have to get into the
metaphysics of the universe. All I have to do is
it's not impossible, it's possible, and then it throws the
burden to proof on them, to show how that I'm conceiving,
for example, as Saint Augustine, And then Chitteran points out,
isn't it logically POSSI didn't say it this way, but
it's basically what's going on in the argument, isn't it
logically possible? An omniscient, omni benevolent, omnipotent God could bring
allow evil if he brings out a greater good by
allowing it than if you prevent it. Yes, then your
positions refuted because I just you said it's impossible. I
just showed that there's no logical contradiction, and I don't
have to answer why God does it? A lot to
show is isn't it logically possible? So your argument that
it's logically impossible is refuted.
Speaker 2: Exactly, And that's what the whole debate ended I being about,
because once Jake conceded that with like within like thirty
minutes of the debate, the debate was over. And then
Jake shifted into try to argue the energies and all
this metaphysics. So it's like, yeah, but the debate, Jake,
if that was the case, you should have made the
premise is the Trinity true? But he didn't accept the
premise as the Trinity true? He said, is the Trinity logical?
And that's where he made a fatal flaw. Just how
you got on you, hey, Jake? Another question, all of
the questions that are going, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Go ahead.
Speaker 9: So another question she had that I couldn't totally answer
very simply is she was like, why do why do
we need to go through a class to you know,
enter into the Orthodox Church? Another you know, her her
whole mind frame is coming from a Protestant perspective.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 9: What would be a simple answer to give.
Speaker 2: I guess, well, because the Church has a lot of
teachings that are from divine revelation. Divine revelation is you know,
partly contained in the scriptures. But you know, the scriptures
aren't organized as a book of catechisis.
Speaker 1: The Bible is a liturgical book.
Speaker 2: So you know, it's difficult to just catechize someone or
teach them that theology from merely reading the scriptures.
Speaker 1: It's not impossible.
Speaker 2: But that's why the Church has typically had a period
of time where you learn the theology of the Church
from the Creed, which expresses, you know, the essence of
the Christian beliefs. And then every catechism usually expounds upon
the nice, you know, constant Apolitan Creed because that's the
basics of our system. So because the Church has dogmas,
because the Church has a you know, two thousand year history,
it's not like Protestantism where you're just sort of window
shopping and you pick an outfit or you pick a
you know, a shirt or a hat, like you have
to learn the totality of the system. Also, it's for
your own good because you know, you want to make
sure you're making it, because we take it very seriously.
You want to make sure you're making the right decision.
So it's not like you know, willy nilly type, come
down to the altar and pray and then you're in
the church. Like, this is a very serious commitment. It's
way more serious than what you find in evangelicalism. So
you want to know that you learn these things and
agree with these things before you sign on to something
that you know six months down the road. And this
is because the Church has the long history of dealing
with and understanding you know, a lot of people think, oh, yeah,
I'm really into this is really neat, it's really pretty,
and then six months later they're like, I don't know
if I agree with this.
Speaker 1: I don't like this idea.
Speaker 2: Well then maybe it's you know, maybe it's not the
right thing for you because you're not in a position
yet where you have the humility to submit to the
teaching of the church. So there's a lot of different
reasons why it's not an overnight thing. Although there could
be situations out of the norm or that happens for
most people, it's the wisdom.
Speaker 1: Of the church as the side of that, it's it's
better for people to take their time to go ahead.
Speaker 6: I've had inquiries. It's a general problem that maybe we
all have about oh this is so hard for me,
you know, I'm you know, complaining about different struggles, et cetera.
And I've told people, well, maybe you shouldn't become Orthodox
cause tho struggles will get worse and Orthodoxy is not
here to give you comfort, sensual and finite comforts, like
it's here to give you a cross, because it's only
through the cross that we acquire virtues and the resurrection.
Speaker 5: So I kind of am upfront with people.
Speaker 6: I'm like, I don't know what you think you're getting into,
but like the struggles increase and it gets worse. And
the whole project and prescription of Orthodoxy is to deny yourself.
Speaker 5: So if you're in it for like I want what
I want and you know I don't.
Speaker 6: My life's miserable and blah blah blah, Like Orthodoxy is
not going to make your life pleasurable.
Speaker 5: It's gonna be really difficult.
Speaker 6: And so I'm just upfront with people and yeah, it's
a different you know, it's going to require humility, and
it's not a system of It's not a system at all.
It's like, well, here's the correct doctrine. It's a way
of life, and it's a cross and.
Speaker 2: Not Joel Ovaltine's self help prosperity Gospel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead, Anthony, Am I coming through. Okay?
Speaker 11: Yes?
Speaker 1: Nice? Uh, it's really quick.
Speaker 21: Two questions for Jay and one for other than nice.
What is in your opinion, Jade? Is there any reason why,
Like the more I talk to other Christians outside of
the church, I noticed that like Unitarianism is prevalent in
the United States, at least in my circles. Is there
any reason for that since it's not it's not really
that present outside of the States.
Speaker 2: I think there's been a lot of heterodox movements that
have been funded that push this. For example, all the
Daily Wire funding. Just as an example is from these
Texas billionaires who go to a Unitarian church. It's like
a weird Unitarian Zionist thing, and so they push that
through a lot of their outlets. You know, I just
went on Jesse Lee Peterson thing the other day, and
he has his own homemade church where he teaches Unitarianism.
You know, a few years ago we were debating this
new new Apostolic movement or something that's all Unitarian. It
was me and doctor Boumranson versus some creature from this sect.
So I think there is some kind of push and movement.
I don't know all the inner workings, but probably is
some funding for this kind of stuff to be, you know,
to push sectarian ideas from different from different systems, different outlets.
Probably some Israeli outlets do so they've always tended to
have a hand in a Unitarian and Arean types of movements,
So that would be my guess. But also I think
that as people's IQ declines, and I know that it's
a spiritual problem, not trying to make it toally IQ,
but also it is the case that as people get
kind of dumber, they have a really hard time in
thinking of things in an abstract way or thinking of
things that that aren't either simple either ors well to
god what three right? If you saw my debate with
Captain Tazarijak, he could not just like many of Muslims,
he could not conceive of something being both and it
had to be either or. So I think that there's
a lot of just low tier, just stupid people combined
with subversive money for subversive sectarian.
Speaker 6: Ideology, and also the Internet, right, I mean, you had
Owen Benjamin comes up with his and.
Speaker 1: He's a lot of made up Internet people, don't.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and then they have a following and presence online
and more of that, you know, informations to seminate among
public and people were dumb and not educated, and so
they fall for for those things, not to mention that
they're fanboys of different people. And so I think you
get to just piercing and you get it with Owen
Benjamin because it's the same thing with.
Speaker 5: The Black Heber Israelites.
Speaker 6: What's the other groups just the same as the Black
HEBW Hebrew is Lights, uh, the Judaising groups, Hebrew Roots.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 6: I think all of that in part comes from you know,
these people pushing and adopting these things online. It just
gets spread, same with the paganism, so that the Rabbi Green,
Adam Green.
Speaker 21: Exact, Yeah, gotcha much better than my guess is I
appreciate that I'm proselytizing to uh Arian Hebrew roots friends.
Speaking of that, and in the you guys are much
more well read mentioned.
Speaker 1: Gray is the Aryans?
Speaker 21: Oh yeah, yeah, man, I'm so happy you talk with
these guys. It's so cathartic, man, It's it's amazing. Is
there any mentioned by that Postolic fathers or even the
early Church? I mean they're less they're less prone to
accept Early Church fathers. But do the Apostolic fathers mention
any concepts of like the Jewish Binetarianism that you guys
are aware of, or like the.
Speaker 1: That's a really good question.
Speaker 2: I don't know of a Church father that mentions Jewishitarianism,
although some people might argue that that influenced justin Martyr's
way that he describes the Father and the logos, because
it's kind of like the way Philo.
Speaker 1: Describes the two powers of heaven. So that's possibly a reference.
Speaker 2: But I don't know about early Jewish Benitarianism or something
like that other than what today's scholars talk about.
Speaker 21: Gotcha, Okay, I'll make a note of that.
Speaker 1: I appreciate its.
Speaker 5: Father doing Sir as well.
Speaker 10: I don't know if you noticed this, Jay, but I
I tweeted something out about this a little while ago
about how Evangelicals view other Christians and this kind of
relates to every Middle War, every more than the Middle
East we've had. But have you ever noticed that evangelicals
they view Americans who are Orthodox in particular as less
American than them, and they simultaneously view Middle Eastern you know,
Arabs who are Orthodox Christians, they view them as like
ethnically or racially Islamic. That's why they're so cavalier with
just make it a parking lot, you know, just bomb
the place to hell. If you bring up to them,
well what about like the one one point five million
Christians in Iran? They just kind of look at you
with you know, eyes place owners.
Speaker 2: Yeah, John, Karayoku brought it up to me and to
Alex Jones when he was on with Alex because he
said that when he taught at Liberty University, because he
used to teach intelligence courses as well as being a
CIO operative, he said that he could never get them
to understand that that the original Christians are out of
Syrian Antioch. So the original Christians are actually Arab converts
at Syrian Antioch, right, because the people they're first called
Christians at Antioch. And he said he could never get
these dumb dumps to understand that that's actual Christianity. It's
not you know, you're John Aikey run around on the
stage blowing a show.
Speaker 12: Far.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 10: And that's another just to point out something you've touched
on before, because I think you spoke about this, is like,
how could we ever have Christian nationalism in America when
you know, the largest Protestant group that being you know,
the broad group of Evangelicalism. Uh, they openly don't view
Orthodox Christians as Christians. They kind of give lip service
to Roman Catholics. But you know, there's no real coming
to get out of these people, especially when they've just
been so intellectually captured through Zionism. They don't even realize it.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, it's like Doug Wilson said the other day, if
if his Christian nationalism comes about, you won't have any
icons or images of Maria in public. So it's like, yeah,
good luck with Christian nationalism with that loser.
Speaker 6: All right, I'm gonna be I'm gonna play Devil's advocate
right now. By the way, if you don't know that
actually comes from Papism. They literally have courts with Devil's
advocates to argue against canonization of saints. Yes, okay, suppose
suppose I'm going to push back and say, well, maybe
the problem is just the Doug Wilson evangelical But what
if you if Christian nationalism simply meant that, in terms
of immigration policies, you don't let non Christians come into
the country.
Speaker 10: I mean, I could see that being a possible, like
alla branch, we would extend to them. But as soon
as you point out to them that, hey, that means
dual citizens from Israel, that means all non Christians, not
just you know, Muslims, because they obviously Evangelicals don't want
any Muslims here. But if you say that extends to
all non Christians, that includes Jews, then they would just
fight you tooth and nail over that, and that would
be the end of that conversation entirely.
Speaker 1: Yeh.
Speaker 2: I got to the way to shut it down too,
because I used to be amongst the Christian reconstructionist camp,
which is what Doug Wilson is. And when I was
amongst that group, when I was like nineteen, there was
this stupid debate which is so like out of touch
with reality because you have this little tiny Presbyterian sect
and you're within the sect, people are dividing the church
and debating over whether or not in the Christian Reconstructionists
state whether or not people who violate the Sabbath would
be put to death. Because so, how are you going
to have a Christian nationalism when you have Puritans who
believe that if you do something on the Sabbath on Sunday,
even if you're not a Christian, you've got to be
put to death.
Speaker 1: And so this is how idiotic this shit is.
Speaker 6: Okay, you see what I'm saying, though, why not just
get them to agree to Does that mean all versions
of the Christian nationalism wouldn't work, or like, for example,
do you think you can get Doug Wilson. It may
be like, Okay, that's not going to work, but you could,
generally speaking in terms of immigration, just be like, yeah,
this is what we you know, generally consider Christians, and
so they're ever getting a priority in terms of citizenship
and voting or other religions are not allowed because you
do kind of have some of these principles even in
early immigration policies that obviously change after nineteen sixty five.
But in terms of who gets priority immigrating into to
the United States, we're obviously Christian, you know, you're certain,
and there was like a tier right in terms of
what country in Europe obviously Anglo like from England and
stuff like that had priority over you know, Irish and
stuff like that. Do you think that that's in my
logical possible world argument that I just made logically impossible.
Speaker 10: I mean again, I think that's a solid ALI branch
to reach out to them. But then I think the
other side of this is that, you know, the crazy
prods from Doug Wilson to like your you know, your
boomer evangelical the one thing they all agree on to
the you know, to the death is Zionism, And like
I said, they're just so intellectually captured by that. So
you have Doug Wilson on one side, but then in
the end you have all these other evangelicals that are
the exact opposo when it comes to christian Now. So
a lot of them are pushing for like Vivek to
be governor of Ohio and.
Speaker 14: Stuff like that.
Speaker 10: So they're on opposite spectrums of like things like immigration.
As far as you know, they don't view legalized American
citizens quote unquote as being part of the problem as well.
But the one thing they agree on at the end
of the day is Zionism, and that's like the anchor
to all of their political ideology. It's kind of crazy
to see, but I could liken it too when it
comes to modern Middle Eastern politics that we're dealing with
with Iran right now and trying to clean up our
government and get people who are actually are Christian and government.
Zionism to them is like their COVID. You know, it's
like we can see it. We obviously know what the
problem is.
Speaker 5: We know it's a scam.
Speaker 2: Well, look they all signed that that agreement, right James White.
I don't I can't remember if Doug Wilson sunder or not.
But all those evangelical coopers signed this big giant Zionists agreement.
Speaker 1: Do you remember that?
Speaker 5: Yeah, Well that's why I don't understand the argument we
have that in right now. Like, so I don't understand
what the difference would be.
Speaker 10: Well again like but the problem is is that with
if Zionism is your grounding foundational belief structure within all,
within the majority of Protestantism, which it is, Unfortunately, at
the end of the day, you're gonna do whatever the
Zionists want, and Desigonists do not want a white Christian,
you know, right, Erica, I see, Yeah.
Speaker 5: That's a great point. There's the missing premise right there.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I mean, look at bebing At in Yahoo.
Speaker 10: And people always forget this because every Trump thought, who
is a massive, massive Zionists, always overlooks the fact that
the largest outspoken person against Trump's Muslim ban. And if
you guys remember that it was a Muslim ban, that
wasn't Muslim ban, but was the person against it who
has allowed us was being that Yahoo beaming nat Yahoo,
you can find I think it's in herrets or it's
in the Hill.
Speaker 5: I can't remember which publication has it.
Speaker 10: But he came out and said that he was totally
against the Muslim ban, that Israel is an open, you know, diverse,
egalitarian society, and we oppose such practices by the American
government by that.
Speaker 1: But he also said he wanted us to take all
of the Muslims from Palestine, exactly.
Speaker 10: And that's that's exactly why whether he wants to launch
a bunch of wars, bomb a bunch of places and
then force all the immigrants into America, at the end
of the day, if you're an evangelical and your underlying
principle is Zionism, then you're obviously going to be like, Okay,
we're going to put immigration border security, trying to make
our country, you know, more homogenized, safer, cleaner, and more
Christian or and put that on the backburn and do
whatever Debe tells us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, And that's why they're stupid ass idiots, and that's.
Speaker 1: Why they're the they're the reason why the countries collapse.
Speaker 5: And they don't see it.
Speaker 10: They're all stuck in this dark, deep pre list. And
because they're in pre list, you can even point out
to them. There's been a couple of people and write
with media will I've said to them, hey, look up
the term preless because I think you're in it right now,
and you know, just crickets. They don't understand that they're
you know, captured intellectually and and honestly, it's a problem
with the heart.
Speaker 5: They don't get that
Speaker 3: Monkey outside sound, that a smile, what you're doing someth