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