Speaker 1: Nobody has perfect truth or absolute truth. So maybe it's
Speaker 1: out there, but it doesn't exist and we don't have it.
Speaker 1: Fine cast it however you want. That's still satanic and principle.
Speaker 1: So I mean even the fact that Albert Pike in
Speaker 1: that sentence is saying that absolute truth is unattainable, is
Speaker 1: implicitly stating that Freemasonry makes no claims to have absolute truth. Okay,
Speaker 1: is it absolutely true that absolute truth is unattainable. Let's
Speaker 1: go back to pre seb one on one right, they
Speaker 1: keep skirting the point that I'm making and trying to
Speaker 1: make this into some game, and it's not a game. Okay,
Speaker 1: So this is a good Bible, and actually it's the
Speaker 1: ol in the Bible and truth and then christ don't
Speaker 1: have absolute true. Well you don't necessarily have to believe that.
Speaker 1: You can be a Mason and disagree with Albert Pike,
Speaker 1: thank you. So it's subjectivists and relativest that's my point,
Speaker 1: and that's why he keeps admitting my point. Satanism. So
Speaker 1: it's absolutely it's absolutely synthesizeable, which it.
Speaker 2: Simply does not concern itself with that. If if we were, hey,
Speaker 2: religion in making these claims. I think you'd have a
Speaker 2: better case. Okay, there's plenty of plenty of groups within society,
Speaker 2: the Boy Scouts, for example, there's a bad example.
Speaker 1: The context the contest of the context of Albert Pike.
Speaker 2: There's there's tons of groups that have certain base level
Speaker 2: requirements but then leave subjects that are not the purview
Speaker 2: or the the these.
Speaker 1: Alcoholic This is where they try to shift into it
Speaker 1: being a civic organization like Boy Scouts, and that's not
Speaker 1: what it is. LIKEX Anonymous is an example, it's done
Speaker 1: this a little bit. Well, let's see Alcoholics Anonymous as
Speaker 1: an example. You have to believe in a higher power
Speaker 1: in order to go ait A. Twelve sevens are based
Speaker 1: on massonic principles. AA is Yeah, so you think that
Speaker 1: Alcoholics Anonymous inherently denies christ or is incompatible it was
Speaker 1: that's a strong man. I'm not trying to do this.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to fuck with the accusing guys. But
Speaker 1: do you believe that alcohol This is not intentionally a
Speaker 1: strong manter distraction. I just want to know your answer.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that Alcoholics Anonymous is incompatible with Christianity
Speaker 1: in the same way they believe freemasonry is incapatable. It
Speaker 1: depends on how far Alcoholics Anonymous would try to enforce
Speaker 1: their principles of generic Fiism. So it really depends, uh.
Speaker 1: And I mean there's states, there's a degree, there's just say,
Speaker 1: there's a degree of which it's acceptable. Their statements are
Speaker 1: sufficiently vague to allow for all kinds of possible things,
Speaker 1: So that would really depend upon the specifics. But alb
Speaker 1: Pike is argument also, it's not a religious initiation with oaths, right.
Speaker 3: Alcohol, it's like therapy, right.
Speaker 1: So I'm not sure by the even though AA has
Speaker 1: some elements of Masonry as part of it, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure that it's equivalent to the Masonic initiation and brotherhood.
Speaker 3: That's why I keep having distressed.
Speaker 4: I don't think that's agreed. Yeah, it's kind of comparing
Speaker 4: apple storages. It's we're talking about.
Speaker 5: It, you know, a secret society with levels of oats
Speaker 5: initiation that.
Speaker 3: And religious initiation. That's where this ends up going.
Speaker 5: And inherently deceptive oats and initiation that compound on each
Speaker 5: other and compile on each other with alts of initiation
Speaker 5: that also contradict Christian dogs exactly, Alcoholics anonymous, just like, oh,
Speaker 5: you've got to believe in a higher power, and then
Speaker 5: you know, we sit around me, do a group there if.
Speaker 4: You think or whatever, it's it's very, very different from them.
Speaker 1: Well, and that's the same point I make with saying
Speaker 1: the pledge of allegiance later. So yeah, context of God,
Speaker 1: this whole chapter is about theology, not philosophy. Theology. So
Speaker 1: he's saying that in terms of theology, perfect truth, truth
Speaker 1: is not attainable anywhere. Do you believe that perfect truth
Speaker 1: is not attainable anywhere? Well, I believe that Jesus Christ
Speaker 1: is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. But I
Speaker 1: don't believe that in our current state we're able to
Speaker 1: have like an omniscient understanding of absolute truth. I think
Speaker 1: there's all sorts of things happening in the universe.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: There's what you know, there's what you don't know, and
Speaker 1: there's what you don't know that you don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't claim just because I'm a Christian to have attained
Speaker 1: absolute truth. I believe that I've attained absolute truth in
Speaker 1: the sense that I know who got it.
Speaker 3: So say that again the way the truth of the life.
Speaker 3: But I don't think you can actually know that or
Speaker 3: have any Yeah, that's what that's all.
Speaker 4: I think it's actually dogmatic. It's dogmatic to.
Speaker 5: Me that you can't have certainty that Christ is exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's where this argument keeps going, Right, It's like
Speaker 1: you don't understand that it's a contradiction to say that, Oh,
Speaker 1: for me personally, Jesus is the absolute way the truth
Speaker 1: in life. But nobody has absolute way the truth in
Speaker 1: the life. It is silly, is And I believe that
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ is the son of God Christ.
Speaker 3: Too, that's the argument, right.
Speaker 1: Christianity's claims are antithetical to the syncretous subjectivist, relativist claims
Speaker 1: of Masonry.
Speaker 3: That's the whole point here.
Speaker 1: So in the sense that would you call I mean,
Speaker 1: would you call that absolute truth? Because when I hear
Speaker 1: the word absolute truth, I mean all true I think
Speaker 1: of all truth. So there's nothing in the word absolute
Speaker 1: truths or objective truth that necessitates omniscience. And so I
Speaker 1: think that already asked you with the irony here is
Speaker 1: that it's the Mason. Yes, I you want to play
Speaker 1: the word game. Why, I'm not trying to mess with you.
Speaker 1: I believe in absolute truth. I am an objectivist, I
Speaker 1: am not a subjectivist. Okay, just so answer your question.
Speaker 4: Mark.
Speaker 1: Now he's contradicted again because Albert Pike says that that's unattainable. Rightly.
Speaker 1: So the whole point of this was to say that
Speaker 1: the teachings of Satanism are that you are your own God,
Speaker 1: which is what Satan says in the Garden to how
Speaker 1: of a need you determine reality? You determine what's true
Speaker 1: and what's false. And the original presentation that you guys
Speaker 1: gave as to why masonry is so awesome is because
Speaker 1: it doesn't have apostles, it doesn't authorities, it doesn't have dogmas.
Speaker 1: It's simply a philosophy and you can kind of craft
Speaker 1: it as you want with it from within it. But
Speaker 1: then we saw that no, there's actually a lot of requirements,
Speaker 1: a lot of dogmas, a lot of qualifications, and they
Speaker 1: teach a subjectivist relativist idea at the same time as
Speaker 1: contradicting it with the idea that there are dogmas and authorities.
Speaker 1: That was the argument. I don't believe that freemasonry teaches
Speaker 1: a subjectivist, relativist philosophy. Okay, just because just because Albert
Speaker 1: Pike says that absolute truth is unattainable does not mean
Speaker 1: that absolute truth does not exist. I am an objectivist.
Speaker 1: I believe it's just his opinion. Okay, who does it
Speaker 1: matter in masonry in terms of who said it? Because
Speaker 1: there were authorities apparently, so who determines the regular and
Speaker 1: the irregular lodges?
Speaker 2: So you can go back to that with these ideas
Speaker 2: of the landmarks, each lodge, each grand lodge is the
Speaker 2: supreme authority in that jurisdiction. It will recognize or unrecognize.
Speaker 3: Hey, you're right, FDA.
Speaker 1: This is the exact same and trust in this exact
Speaker 1: same debate with every Protestant about normative authority. Yeah, my
Speaker 1: local pastor has a normative authority, but nobody tells me
Speaker 1: and can buy my conscience and just tells me what what.
Speaker 3: It's just like little tree.
Speaker 5: Masonry is just a decentralized groups.
Speaker 4: It's a decentralized.
Speaker 5: Grouping of the visual pulps who get to decide what
Speaker 5: the dogmas are.
Speaker 4: Freemason we are, but also that's not dogmatic.
Speaker 3: That's also not dogmatic, but it is.
Speaker 5: But that's also dogmatic. It's all over the place. Is
Speaker 5: a horrible this is really sad. I don't think they've
Speaker 5: really it doesn't seem like they've watched like any of
Speaker 5: your previous.
Speaker 1: I don't think they've thought about this. No, they haven't
Speaker 1: thought about this at a debate level. Chase, what's up man?
Speaker 5: Hey, it was kind of funny listening to this last
Speaker 5: last section of the debate, how much it reminds me
Speaker 5: of obviously like the Protestants, like like that girl Tristan
Speaker 5: was saying, but also it reminds me of the Ecumenists.
Speaker 4: It reminds me of the Ecumenists that attack anyone.
Speaker 5: Who says, you know, Orthodoxy is the truth, you know,
Speaker 5: like goofy, goofy, effeminine people like Ethan Wayne.
Speaker 4: And stuff like that. They have the same exact line
Speaker 4: of thinking.
Speaker 1: Well, Ethan Wayne is a Freemason. He shares Masonic stuff
Speaker 1: all the time. Oh he does, Yeah, he shares, so
Speaker 1: he shares, he shares Masonic stuff.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's just it's just funny.
Speaker 5: It's not a very deep analysis, but it's the same
Speaker 5: exact mentality as the Ecumenists trying to subvert Orthodoxy from within.
Speaker 5: Whether they're a Freemason or not, it's still the same mentality.
Speaker 4: And then when you ask them. I don't know if
Speaker 4: later in the debate do you get into like, hey,
Speaker 4: how do you know that.
Speaker 5: These other people are predicating the one the same god
Speaker 5: as you do?
Speaker 4: They do they ever give? No?
Speaker 3: We do?
Speaker 6: We do?
Speaker 3: We do.
Speaker 1: Come back to this point of me trying to illustrate
Speaker 1: that they actually have all of these criteria that exclude people,
Speaker 1: which means that they've moved the goalpost and it's not
Speaker 1: just a higher power.
Speaker 3: So yes, it does come back to.
Speaker 1: That another brand lodge. So there are authorities and there
Speaker 1: are things that will give you unrecognized were So you know, well,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry that you don't like me going back to
Speaker 1: it when you're referring to the same fallacious argument from before,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go back. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't see how anything I've SAIDs in Kong that
Speaker 2: there is a Mason authorities, there is a structure that
Speaker 2: governs a governance structure of the fraternity. That is completely
Speaker 2: different than saying that one man Albert Pike or I
Speaker 2: didn't make that organize an author I didn't make the
Speaker 2: argument liary when that was that they aren't authorities. And
Speaker 2: then you try to put words in my mouth and
Speaker 2: say that I saw it. I didn't learn to straw man.
Speaker 2: I didn't much worse say that there are no authorities.
Speaker 2: Silence argued in your opening statement, there's no authorities in
Speaker 2: the context, I specifically pointed out those books and those authors,
Speaker 2: and I said that one man does not speak for masonry.
Speaker 1: Okay, there not so like not one man. It is
Speaker 1: a government structure of freemay doawnery. So you're appredicating and changing.
Speaker 1: You're moving the goalpost from the opening statement saying authorities,
Speaker 1: and you're saying that, oh, I just know one dude
Speaker 1: as an in the opening statement, he said there is
Speaker 1: no one man who speaks for masonry. But he also
Speaker 1: said there's no apostles and authorities. So in no context, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: so there are there is an authority that is a
Speaker 1: body correct.
Speaker 5: On behalf of freemasonry. She says that no man speaks
Speaker 5: on behalf of free basonry.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, no one speaks on freemasonry. And I speak
Speaker 1: for freemasonry. From Albert Pike speaking for freemasonry.
Speaker 5: Of freemasonry, I can with the full confidence say.
Speaker 3: That exactly that's the whole de bit rare.
Speaker 1: There's a government structure for other horror.
Speaker 3: Yeah what get it gets crazy.
Speaker 1: We haven't even gotten heated yet. Uh, we are approaching
Speaker 1: the first half. We're not even got we haven't even
Speaker 1: gotten heated yet. Authorities, and you do have authorities that
Speaker 1: you submit to and you can be removed.
Speaker 4: I mean, it hasn't gotten past that one all yet.
Speaker 1: It takes the first hour to get past this point
Speaker 1: from the lodge, right, yeah, okay, So why did you
Speaker 1: cast it as if it's a free thinking of sort
Speaker 1: of organization with no dogmas. I didn't cast it at that.
Speaker 2: I started my opening statement by saying that you were
Speaker 2: going to be bring quotes from individuals and try which
Speaker 2: you did do. When you pointed out that the name
Speaker 2: was Molesen dogma, you attempted to make the argument that
Speaker 2: this is massa.
Speaker 1: No, I didn't. No, you missed the argument. You're still
Speaker 1: fundamentally misunderstand and I and then when I corrected you
Speaker 1: that this that the words of alur Pike are not
Speaker 1: Masonic dogma, we went in this circular argument. It wasn't
Speaker 1: an all regular argument. It was a contradiction logically to
Speaker 1: say that there are dogmas, that there's there's a dogma,
Speaker 1: that there's no dogmas there, I wouldn't make it, AUGI
Speaker 1: that was the name of dogma, that there's no dogmas.
Speaker 1: There's just no there. There's there's just few dogmas. Like
Speaker 1: if so there are dogmas, Yes, if you would consider
Speaker 1: then the real requirement, if you would consider the requirement.
Speaker 3: So now he's mood.
Speaker 1: Now he's admitted dogmas plural. Notice member Chase said at
Speaker 1: the beginning there's no dogmas. Then it's okay, there's one dogma.
Speaker 1: Now he said dogmas plural that you have to believe
Speaker 1: in God in order to be a freemason. A dogma.
Speaker 1: Then by that definition, there is a dogma. Did you
Speaker 1: not just then qualify that I can be a Satanist
Speaker 1: and be a Mason. So there's now other qualifications that
Speaker 1: would exclude me. So there's more to the dogmas. That's
Speaker 1: why you guys are being dishonest. Well, isn't. Now is
Speaker 1: a definition of dogma different for you guys. That's why
Speaker 1: I was asking what it is for the auction, not
Speaker 1: the thing that gets you excluded from the group.
Speaker 3: How's that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, here's dogmas, thank you. So they claimed, but the
Speaker 1: idea that there's not dogmas is not true. I thank you.
Speaker 2: That wasn't the point that was made. The point was
Speaker 2: that the words of Albert pikern On Masonic dogma. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's a straw man, dude. I didn't argue that his
Speaker 2: words are dogma. I said that it's funny that he
Speaker 2: titled his book Morals and Dogma, And I said, the
Speaker 2: contradiction is the argument that the dogma is there's no dogma.
Speaker 1: How is it how is it compatible to claim that
Speaker 1: there are dogmas, which I'm not even disputing, but then
Speaker 1: simultaneously claimed that the organization advocates for subjectivism and relativism.
Speaker 1: I mean, if there's absolute dogmas, then it's inherently not
Speaker 1: subjectivist or relativist exactly. That's the point, Chase. It's a contradiction.
Speaker 1: I'm arguing, you guys contradict yourself. That's what you do
Speaker 1: in today. It's as you point out logical contradictions. Okay,
Speaker 1: And do you tie it directly to how any of
Speaker 1: what we've been talking about for the last twenty minutes
Speaker 1: or so makes Freemasonry incompatible with Christianity? Well, which is
Speaker 1: the fine amount quessition, but can't affirm any kind of
Speaker 1: subjectivism and moral relativism. In terms of even theological authorities.
Speaker 1: You have to believe there's some kind of theological authorities,
Speaker 1: which I do and chase us. Yeah, in the theological authorities,
Speaker 1: Jimmy christ.
Speaker 2: Yeah, are my dogma when it comes to my religion
Speaker 2: is Christianity.
Speaker 1: It's not Freemadi. Now we get prot slap. This just
Speaker 1: turns into total slough here, I forgot this part. Okay,
Speaker 1: So what Christianity me? Firstly, you're showing them.
Speaker 5: Also that like your justification for Protestantism is the same
Speaker 5: as justification for authority within freemasonry, which also affirms moral relativism.
Speaker 5: Now do to use myself of my own conscience. I
Speaker 5: read my Bible, and I figure out to code my
Speaker 5: Bible and put on the Bible the colder hat, and
Speaker 5: I and I.
Speaker 4: Just and I do it.
Speaker 3: You put I talk to God.
Speaker 4: I read the word of God. The Word of God
Speaker 4: flows through me.
Speaker 3: It's like you pull out your you pull out.
Speaker 4: Is that where it goes for the next hour? Now?
Speaker 1: No, no, no, DJ's about to end this part pretty soon.
Speaker 1: Uh No, you pull out your Joseph Smith peepstone, and
Speaker 1: then you read the Bible text through the peep stone.
Speaker 3: And that's how you interpret it.
Speaker 5: You read the Bible text through the peep stone, but
Speaker 5: also you're a Freemason, so you're also you're reading uh
Speaker 5: your peepee stone and your Yoni stone.
Speaker 3: You're correct, your.
Speaker 4: You'r Shiva Lingham and your and your Shivay.
Speaker 2: Loosely Protestant. I'd rather not like that's my congregation here,
Speaker 2: would you?
Speaker 1: Okay? Here's w's my family? Too much? Historic? Your protest Historically?
Speaker 1: Are there bodies of people that can determine what's normative
Speaker 1: to be a Christian and not not be a Christian?
Speaker 1: What do you mean by can? There certainly are that
Speaker 1: have But what do you mean by can? Do you
Speaker 1: believe that anybody has the normative authority to declare in
Speaker 1: church history at any point where, whenever or never, that
Speaker 1: there are these people that count as Christians and these
Speaker 1: people that don't, because it seems absurd to me, because
Speaker 1: you guys accept this authority amongst the Masons. But I'm
Speaker 1: gonna bet that historically you don't accept that there's any
Speaker 1: historical group that has that authority. I would say that
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ has that authority solely historically. Chase after Jesus
Speaker 1: and is of the Church. Do I believe that anybody
Speaker 1: has the authority to speak for God or the theology
Speaker 1: of what's true or not true? Does anybody in church
Speaker 1: history have the normous authority to declare who is and
Speaker 1: is not a part of this? You mean actually legitimately
Speaker 1: have the authority or those who have exercised that authority,
Speaker 1: Because yes, I could look at the Nice Council, I
Speaker 1: coul say, all right, they authority that they established this.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that they have the Norman authority to
Speaker 1: do that? You think they certain? Now, I don't really
Speaker 1: think that anybody has perfectly been able to speak for
Speaker 1: God since Jesus Christ. Okay, so notice that this is
Speaker 1: all back to prat slop subjectivism exactly like FDA interest
Speaker 1: and said it would go. Do you agree or do
Speaker 1: you have a different system?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 1: Loosely with that? Yeah. By the way, do do you
Speaker 1: accept the canon of Scripture? Now? The Canon of Scripture?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yes, sixty six book. Probably I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: know that it's relevant. I don't know that it's relevant,
Speaker 1: so it's not relevant. Probably I don't. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: a Christian, but probably I don't know.
Speaker 5: Doors open that you could, Yeah, that's funny.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of different ways this could have gone
Speaker 4: from here. Curious where they go with it.
Speaker 1: Who decides what books Bible? I'm asking you is the art?
Speaker 1: Because the fundamental question of the debate is whether or
Speaker 1: not freemasonry is compatible with Christianity. I want to know
Speaker 1: why it's not which branch of christian I want to
Speaker 1: know what you think Christianity is that's relevant. Well, I
Speaker 1: think Christianity is believe that Jesus Christ is the son
Speaker 1: of God. That's why. Is it not a fair question
Speaker 1: to ask if you believe in church history that anybody
Speaker 1: has the authorities? I be sitting here as a Muslim
Speaker 1: and having the same debate and making the same points.
Speaker 1: Irrelevant what my faith is serving my point? No, it's
Speaker 1: irrelevant what my faith is. How is it irrelevant to
Speaker 1: the question of whether or not Christianity is compatible with freemason.
Speaker 1: You could have two atheists having the same debate where
Speaker 1: once said Christianity is compatible with free meal to read
Speaker 1: another apea says it's not because you claim to be
Speaker 1: Christian and representing a form of Christianity that's compatible. I
Speaker 1: want to know what you think Christianity is real quick,
Speaker 1: really on just so I don't think this is actually
Speaker 1: swaying from the prompts, because it's it's actually really important
Speaker 1: whether or not you accept authority historically in the church
Speaker 1: or not. Because let's just say, for example, that you
Speaker 1: accept that the you know, the the emotional call they're
Speaker 1: putting together of the books in you know, whatever council
Speaker 1: that was. I can't think about this at right time
Speaker 1: right now, But nonetheless, there have been other declarations in
Speaker 1: the Church that freemasonry is to be condemned and you'll
Speaker 1: be excommunicated. So if you were to, you know, submit
Speaker 1: to authority in that sense, that'd be a direct contradiction
Speaker 1: to so freemasonry at the time. Now, I don't want,
Speaker 1: I'm sure make your point for you. I'm just trying
Speaker 1: to demonstrate that I think it actually ties into the
Speaker 1: debate prompt I'm making the argument again, let me make
Speaker 1: it very clear. I'm making the argument that it's ironic
Speaker 1: that these individuals will accept a decentralized authority about who's
Speaker 1: in and out of masonry, but when we ask them
Speaker 1: about Christianity, there's no actual authority or normtive authority within
Speaker 1: churches or to do anything like that. I think that's
Speaker 1: just absurd.
Speaker 2: Well, equating freemasonry with a religion as such as Christianity
Speaker 2: is absurd. That's the point that we're trying to make,
Speaker 2: and it a lot of lend. My christian beliefs aren't important,
Speaker 2: But we're not here to debate.
Speaker 1: What you says is christian was if you said in
Speaker 1: your opening savement you said Christianity is above your tie
Speaker 1: to the lodge, what we're tied? No, I said you did?
Speaker 1: You said that themersonally? You submit, You said that christ
Speaker 1: is above the duty to the brothers, of the duty
Speaker 1: of a mason to his own faith. Well not, my
Speaker 1: My duty is to Christ over the duty to the lodge. Right,
Speaker 1: that's my point exactly. Or you see you personally as them,
Speaker 1: or more broadly, as like all people.
Speaker 2: Just like any other. I'm a member of the National
Speaker 2: City Club. It's say private clause down talent vallsee quations. No,
Speaker 2: to equate that.
Speaker 1: To freemasonry is a totally totally fault to take your
Speaker 1: pick of any group. You know, those groups don't require
Speaker 1: a belief in generic monotheism. And well, I think yasol
Speaker 1: ex Anonymous is a good example. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: an organization that requires a belief in the Supreme Being
Speaker 1: in order to go through the twelve steps. It's part
Speaker 1: of the twelve steps. And if you're not, your organization
Speaker 1: is not just requiring belief in a generic theism as
Speaker 1: we've seen. As we actually suss that out, there's all
Speaker 1: of these other things that come into play, which is
Speaker 1: and I'm arguing that the rest of the ethos of
Speaker 1: that system and the teachings that you guys have is
Speaker 1: empathetical to Christianity. First of all, there is no such
Speaker 1: thing as generic theorism, and I'm illustrating that with the
Speaker 1: Satanic point. Yeah, and we sure Freemasonry doesn't add in
Speaker 1: the generic theism is true. It just accepts people of
Speaker 1: all face if they believe in it. It never makes
Speaker 1: a claim that this is even more absurd. So now
Speaker 1: the Supreme Being, the Higher Being, doesn't even have to
Speaker 1: be real. You just have to affirm the proposition that
Speaker 1: there's hire supreme Being. All faiths are equal, if we're
Speaker 1: all it's all the same God. Okay, So how do
Speaker 1: you reconcile the potent? Could I, for example, be a
Speaker 1: member of the Communist Party because they don't make any
Speaker 1: claims about anything. So let's say that there's a bunch
Speaker 1: of Marxist Communists and I say I'm a Christian Marxist.
Speaker 1: Is that does that make sense? I'm not following you. Sorry,
Speaker 1: He's asking if it's possibly a Christian ana marx Is
Speaker 1: it antithetical to be a Christian and a member of
Speaker 1: the Marxist party? I would say, so, okay, problem is
Speaker 1: it is it antithetical to be a member of a
Speaker 1: Gnostic sect and to be I'm sure there are examples
Speaker 1: of people that felt that they were Marxists and Christian.
Speaker 1: That's not what I might But my ask is it
Speaker 1: theologically compatible? At no oralism? I would say, no, okay,
Speaker 1: is it theologically sensible to be a Christian and a Gnostic?
Speaker 1: You know what, I think I might change my position.
Speaker 1: I'm not a communist by any means. I hate communism,
Speaker 1: but I think you could be a Christian and a
Speaker 1: Communist because I think that we all we all miss
Speaker 1: the mark.
Speaker 3: What does that have to do with whether it's theologically compatible?
Speaker 1: So you know, every time it comes back to the
Speaker 1: actual question, it hinges on their subjective feelings, not the
Speaker 1: actual objective argumentation.
Speaker 3: Tristan do you want to say something.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, it's just it's ridiculous because the whole debate.
Speaker 4: I mean, I guess you knew this going in because
Speaker 4: of the debate prompt you were just like, okay, this
Speaker 4: is this is kind of a.
Speaker 5: Softball because well, the debate is about whether freemasonry is
Speaker 5: compatible with Christianity. From for most Protestants, they can't even
Speaker 5: define who's a Christian, what's a Christian?
Speaker 4: There are no there are no.
Speaker 3: Boundaries, there's no landmarks. They talk about.
Speaker 5: Landmarkies to the body of Christ. It's just it's kind
Speaker 5: of up to them to decide.
Speaker 4: So it's so notice.
Speaker 1: Masonry has boundaries, landmarks and ran lodges that determine your
Speaker 1: regular and irregular status, but Christian energy doesn't have that.
Speaker 5: Hilarious Yeah, well, it's funny because masonry is kind of
Speaker 5: an artifact of a world before Protestantism became so boundary lists, right,
Speaker 5: I guess right. Protestantism didn't reach its logical conclusions yet,
Speaker 5: but masonry has maintained the traditions of that world, that
Speaker 5: reality of kind.
Speaker 4: Of pre Victorian Victorian elite.
Speaker 5: And they're like they're machinations and their pet not a humanism,
Speaker 5: a pet perennialism project, it maintained their tradition that Protestantism did.
Speaker 1: That's crazy, our time to be Christian. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: so many different ways that I think any of us
Speaker 1: could be pointed out, certainly in judgment the ways that
Speaker 1: we've behaved or acted or believed. That's hypocritical to the
Speaker 1: to the faith. And so I would say that if
Speaker 1: somebody really genuinely believes that Jesus Christ died rose again
Speaker 1: for the foraginness of all sins, and they happen to
Speaker 1: be of a communist persuasion, even though those philosophi are
Speaker 1: inherently incapatable, I can't really think of any political will
Speaker 1: have to be that's one hundred percent. Again, the question
Speaker 1: wasn't are there people who are deluded who join the
Speaker 1: Marxist Party and believe that they're Christians the art? The
Speaker 1: question was is it theologically consistent and compatible?
Speaker 3: So he doesn't. Again they don't.
Speaker 1: They never answer the question in terms of like whether
Speaker 1: it's objectively consistent.
Speaker 3: They keep going back to, well.
Speaker 1: Personally, I could believe that, and I could see a
Speaker 1: person becoming I'm not asking is it actually physically possible
Speaker 1: in history that a person thought they were a socialist
Speaker 1: and a Christian.
Speaker 3: The question is is it consistent.
Speaker 1: Growing with Christianity other than just Christianity. Is it possible
Speaker 1: to be a Gnostic and a Christian at the same time?
Speaker 1: Define Nasticism, the early Christian sect that teach the Gnostic
Speaker 1: teaching well Diile arsenal belief is gnarscissism.
Speaker 2: It's heretical, but I think I think a Gnostic would
Speaker 2: believe themselves to be.
Speaker 1: So you keep saying my personal beliefs. You don't think
Speaker 1: that it is objectively the case. You just think that
Speaker 1: it's subjective. So this is the Masonic might double He's
Speaker 1: say it's true because this is arsenal belief. Yeah, Darry, Well,
Speaker 1: they're protest not right, So I mean, are you the
Speaker 1: only so orthox and Catholics say different than I mean?
Speaker 1: Is ups to each Protestant to or decide that for themselves.
Speaker 1: You gave a different framework of a belief than you do.
Speaker 1: So again, like the initial argument that there's no authorities,
Speaker 1: which was qualified to be there are authorities in the
Speaker 1: sense of bodies who govern in the Masonic orders and
Speaker 1: decide who's in and who's out tells me again that
Speaker 1: what you find is at every point when you really
Speaker 1: boil into what they mean, it gets redefined to be
Speaker 1: the very thing that they initially said. And the sales
Speaker 1: pitch is not that right. So the sales pitch is
Speaker 1: it's a free thinking society of men building a better
Speaker 1: world to make men better. What is the standard by
Speaker 1: which you judge and know what makes something better or good?
Speaker 1: What's the value judgment there? You know that's a good question.
Speaker 1: I don't know that it's explicit. There are certainly opinions,
Speaker 1: there's certainly a culture. It's relative, but it's not arguing
Speaker 1: for relativism. It's arguing for everybody pursuing the best version
Speaker 1: of themselves without making so many explicit claims to what
Speaker 1: that relative. Let me ask you this, Jay, would you
Speaker 1: say that Lutheranism is incompatible with Christianity? We don't recognize
Speaker 1: Lutheranism as Christianity. Okay, what about out any form of Protestantism,
Speaker 1: whether it's Baptist, Church of Christ, just not christian.
Speaker 3: This is an emotional appeal.
Speaker 1: So Chase goes into just appealing to the audience that
Speaker 1: if I'm not a humanist, then I'm mean so I
Speaker 1: think I called this out as an emotional appeal to
Speaker 1: Christian name, but not authentically. Okay.
Speaker 4: So the thing when the debate we had with them,
Speaker 4: and he was like, do you, uh, what do you.
Speaker 7: Orthodox believe that Roman Catholics worship the same God is?
Speaker 4: And I was like, I'm trying to be chitable.
Speaker 3: If he pushed me, probably not.
Speaker 4: And they use that as an emotional like.
Speaker 3: Me, they are, Yeah, but that's what.
Speaker 5: They're doing is opening the audience to question the absurdity
Speaker 5: of Protestantism and the I mean, he.
Speaker 4: Made a great point earlier, and he brought out that they're.
Speaker 5: More clear dogmas and boundaries to freemasonry than they're already
Speaker 5: even the most Protestant conception of what who Christ is
Speaker 5: and the christ Church. So it's it's an insane position
Speaker 5: to take, you know what I was thinking too, I mean,
Speaker 5: just at like a spiritual and psychological and a psycho
Speaker 5: spiritual level, I wonder, you know, part of the appeal
Speaker 5: of masonry almost seems to be it's like the the
Speaker 5: aesthetics of liturgy that masonry has adopted, because masonry and
Speaker 5: the rights and freemasonry are very liturgically, they're like shadowing
Speaker 5: liturgical practices and the hierarchy of you know, the worshipful.
Speaker 3: Master that comes up later.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, it's aping liturgical practices. So you know,
Speaker 4: it's kind of brought us just me. That's natural for
Speaker 4: human beings that we all want the liturgy. We're all
Speaker 4: we all want Christ, the fullness of Christ, and uh,
Speaker 4: the lack of that in.
Speaker 5: The Protestant world would maybe even lead a lot of
Speaker 5: people to try and join Masonry to discratch that age.
Speaker 3: So whole thime access for five dollars?
Speaker 1: Could the Masons have an argument if they said the
Speaker 1: Orthodoxy doesn't have a central structure or a pope either. Now,
Speaker 1: the question is not about a centralized authority versus no authority.
Speaker 3: The question is are there authorities at all? I don't
Speaker 3: care if you think.
Speaker 1: It's a decentralized body of regional grand lodges or whether
Speaker 1: you think that there is one pope. It's not a
Speaker 1: question of any kind of authority. It's a question of
Speaker 1: are you actually bound by authorities? And thus, if you are,
Speaker 1: that violates the idea that there are no authorities and
Speaker 1: I'm not bound by anything in my conscience. That's that's
Speaker 1: the point. Jay r Do you want to say some John,
Speaker 1: do you want to say something?
Speaker 7: Well, no, everything you guys have been seen as really
Speaker 7: good in regards to the commentary.
Speaker 4: But like at the time of of when when Mazzini
Speaker 4: is coming into there's like, like, I.
Speaker 7: Don't understand how Masons can't understand that they're all organized
Speaker 7: under something directly against the Catholic Church, right, so they're
Speaker 7: asking for no authority, no central authority, but then they
Speaker 7: themselves are going to be the new central authority. It
Speaker 7: seems very simple philosophically now, but these guys don't seem
Speaker 7: to recognize that that's an organizing force around the world,
Speaker 7: whether it's a French Revolution or you know subsequent Jacobin things.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, they move the goalpost to make it about
Speaker 1: whether it's a centralized authority. I don't care the original
Speaker 1: statement was. And even even Pike says this Masonry has
Speaker 1: no authorities. I'm arguing that they contradict. I don't know
Speaker 1: why this is so hard for these people to understand.
Speaker 1: It's just like the Mason mind f because I know
Speaker 1: Albert Pike says that there's no dogmas and they're freethinkers.
Speaker 1: But I'm arguing that that contradicts the idea that you
Speaker 1: have to believe in these basic dogmas as Chase admit it.
Speaker 3: That's the contradiction. That's the argument.
Speaker 1: I'm not asking does some Masons somewhere say you don't
Speaker 1: have to believe in any dogmas? Or is there a
Speaker 1: centralized pope of the Masons. I never I said that.
Speaker 1: That was never the argument. Only legitimate authentic Christians, in
Speaker 1: your point of view, are Greek Orthodox, No any Orthodox,
Speaker 1: any Orthodoxcuse me, I'm not trying to put words in
Speaker 1: your mouth. Okay, So if you are not an Orthodox Christian,
Speaker 1: even if you think that you're going to a Christian
Speaker 1: church or you're a Christian, you're not legitimately a Christian.
Speaker 1: You're either the mistake in or fallen or Okay, how
Speaker 1: is that incompatible with I'm not making a claim. I
Speaker 1: just wanted to appoint a ortorical point to make me
Speaker 1: seem like the dogmatists and you guys are the freethinkers,
Speaker 1: which is why I frehemptively argue at the beginning that
Speaker 1: they're actually dogmentis and non freethinker. Yeah, we can. We've
Speaker 1: we've talked a lot about like what we're not in
Speaker 1: all this, but I'm happy to just talk about what
Speaker 1: we are. You can call it dogma if you's a
Speaker 1: sales pitch, I'm sales. The audience here and Jade does
Speaker 1: not believe that you're Christian unless you're Orthodox. Yeah. So
Speaker 1: so again, this was a rhetorical It's not an argument,
Speaker 1: it's a rhetorical. This cider an appeal to the audience fallacy.
Speaker 1: I want everybody to know that. Yeah, all right, let
Speaker 1: me ask you this, and let me ask you a
Speaker 1: little bit different question. Can you anyone who just like
Speaker 1: to know you believe? Can you be well, what's an example,
Speaker 1: like another secular organization. Can you be a member of
Speaker 1: the Green Party and a Christian? Or is the Green
Speaker 1: Party incompatible with Christianity? The Libertarian Party? How about another example?
Speaker 1: Can you be a formal member dou is paying member
Speaker 1: whatever of the Libertary Party?
Speaker 3: And is that compatible?
Speaker 1: Is your question is a false analogy comparing it to
Speaker 1: the Masonic Society, which I do not accept and do
Speaker 1: not grant is a non theological society or argument is
Speaker 1: premised on that, And the whole opening twenty minutes demonstrated
Speaker 1: that you guys are theologically inclined. You just act like
Speaker 1: you're not. So it's a false equivalence. What is it?
Speaker 1: A Masonic lodge is not like the Green Party because
Speaker 1: the Masonic loge requires theological beliefs, even though you say
Speaker 1: you don't. They just really, where is a belief in
Speaker 1: a supreme being?
Speaker 4: Though?
Speaker 1: If it is a compatible blow it, it's a compatible
Speaker 1: belief No with Christianity because a Chayandia also has this
Speaker 1: da Notice what he just did there. He said we
Speaker 1: only require belief in a supreme authority when we already
Speaker 1: saw in the first thirty minutes that he qualified that
Speaker 1: to say, well, you can't be a satanis and you
Speaker 1: got believe that. So there's all these other things. That's
Speaker 1: a sales pitch when they say it's just this one
Speaker 1: thing you have to believe, then they turn around and
Speaker 1: qualify it with a giant paragraph of all the other
Speaker 1: things that you can't be and have to believe. It's inconsistent.
Speaker 1: That's the point. You don't see that argument. No, Hell,
Speaker 1: come on, dude, I don't one dogma that's then qualified
Speaker 1: by giant paragraph of actually what it really means. It's
Speaker 1: not one dogma, that's not a wat I'm sorry, it's
Speaker 1: not one dogma, one dogma. It's not just one dogma,
Speaker 1: very few dogmas. Okay, So moving the goal post is
Speaker 1: what we call the Yeah. So, so I think I
Speaker 1: think that was a pretty good gotcha there, right, like,
Speaker 1: and then we're about to shift into I think DJ
Speaker 1: is about to shift it into something different. There's like
Speaker 1: quires membership.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, go ahead, Ryan, Yeah, I'll call a sales pitch.
Speaker 1: However you want to frame it, you can do that.
Speaker 1: It's just the truth.
Speaker 2: I said the simple version was nothing, and then I
Speaker 2: said there's more to it than that, and then we
Speaker 2: can get into it later. There's no attempt to hide
Speaker 2: or it's it's a simplification for the matter of debate, it's.
Speaker 1: Moving the goal post. That's not simplification. We'll call it.
Speaker 1: Which one's a fallacy and one's lanning.
Speaker 2: There's lots of belief beefs and teachings within masonry. There's
Speaker 2: few requirements or dogmas, one of which is this belief
Speaker 2: in a supreme being to whom Tennessee might be worded
Speaker 2: differently in other jurisdictions.
Speaker 4: A fallacy either because we can't truly objective to know.
Speaker 1: Anything earlier, Well, he did he seemed to not care
Speaker 1: about fallacies, So I think you're right, like, he doesn't
Speaker 1: care if it's a fallacier and I call whatever you want, Well,
Speaker 1: calling it a fallacy is really important.
Speaker 2: If it is a fallacy, Tennessee, you have to be
Speaker 2: a of lawful age, which we require eighteen some jurisdictions.
Speaker 2: It's twenty one. He can't be a female, he can't
Speaker 2: be an atheist. You have to be a sound mind.
Speaker 2: We say, he can't be an old man in dotage,
Speaker 2: which is essentially you know, you have to batge your
Speaker 2: moral fact but Joe by, don't you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, can be Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: So yeah, there's some base level requirements. And then as
Speaker 2: we are interviewing people, we try to discover your moral characters,
Speaker 2: so to speak. And you know that can be subjective.
Speaker 2: I would suppose you know, we're not experts in that,
Speaker 2: but we we do our best in trying to figure
Speaker 2: out who are as the individual. For me at least,
Speaker 2: I would say, you know, if you're a Satanist, don't
Speaker 2: meet their requirements. If you're a Communist, I would say
Speaker 2: that would also, Yeah, I meet there is it up
Speaker 2: to you. It's up to the individual. Lodge and it's
Speaker 2: a nanotus boat. So yeah, in some ways, if only
Speaker 2: one one I could accept the Satan, that's another one
Speaker 2: could in Its theoretically possible. But I've been a Mason
Speaker 2: for eighteen years now, I know thousands of Masons.
Speaker 1: I've never met a.
Speaker 2: Boyn isn't that it's it's it's a could I lodge
Speaker 2: let someone in who shouldn't get in? Yesn't see. The
Speaker 2: question is how do you determine what good moral character is?
Speaker 2: What's the standard and chasea that's a good question. So
Speaker 2: if this is a society based around ethics and values
Speaker 2: and value judgments, those are metaphysical ethical claims.
Speaker 1: I want to know what the good is. How do
Speaker 1: we determine the good? I think that's up to It's
Speaker 1: up to you with your relationship with God. Okay, but
Speaker 1: your other Massonic brothers can be Hindus who determine the
Speaker 1: good according to Hinduism, right, Yeah, there's a situation in
Speaker 1: which that is. Yeah, okay, So how do we know
Speaker 1: what the good is? It sounds relatives. Again, I don't
Speaker 1: know that Freemasonry makes a claim as to which of
Speaker 1: those persuasions is correct. Then how are you going to
Speaker 1: be Howard matter and good men better if you don't
Speaker 1: even know whether Hinduism is better than Protestanism or not.
Speaker 2: Because it doesn't make those claims in the context of
Speaker 2: like past the Salvation. When it comes to our system,
Speaker 2: like you asked, how do we make good and better?
Speaker 2: We do have moral and philosophical teachings which are what
Speaker 2: based on what philosophy and morals that are brought in
Speaker 2: that are ar to Russells, Well, I'm a least let
Speaker 2: me answer, and I'll just tell you that's easy.
Speaker 1: You can just quick cut me off and on said
Speaker 1: berge at Russell's philosophy or ET's philosophy.
Speaker 3: Like a lot of you what I say, you can't
Speaker 3: you can't hear.
Speaker 7: This is bizarre because like my dad was a Protestant
Speaker 7: minister and he hated premasons because of this exact thing.
Speaker 7: Like it everything that they're claiming as a Protestant is
Speaker 7: like the masonics of circumvents scripture.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, paradigm.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's there's two different It divides you against yourself, right,
Speaker 1: and this is really the idea of the public private
Speaker 1: divide that America has. Right you can have your private religion.
Speaker 1: Just don't let us spill over into the public sphere
Speaker 1: the whole. That's what that that is a Masonic idea,
Speaker 1: tell you so, Uh, we teach the four Carnal virtues for.
Speaker 5: This is people that are involved in politics as well,
Speaker 5: because it's like, well, you know politics, this is a
Speaker 5: game of optics. It's a game of presentations, a game
Speaker 5: of convincing people that have compromised and that's separate from
Speaker 5: my spiritual life.
Speaker 3: Exactly.
Speaker 4: You get problems on both ends of that of.
Speaker 3: That that divice exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, to be produced temperance and justice. Why are we
Speaker 1: supposed to accept those like this is what we teach? Okay,
Speaker 1: but why are we supposed to think that's right? You
Speaker 1: don't really have to Well, do they make a clai
Speaker 1: relatives's a back to best of what we've been thinking about.
Speaker 1: Do they make a claim that that's right or is
Speaker 1: it just that's part of the group and if you
Speaker 1: want to join it, so be it.
Speaker 2: Well we teach that these Yeah, that those are right.
Speaker 2: We tell you, just did the you know, the seven
Speaker 2: Liberal Arts and sciences are the way to make your ape,
Speaker 2: way to make yourself a better man.
Speaker 1: Trivia. I'm starting to now all of the Masonic conspiracies now,
Speaker 1: because there's no way that this sect could have actually
Speaker 1: organized any meaning full revolution in history. It's a joke.
Speaker 1: It's a joke. It's just a joke. Yeah. I made
Speaker 1: Chase really mad with that joke because I was arguing
Speaker 1: that these guys are too dumb to actually have organized
Speaker 1: any real revolutions that were ever successful. This is the
Speaker 1: point where Chase gets Chase gets really mad at me,
Speaker 1: and he just starts like he's just seething, staring at me.
Speaker 3: And I thought after this he was going to leave.
Speaker 1: Rather get mad now. So I'm not angry. I just
Speaker 1: don't have a response. No, that's you asked for us
Speaker 1: to answer a question. We start to ask you. Do
Speaker 1: you think that you have to be full You mentioned
Speaker 1: philosophy that you have to be philosophically consistent in your argumentation.
Speaker 1: Sure you have to be for what to be a
Speaker 1: Mason and a debate. Yeah, yeah, I think that that
Speaker 1: would be ideal. Yeah, okay, So can I make fallacious
Speaker 1: arguments against Masonry? Would you call it out? Were calling out?
Speaker 1: Thank you? So when you guys make bad arguments and
Speaker 1: I ask you what the standard of the good is
Speaker 1: and you say it's just these virtues, and then you
Speaker 1: say that I hits just these virtues.
Speaker 2: Okay, it is those and more, it's part of it,
Speaker 2: and Laura, yeah, it's a lot to it.
Speaker 1: And then you say that a Hindu can be in
Speaker 1: and he can have his system, and this other guy
Speaker 1: over here can be a Protestant and whatever. That's the
Speaker 1: point is that there is no standard of good by
Speaker 1: which you're making good men better. It's arbitrary, and I
Speaker 1: can't figure out how am I going to be a
Speaker 1: philosophically better man. We're going to make good men better
Speaker 1: if there's no standard of what makes men good, if
Speaker 1: it's subjective, and you allow satanic demonic people like Hindus
Speaker 1: they have a Satanic religion, if they're allowed to come
Speaker 1: in and say that, well, my standard of good is
Speaker 1: to worship Shiva. I can be can be a Thuggie
Speaker 1: and be amazing tumble of doom. They didn't know what
Speaker 1: thuggies were. I made a temple of doom joke, which
Speaker 1: is like the you know, human sacrifice sect of Hinduism,
Speaker 1: which by the way, was there was a real human
Speaker 1: sacrifice sect. And then that they act like in order
Speaker 1: to skirt the joke, they act like, I don't know,
Speaker 1: you never watched Temple of Doom. I don't know what
Speaker 1: that is. It's a joke. I don't know.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't have.
Speaker 3: You don't know the Thuggies.
Speaker 1: Dude, I grew up watching I've watched Temple of Doom
Speaker 1: probably five hundred times.
Speaker 4: That was my favorite.
Speaker 3: Well that's just that's just that's that's on you.
Speaker 4: The Hassions. It's going to lead you to the Thuggies.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, Like there's all kinds of monotheistic or well,
Speaker 1: I mean again, I look, the best argument here is
Speaker 1: they allow Hindus in. Okay, Hindus believe in just absolutely
Speaker 1: demonic stuff, like so you're gonna make good Hindus better
Speaker 1: with Christians together.
Speaker 3: It's just so stupid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, nobody's seen Temple of Dream. It's in compatible with Christianity. Okay.
Speaker 1: By the way, the other thing that's bad about this
Speaker 1: recording is there was like ten times the audience was
Speaker 1: cracking up. And that's another reason why they got mad.
Speaker 1: Because when I made the joke about there's no way
Speaker 1: these guys could organize a successful revolution, the audience laugh
Speaker 1: really hard and that's what made Chase really mad.
Speaker 3: But you can't hear any the audience laughing on this.
Speaker 1: All right, this is a let's pivot for a second
Speaker 1: and talk about oaths. This is an interesting topic because
Speaker 1: in Freemasonry you have to take odes. I don't want
Speaker 1: to speak for you, guys, but my understanding is that's
Speaker 1: the case. And I want to read a Bible verse
Speaker 1: from James five twelve, which says, above all my brothers
Speaker 1: and sisters do not swear, not by heaven or earth
Speaker 1: or anything else. All you need to say is a
Speaker 1: simple yes or no, otherwise you will be condemned. Now,
Speaker 1: I'll just take it over to the Masons here. Either
Speaker 1: of you guys can pick this up. But how do
Speaker 1: you interpret that verse and also take oaths on your
Speaker 1: journey assent in freemasonry?
Speaker 2: To ahead Ryan, Yeah, so my interpretation doesn't come from Freemasonry.
Speaker 1: That's just what I was taught. That person is all right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna skip this because this is not even a
Speaker 1: contentious point. This is just kind of a Protestant, like
Speaker 1: you know, Quaker Baptist thing like can you take oaths?
Speaker 1: And I'm like, yeah, of course, we don't think that
Speaker 1: all oaths are wrong. You take an oath when you
Speaker 1: get married. So I'm just gonna skip this part because
Speaker 1: there wasn't really much there. So quick clarifying question is
Speaker 1: what is the principle by which an oath goes too far?
Speaker 1: In the Forum of James five twelve, So like if
Speaker 1: you were to say, it's where to God, I'll be
Speaker 1: there tomorrow on time, that's a good example. But do
Speaker 1: you have like a prince, So what is the like
Speaker 1: sorting principle for the two things? You know, where it's
Speaker 1: good or bad? Is there an aligned the sand or
Speaker 1: is it just kind of a well, I think yeah,
Speaker 1: it's good. Ques what oaths that are required on his person.
Speaker 1: What I argue is that oaths are not the issue.
Speaker 1: It's rather the blood oaths that masonry requires. Here at
Speaker 1: all you have to do is say yes or no,
Speaker 1: you actually agree with all that. I don't take any
Speaker 1: issue with any of that. I would say that, you know,
Speaker 1: obviously we take oaths. If you go to court, you
Speaker 1: lay your hand on the Bible and you take an oath.
Speaker 1: You know, was any problem with that? I don't think
Speaker 1: we've ever had a problem with that. We take an
Speaker 1: oath in marriage as they pointed out, but I would
Speaker 1: say that the what oaths that are required for masonry
Speaker 1: might be problematic. My blood oath like the blood spill roads.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, you don't play what your oads mean? Well,
Speaker 1: I hear the blood oath I think of, and maybe I'm
Speaker 1: just totally wrong about this, so please clarify. I think
Speaker 1: of like somebody actually cutting their hand open, and there's
Speaker 1: blood involved in the oath. I mean, don't you take
Speaker 1: an oath to have your throats lit? Shouldlah blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah happen? So there's penalties in these obligations.
Speaker 3: And then they don't want to talk about this is funny.
Speaker 2: Uh, we won't discuss the specifics of those allegations.
Speaker 1: Ah. Interesting, Why does any want to discuss the specifics
Speaker 1: of the blood oath? Yeah?
Speaker 2: You can laugh at that, you know, Uh you can.
Speaker 2: You can go find them online if you want. You know,
Speaker 2: if you can find them online, on you and I
Speaker 2: would well, I'll explain. I will simply say that if
Speaker 2: you believe those are literal oaths, maybe may your claim
Speaker 2: maybe you interpreted symbolic. That's why I said, depending upon
Speaker 2: how one interprets those oaths, now, I know that there
Speaker 2: have been cases like the William Morgan affair where it
Speaker 2: was not interpreted as purely symbolic. Maybe you guys nowadays
Speaker 2: don't hold to that. So I don't want to be
Speaker 2: unfair to you. I would steal men your position, But I.
Speaker 1: Mean, like, uh, you know, in your in your rights
Speaker 1: for example, and you can correct me if this is wrong.
Speaker 1: The Royal Arts Degree, you reveal that the true name
Speaker 1: of God is jab Bulan yahweh bail and on. So
Speaker 1: that's in your liturgies, that's your rights and your rituals.
Speaker 1: That's not your theologians or your speculators. Here. I don't
Speaker 1: see how that any Christian would literally think that the
Speaker 1: name of God is Jabalon and then say that this
Speaker 1: is not a theological society. And I can interpret this
Speaker 1: however I want. It just doesn't make any sense. I
Speaker 1: would argue that Freemasonry never makes a claim as to
Speaker 1: what the real name, true Daum of God is. I mean,
Speaker 1: is that part of the Royal Arts Degree. I don't
Speaker 1: believe so. And the York right capitular side doesn't have
Speaker 1: the name Jabulan. I do not believe that freemasonring claims
Speaker 1: to define the name of God explicitly correct. So notice
Speaker 1: that this was part of the Royal Arts degree until
Speaker 1: it was removed by English Grand Lodge Chapters in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty nine. So this is not true according to them
Speaker 1: saying they may not have known this, right, but it
Speaker 1: was part of the ritual. So that you're saying that
Speaker 1: is not part of the Royal Arts degree in the
Speaker 1: York Right's capitular side. It's been a long time since
Speaker 1: I've seen that degree. But yes, that is what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: all right, So everybody note this, because he's making a
Speaker 1: claim that I think he's I don't have the whole
Speaker 1: liturgy in front of me of their rights, but I
Speaker 1: don't think that's that that's true. But when you go
Speaker 1: into lodge and I see, for example, that there's the floor,
Speaker 1: and that there's the Jacob and Boaz and all this
Speaker 1: temple symbolism, how is all of this Old Testament temple
Speaker 1: stuff not religious? What's what's your definition of religious? Well,
Speaker 1: you told me and you said that it's not a religion,
Speaker 1: it's a philosophy. Yet when I walk into a lodge,
Speaker 1: it's a celestial vision into the heavens and the stars,
Speaker 1: and there's Jacin and Boaz, which is out of the
Speaker 1: Old Testament. It's the temple we just by the way
Speaker 1: toured the I see what you're saying, Jay, that there
Speaker 1: are certainly elements of Freemasonry that are derived from religion
Speaker 1: and specifically Knxalis Semple Jacobo and has all that stuff. Yes,
Speaker 1: but it's not a religion, it's a philosophy. Correct these
Speaker 1: does the stream cut out for a second?
Speaker 3: Is it back? It looks like maybe it's backwards.
Speaker 2: The symbols, the entire name Freemasons comes from stone mason guilds.
Speaker 2: We use the tools of masons, We use the story
Speaker 2: of the building of King Solomon's temple to teach certain
Speaker 2: moral and philosophical This is.
Speaker 1: Where they also really begin to falter because I started
Speaker 1: pointing out all the religious theological symbology everywhere in masonry.
Speaker 1: As they say, it's nothing to do with religion.
Speaker 2: Principles, you know, just because we have a story out
Speaker 2: of the Old Testament or the pillars they were outside
Speaker 2: of I.
Speaker 1: Mean just a story. Or is every element of the
Speaker 1: lodge in some ways symbolic metaphysical realities like the tile
Speaker 1: floor and the dualities in nature and Jacob and Boaz
Speaker 1: the two pillars from the temple, Is it not, for example,
Speaker 1: based on Kabbala. The has elements of Kabala, some relations
Speaker 1: and masonry. So again, the ambiguity in the term it's
Speaker 1: just a philosophy not a religion, is ambiguous precisely because
Speaker 1: you can elastically remove how far you want to make
Speaker 1: religion and theology. When again, I think this whole discussion
Speaker 1: has shown that there's all kinds of theological positions and
Speaker 1: principles replete throughout, not just the Certainly theological positions and
Speaker 1: principles are are brought forth, but for the sake of contemplation,
Speaker 1: not so much as for the sake of making a
Speaker 1: claim as to their.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we don't I'm not a cabolist just because there's elements.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But the point is not are you a cabolist?
Speaker 1: The point is that it's not just a philosophy, it's
Speaker 1: replete with theological meaning. Do you think the religions contain philosophy? Yeah,
Speaker 1: but that's not the question. The question is is free
Speaker 1: Mason is just a philosophy? If they do contain philosophy,
Speaker 1: we can't pull this Pallas because it's a parts whole fallacy.
Speaker 1: I'm arguing against your position that you said it's just
Speaker 1: a philosophy. I didn't claim that there's no overlap between
Speaker 1: religion and philosophy. You said it's just a philosophy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I said that we pull from those philosophies from
Speaker 1: different religions. So it's but then it's a religious that
Speaker 1: also a religious group. No, how is it not. I
Speaker 1: don't understand how it is religious just because certain elements
Speaker 1: of Freemasonry. He your literature, you Freemasonry rituals include give
Speaker 1: the name of God in secret tetragrammaton. It's obviously religious.
Speaker 1: What are you talking about? And then you're casting it
Speaker 1: as it's not religious, it's just a bunch of bros.
Speaker 1: And we're whatever, Like, no, you're actually doing religious based rituals.
Speaker 1: I think that you can have you can have ceremonies, rituals, initiations,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call them, that have elements derived
Speaker 1: from religions without making any explicit, explicit religious claims. But
Speaker 1: two already made a bunch of explicit religious claims in
Speaker 1: the first hour, just like this is I hope everybody
Speaker 1: sees this right now, they're going back to the whole
Speaker 1: thing that it took an hour to establish. Right, God exists, No,
Speaker 1: and then you qualified it to say it's not just
Speaker 1: God exists. Actually, in fact, that was the point. I'm
Speaker 1: not following. Oka, Yeah you are, you just don't want
Speaker 1: to do. I have a question here. So it's the
Speaker 1: temple part aside. If I'm not sure exactly what you're
Speaker 1: referencing with the jab Balon thing, If there's an explicit
Speaker 1: claim on God itself, which is it seems like that's
Speaker 1: what's Jane and sinuating that does seem like that would
Speaker 1: be in violation of some pretty core Christian principles. What
Speaker 1: is the actually can you just flesh out what that
Speaker 1: is and have them So I'm trying to find their
Speaker 1: actual older did you know this reference? What is jab Alon?
Speaker 1: I'm not okay, ye, I'm not familiar with that. You
Speaker 1: This is in every Masonic book by the way, this like,
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe they don't know what it is, but
Speaker 1: it's also very convenient for them to not know what
Speaker 1: it is when it's pretty well known. So it's the
Speaker 1: older Royal arch Masonry rituals which include the term jab Bulon,
Speaker 1: which is supposedly the lost sacred name of God. And
Speaker 1: by the way, it's not just some Internet side and
Speaker 1: it's also I mean, the name of God is a
Speaker 1: huge issue that Albert Mackie as an example, not an authority,
Speaker 1: as an example, says that finding out who the name
Speaker 1: of God is and what the name of God is,
Speaker 1: he says, is very important to Mason's because he must
Speaker 1: be determined through a Cabbalistic Zohar based interpretation. Ooh, I
Speaker 1: thought it wasn't religious. The whole religion is based, the
Speaker 1: whole philosophy of Mastream is based around the name of God,
Speaker 1: the Tetragrammaton and interpreting it in a Kabbalistic Zohar sense.
Speaker 1: And he says, if you want to know where to
Speaker 1: look at this, he says, look to the Talmut and
Speaker 1: the Zohar. So again, the Tetragrammaton is, according to him,
Speaker 1: the male and female principles of nature, the generative and
Speaker 1: prolific energies of creation. So this is all metaphysical theological speculation.
Speaker 1: And then they're saying that, no, it's just a philosophy,
Speaker 1: it's just the symbols and you can maybe crafted into
Speaker 1: whatever you want. Where do you get the idea that
Speaker 1: you can take all the symbols of Solomon's Temple and
Speaker 1: craft them into anything that you want. To me, that's preposterous.
Speaker 2: I don't think we're crafting them into anything that we want.
Speaker 2: We're very specific on what those symbols mean.
Speaker 1: To I thought you said that I can if I'm
Speaker 1: a Hindu, let me just let me provide something I'm
Speaker 1: a Hindu and context, you know. So remember they said
Speaker 1: you could be Hindu and it mean what you want
Speaker 1: to us Indo, but they don't want to go there.
Speaker 1: If you look at masony throughout history, there was operative
Speaker 1: masonry that it became speculative. I think that the reason
Speaker 1: King Solomon's Temple is such a landmark, for lack of
Speaker 1: a better term, in freemasonry is because it's like one
Speaker 1: of the most famous historical examples of architecture and the
Speaker 1: principles of masonry being applied from an operative standpoint. And
Speaker 1: so I think when the craft was crafted, it was
Speaker 1: used as like a setting and a frame of reference
Speaker 1: and a keystone to develop the symbolic philosophy of the fraternity. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you keep saying philosophy to make it not religious
Speaker 1: and theological, when all of this is religious theological and
Speaker 1: then you're removing the context and saying, well, they're just
Speaker 1: really personal symbols. For example, all masonry says it is
Speaker 1: the job of masonry, as far as I'm aware, to quote,
Speaker 1: rebuild the Temple of Solomon. In you guys debate what's
Speaker 1: not true. I've never heard that, never heard that before. Correct,
Speaker 1: it is the job. Say it again.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Notice they immediately jumped on this to not let me
Speaker 1: finish what I was going to say. Yes, I was
Speaker 1: about to say, whether you interpret that symbolically or literally,
Speaker 1: rebuilding the Third Temple, it is the goal and the
Speaker 1: job of masonry to rebuild the Temple of Solomon. I
Speaker 1: disagree with that. Okay, So we just went to the
Speaker 1: giant Masonic Monument in DC. I put this up and
Speaker 1: you can find this very easily, and by the way,
Speaker 1: most of these Masonic authors that I have here, I'll
Speaker 1: say that the job of the mason is to rebuild
Speaker 1: the Temple of Solomon. You got that quote? Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: So when we went to the Alexandria Monument, we got
Speaker 1: a walk through from the historian at the Alexandria Monument,
Speaker 1: and Jamie, you were there. Did the guy not say
Speaker 1: that it is the job of the mason to rebuild
Speaker 1: the Temple of Solomon. Thank you, because that is what
Speaker 1: he said. Now you could disagree with that. Perhaps that's
Speaker 1: something that individual masons day and it's not actually a
Speaker 1: normative teaching. So so you think it is a goal
Speaker 1: or job of masonry to physically rebuild. I thought that's
Speaker 1: what I'm asking. No, you believe that that is unknown
Speaker 1: in its turn. You may be that that is unknown
Speaker 1: in terms of what it signifies, but that spiritually and
Speaker 1: morally it's crafting the temple of the individual mason to
Speaker 1: be a better person. That's that was what it was
Speaker 1: explained to us at the temple. Now you disagree with that,
Speaker 1: I've never heard that frame is rebuilding the temple now, Yeah,
Speaker 1: totally not true. You find this all throughout Masonic literature
Speaker 1: all over the place. So this really kind of pissed
Speaker 1: me off when they acted like they've never heard this.
Speaker 2: The act of improving yourself, we do take the symbolism
Speaker 2: of temple building physical.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: This was the point I make you notice he didn't
Speaker 1: let me finish to make it seem like I was
Speaker 1: saying that they're all trying to build the Temple in Israel,
Speaker 1: which is not what I was. What I'm playing is freemasonry,
Speaker 1: and then we use those So he just admitted the
Speaker 1: very thing that I was saying. That's why I said.
Speaker 1: That's what I was saying, dude, right here.
Speaker 2: Now, the act of improving yourself, we do take the
Speaker 2: symbolism of temple building physical. What I'm paying is it, well, freemasonry,
Speaker 2: and then we use those same working tools on building ourselves.
Speaker 2: We're not building physical temples anymore. We're building ourselves, I know,
Speaker 2: We're not rebuilding.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that's the last plane of Organs. So obviously
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that you think you're gonna go really
Speaker 1: literally rebuild the temple Solomon. You're saying that thought, Well, you.
Speaker 2: Kind of made that claim and some not tonight, But
Speaker 2: in the previous.
Speaker 1: Art, no, I argue that maybe that is what you got.
Speaker 2: You basically like acted like they were some Zionist organization
Speaker 2: that wants to rebuild the Third Temple. That was your
Speaker 2: claim that you've made in previous step. I meeting to
Speaker 2: it now. But freemasonry is bound up with Judaism, you
Speaker 2: don't you don't think so it has Judaism in it
Speaker 2: bound other demming and ing up with Judaism. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's just going to fill a lot, but none of
Speaker 2: ballish it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, Christianity is not bound up with Judaism. That's false.
Speaker 1: I didn't.
Speaker 2: We didn't make that claim you're saying to it. But
Speaker 2: because we did not always Christianity it's not I'm saying
Speaker 2: that just because something contains Judaism does not make it Judy.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is, then you guys, through people like Maki,
Speaker 2: say go read the Zohar and the Talmud, and that's
Speaker 2: where you're gonna get the secrets of who God is.
Speaker 2: That's wherebeneck theology that is not ancient. I was certainly
Speaker 2: disgrae Macki in that that writing. What do you agree
Speaker 2: with the disagree that our'p to when he says to
Speaker 2: similar similar things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, I do. And you disagree with Harvard scholars
Speaker 1: like William Green who write books about masonryes ethos being
Speaker 1: Jewish Cabbalah, Yes, I do it so notice, but it
Speaker 1: really is seemingly a thing that you can make it
Speaker 1: into whatever you want it to be. Because when we
Speaker 1: bring up the actual Judaic ethos of it, and you
Speaker 1: don't find the emphasis on Christianity, except perhaps in later
Speaker 1: versions of the York Right. Masonry downplays the deed of Christ,
Speaker 1: and it downplays the specifics of Christianity, which you saw
Speaker 1: Chase do when he asked me if I was a
Speaker 1: dogmatist and I only belie the Orthodox he was true.
Speaker 1: They downplayed the specifics and the absolutes, as Albert Pipe says,
Speaker 1: because their whole society is based around syncretism and the
Speaker 1: idea that all the religions are just mass of one
Speaker 1: ultimate God. But you can also be a Christian, but
Speaker 1: that's again like joining together with ecumenists or Freemasons. Those
Speaker 1: positions are antithetical to the absolutes of Christianity. So and
Speaker 1: Chase says that he believes in Jesus. What Jesus, the
Speaker 1: historical Jesus that the church teaches, or the Jesus that
Speaker 1: you've decided in the Protestant Bible, the real one, the
Speaker 1: Son of God, the Messiah. Is he the one that
Speaker 1: the Council of Nicea defines, He's the one that died
Speaker 1: on the cross and roads again, okay, but what historical
Speaker 1: body actually preserved of those teachings and put together that Bible. Matthew,
Speaker 1: Mark Luke and John the Yeah, and they the Bible together. No,
Speaker 1: I understand they didn't put the whole Bible together. Who
Speaker 1: did well? Was Constantine? Right? No?
Speaker 3: They really thought constantly put the Bible together.
Speaker 1: This part was funny, nice and council. No, he didn't put
Speaker 1: the Bible together. I'm sorry. No, he didn't.
Speaker 4: The depth of knowledge that most Protestants have.
Speaker 3: They don't know anything at all.
Speaker 4: Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 7: But doesn't Pike talk about Jesus just being Adam Katamon? Uh?
Speaker 3: He could?
Speaker 1: I mean the chapter on the Church Fathers and the Trinity,
Speaker 1: he just argues that the Trinity is actually Neoplatonism, and
Speaker 1: he says it's.
Speaker 7: It's like the reference going back to reference again, like
Speaker 7: the reference of Jesus is just to Adam Kataman.
Speaker 1: Probably because if Pike's going to argue that the Trinity
Speaker 1: is not the Christian Trinity and that it's neoplatonic emanations,
Speaker 1: that's what he says. And he says the whole it's
Speaker 1: not a person, it's just the world soul, then that
Speaker 1: would deny the deed of Christ.
Speaker 4: So yes, you know what it's called what's what refer information? Referation?
Speaker 3: What is that a joke?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Take it easy, man, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I'm doing you like Chase did to me when I
Speaker 1: made the joke, and he's like, I don't have a response.
Speaker 3: He didn't. He didn't want to laugh at my joke.
Speaker 1: The Bible together, just a suggestion, Yeah, beat it up.
Speaker 3: It is sped up.
Speaker 1: Oh, I mean I could try faster, but it might
Speaker 1: sound like chipmunks.
Speaker 3: Oh man.
Speaker 1: Like so they were like, well, the other thing too,
Speaker 1: is like this got really heated, and I think they
Speaker 1: evened out the vocal stuff. And they also there's no
Speaker 1: crowd at all, Like the crowd was making noises and
Speaker 1: laughing this, so this is this is like evened out
Speaker 1: audio wise. I think everybody to come together and identify
Speaker 1: what's Canada, what isn't and no, okay, forgive me tell me.
Speaker 1: I mean, you guys believe the Bible, right, Like, what
Speaker 1: kind of Christianity is it that the Bible teaches? That
Speaker 1: is your definition of what Christianity is that masonry is
Speaker 1: compatible with, well, master is compatible with.
Speaker 2: Again, masonry is not making dogmatic claims about Christianity.
Speaker 1: But it is we've seen that in this debate. What
Speaker 1: do you mean? What do I mean? Yeah? When when
Speaker 1: does Masony make dogmatic claims about Jesus Christ or Christianity. Well,
Speaker 1: the belief that you can be a member of the
Speaker 1: society just by believing in a generic theism is antithetical
Speaker 1: to Jesus in John fourteen six that I'm the way
Speaker 1: the truth in the life. So least say generic feism.
Speaker 1: What do you mean you also believe it a supreme
Speaker 1: being being orgmentonic touching that there's just a supreme being. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's not how do we identify what the supreme being is?
Speaker 1: That's really not that's amazing point. He doesn't involve thisself
Speaker 1: as as leo it up to the individual exactly. That's
Speaker 1: the point that that's antithetical too, the way that Christianity
Speaker 1: defines who God is, that's the way it answer makes
Speaker 1: no claims is it is the point It would be
Speaker 1: antithetical if Masonry said that all religions are equal they
Speaker 1: all teach the same thing.
Speaker 2: That my belief in Christianity that you know, I worship
Speaker 2: the same God as the Muslim, that would be a
Speaker 2: generic theism that you believe worship the same God.
Speaker 3: The same God as Muslims.
Speaker 1: It's a Muslim, I don't, Yes, you do, No, I don't. Yes,
Speaker 1: Muslim your society or Mason society accepts Muslims as monotheists
Speaker 1: and part of your society. So you believe that you
Speaker 1: could be a Christian and your theology doesn't play into
Speaker 1: the Masonic order and its teachings. And that's why it's
Speaker 1: double minded and double think. That's the point. I think
Speaker 1: it's just a Grossmith's understanding. Does Masonry teach the Muslims
Speaker 1: worship the same God? Masy doesn't take a claim, It
Speaker 1: doesn't make a claim with that. It just says that
Speaker 1: Muslims are if it allows Muslims, and it's it's it's
Speaker 1: acquiescing to that. That's not necessarily nor why we said
Speaker 1: a supreme Being? Is it the same supreme Being? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I understand, No, we don't. We don't make the claim
Speaker 1: that you have it is all the same supreme being. Correct.
Speaker 1: We do not make the claim that that everybody, every
Speaker 1: every religion, supreme Being is the truth. Everyone is arousland
Speaker 1: does a Muslim worship the same postentially mussy? Remember? Should
Speaker 1: I do not believe that on those worship I'm not
Speaker 1: asking you. Does must Masonry say and allow for Muslims
Speaker 1: to become members and asked allow? So making allowing is
Speaker 1: different from making your claim as to the authenticity.
Speaker 3: Who's playing word games now come on or the.
Speaker 1: Truth they're allowing it. It would be on the basis
Speaker 1: of the fact that they now in this ass of all.
Speaker 1: The only reason that freemasonry requires a belief in a
Speaker 1: supreme being is so that when you take your oaths,
Speaker 1: there's reason to believe that you feel that you're held
Speaker 1: accountable to your supreme beings. So we're not going to
Speaker 1: try to convince a Muslim to swear an oath to
Speaker 1: a God that he doesn't believe in, because we understand
Speaker 1: that he won't feel held accountable to to keep the oath.
Speaker 1: So the idea is, look, if you believe so, if
Speaker 1: you believe in God and Jesus Christ, and you're a
Speaker 1: Christian and you take an oath on a Bible instead
Speaker 1: of whatever your holy book is, and that's because you
Speaker 1: believe that you'll be held accountable for the oath that
Speaker 1: you swear to your own God. If it's an accountability,
Speaker 1: I believe that I am out. If I believe that
Speaker 1: I am God and I am the supreme Being? Can
Speaker 1: I become a Mason? I've never even been presented with
Speaker 1: that question. Doesn't matter. It's a theoretical question that's proving
Speaker 1: a point about an argument. I'm not actually saying that
Speaker 1: if somebody believes that they are God. I even note,
Speaker 1: there's no way that we get in what they wouldn't
Speaker 1: be accepted. They would not No, I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know if it's technically against the rules, but there would
Speaker 1: never be an instance in which that person would be
Speaker 1: leaving into a lot of.
Speaker 2: Supering being to him. All men are accountable, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Are you accountable to yourself? Yeah, because you are the
Speaker 2: supreme Being? I don't know, band you can't be insane?
Speaker 2: Well yeah, beyond that, I guess still like crazy people
Speaker 2: in are trying.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: I'm illustrating a point that every time you appeal to
Speaker 1: supreme Being, it is sufficiently vague and generic. Heainst generic
Speaker 1: theism to allow for anything it appears. But then as
Speaker 1: we nail it down, it gets hyper specified and qualified
Speaker 1: about all of the things that don't count and all
Speaker 1: the things that do count, which demonstrates the point that
Speaker 1: you have a theology and a dogma, and you're not
Speaker 1: consistent with the other claims that you've made. That's the point.
Speaker 1: So how is it compatible with Christianity to be in
Speaker 1: a lodge together with totally different demonic positions, Like because
Speaker 1: it's a secular organization, it's not a religious How is
Speaker 1: it secular when you've adopted all these religious symbols and imagery.
Speaker 1: Just because you're presenting people with religious ideas in different
Speaker 1: ancient mysteries or whatever, doesn't mean that you're actually again
Speaker 1: you see, how like they just keep going back and
Speaker 1: forth to uh, yeah, fine, we have all these religious
Speaker 1: positions that you have to affirm, but it's not religious.
Speaker 3: It's like the whole thing is just just double.
Speaker 1: Mount advocates and the belief in them. Now, you're dishonest
Speaker 1: because you said it's secular at the same time as
Speaker 1: saying that there are theological requirements to get in or
Speaker 1: Reversity of California and you engage in religious studies, it's
Speaker 1: still a secular program even though you're said a religod
Speaker 1: to believe in God quote unquote to get into the program,
Speaker 1: you require a belief in God, and then you have
Speaker 1: a generic God that's a contradiction. How is it not theological?
Speaker 1: Because the only reason that basically requires a belief in
Speaker 1: God is for the sake of knowing that we can
Speaker 1: trust the oaths that people take because they feel held
Speaker 1: accountable to their higher power. Also, and why does it
Speaker 1: Why can't I be accountable to myself as God? I
Speaker 1: would also argue that beyond what they said, and not
Speaker 1: disagreeing with that, but just in addition to that, they
Speaker 1: think that I'm being silly and just saying coming out
Speaker 1: with crazy. Now, I'm illustrating a point that every time
Speaker 1: I come up with some fringe religious position, whether it's Theostic,
Speaker 1: Satanism or Gnosticism, or I'm my own God, I'm illustrating
Speaker 1: to them that they have all of these qualifications that
Speaker 1: are beyond just one dogma. It's a very simple point,
Speaker 1: and I don't know why they can't see this. I
Speaker 1: think eventually they do, because this guy's about to make
Speaker 1: a big trip up here soon.
Speaker 2: The teachings, the principles not a theology, just I don't
Speaker 2: know how else to say it. Did you do you
Speaker 2: believe that there are teachings and doctrines that aren't are
Speaker 2: not theology.
Speaker 1: Like Are you serious right now? Are you serious?
Speaker 8: Go for it?
Speaker 1: Go for it. Okay, So you made a bunch of
Speaker 1: theological claims. Okay, what what? What are the bunch of
Speaker 1: theological things that you can't be in the society? Believe
Speaker 1: this is about ship requirements. You can't be in the
Speaker 1: society if you believe this is this about the deity
Speaker 1: in question? Those are theological claims and assertions. So you
Speaker 1: have a vast theology. Do you not understand this? This
Speaker 1: is a very simple Are you serious?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: I don't know. When you put the word fastin, did
Speaker 1: you not give me a whole bunch of people that
Speaker 1: wouldn't count, such as a Satanist and such as myself
Speaker 1: believe I'm God or something like that, said those theologies
Speaker 1: don't count. I would say that those people wouldn't get
Speaker 1: into a lodge. Yeah, thank you. So you have theological requirements.
Speaker 1: It's the point that it's a like a vote by
Speaker 1: the people and they would always vote that out, or
Speaker 1: that there's a specific crele. Do I feel like I'm
Speaker 1: talking to children or Muslims? Look at me, holding my
Speaker 1: hands in my face. It's like, how do you not
Speaker 1: get this point right?
Speaker 3: It's like not. This is not a difficult point.
Speaker 4: Do you look like when you were talking to the Bara.
Speaker 1: I actually think that they're not getting the point on
Speaker 1: purpose here, because this would undo the whole thing. You know,
Speaker 1: this is now you're going to be accepted into a
Speaker 1: regular parity. It's it's it's it's my.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Risen.
Speaker 5: I was gonna say what you just said, but they can't.
Speaker 5: They can't grasp the point because if they did, it's
Speaker 5: over right. So they have to pretend they don't get
Speaker 5: the point, or convince themselves that they don't get a
Speaker 5: point to keep the think going as long as they can't,
Speaker 5: and then that probably increases their internal tension that led
Speaker 5: to them blown up on you a little bit later.
Speaker 1: I guess it's nature an exclusive organization. I actually think
Speaker 1: DJ I'm not lying because there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: over there. This is probably wait, at least over one
Speaker 1: hundred people, and that's not a lot. But I mean
Speaker 1: it was really heated, and it doesn't give the impression
Speaker 1: that it was that heated from this because I think
Speaker 1: they even know the voices, and they've they've clipped some
Speaker 1: of the points to where we got really loud.
Speaker 2: And whether it's a written rule or not. I'm not
Speaker 2: going to let a guy in that thinks he's.
Speaker 1: Got thank you. So that proves my point that you
Speaker 1: have theological dogmatic positions. When you say that there's only
Speaker 1: one dogma, that's not actually the case. There are all
Speaker 1: these theological necessities that you have that exclude all of
Speaker 1: these other types of positions. That's the point. So it's
Speaker 1: not just a fraternity, it's not like a graduate program
Speaker 1: or like AA. That's the point. Well, I see what
Speaker 1: you're trying to say. I would just argue that I
Speaker 1: think there's a difference and we should I think we
Speaker 1: should define this difference between official, written requirements of what
Speaker 1: it means to be a part of an organization and
Speaker 1: then the call.
Speaker 3: To just redefine remove the goal posts.
Speaker 1: Again, sure that is create as a conglomeration or a
Speaker 1: combination of the people who are actually a part of
Speaker 1: that organization. What does that tot? Yeah, I think he
Speaker 1: removed the laughter right and DJ unless he personally added
Speaker 1: me to this, he didn't even link me.
Speaker 3: Uh so, yeah, that's kind of weak.
Speaker 1: So what I'm trying to say is, what I'm trying
Speaker 1: to say is masonry that may not officially make a
Speaker 1: claim regarding the theological truth of Satanism, but because of
Speaker 1: the composition of the organization, it's impossible that a Satanist
Speaker 1: would ever get in, because then you're making a theological
Speaker 1: claim about who is and isn't allowed. Well, certainly, whenever
Speaker 1: you vote on whether or not you can emit somebody
Speaker 1: into a lodge, you're making a decision based off whatever
Speaker 1: arbitrary sentiments or feelings that you have as an individual,
Speaker 1: and that you have a dogma that a specific type
Speaker 1: of feeolo. It doesn't even have to necessarily be based
Speaker 1: on the dogma of freemasonry. I could just blackball somebody
Speaker 1: because I don't like him. Okay, that's an even better
Speaker 1: argument for my case, because now you're admitting that it's
Speaker 1: not just the theology, it's also the practical concerns that
Speaker 1: allow you to jack people. So yeah, that's not that
Speaker 1: is ubut. I'm not making a decision to blackball somebody
Speaker 1: based off of the official position of the fraternity. I'm
Speaker 1: making the position of the decision to blackballs somebody based
Speaker 1: off of just personal preference. But it's still a theological
Speaker 1: personal preference. So that just argues in paper and what
Speaker 1: I'm arguing not even necessarily. I could totally agree with
Speaker 1: somebody's theology, but if I dislike them, I can just
Speaker 1: blackball them. If somebody is a Satanist like and then
Speaker 1: I would satan then it would just be irrelevant to
Speaker 1: the question of whether Freemasonry has theological requirements for membership.
Speaker 1: The only theological requirement for membership is that you believe
Speaker 1: in a supreme being. That is not true, which we
Speaker 1: have seen in the first hour when you explicate that
Speaker 1: you can't be a Satanist, you can't believe you're your
Speaker 1: own God, and a host of other things that would
Speaker 1: exclude you. Always so you're that's always said was that
Speaker 1: you would never get in. I mean, you could technically
Speaker 1: be a Satanist and a congressman. They probably half of
Speaker 1: them are, but nobody would actually vote for you to
Speaker 1: sit outouwardly spoken to Satanists to be a congressman. Are
Speaker 1: you guys just like I don't understand, like you have
Speaker 1: theological requirements that exclude you. Thus you have dogmatic things
Speaker 1: that you hold to. This is a very corglicating like that.
Speaker 1: The explicit requirement is a belief in a supreme being.
Speaker 1: The practical requirements are complicated, and it depends on whichever
Speaker 1: lodge you're trying to join. I mean, if I was
Speaker 1: in the lodgeical liking, you're not going to get in.
Speaker 1: It's a role. Now I don't, I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's irrelevant. You said a specific theological requirement of
Speaker 1: a supreme being, and then I ask you who is that?
Speaker 4: What is that?
Speaker 1: What's the things that exclude me from that? And you
Speaker 1: list all of these things? Yeah, right, he listed all
Speaker 1: those based off of the preference of any lodge. There's
Speaker 1: no way in the culture of free missionry that a
Speaker 1: satans would get accepted in any lodge, regardless of whether
Speaker 1: or not they technically would be allowed, just as there's
Speaker 1: no way that a Satanist would be voted into Congress,
Speaker 1: regardless of the fact that they're technically allowed to be
Speaker 1: a Satanist in Congress. You changed what the requirement was
Speaker 1: to your personal statements and ideas about what whether you
Speaker 1: want a Mason or whether you want a Satanist in
Speaker 1: a lodge. When the question was do you have requirements
Speaker 1: about a type of supreme being?
Speaker 4: And you do.
Speaker 1: We don't. We don't specifically have requirements you do because
Speaker 1: you said a you said, the theology of a Satanis
Speaker 1: is incompatible with the theology of Masonry. That's certainly my
Speaker 1: personal belief. But the notice he keeps shifting back and
Speaker 1: forth being sauce between the Masonic positions requirements in his
Speaker 1: own personal requirements.
Speaker 3: That wasn't.
Speaker 1: The debate is whether Freemasonry allows and should allow on
Speaker 1: the basis of what they say about Supreme being a
Speaker 1: Satanist and that it's saing consistent and he keeps.
Speaker 3: Going to well, I wouldn't want it totally irrelevant to debate, dude.
Speaker 1: I didn't say the theology of Freemasery said the principles
Speaker 1: and values of freemas or a epitheology. Nothing antithetical between
Speaker 1: a Satanist and free and a Freemason theologically. I believe
Speaker 1: that there is something antithetical between a Satanist and a
Speaker 1: Freemason philosophically, and that is my personal belief, which I think.
Speaker 1: But I was using a theistic.
Speaker 2: Satanist, so I'm still unaware of these Satanists that think
Speaker 2: that he is the Supreme being.
Speaker 1: Theistic Satanists believe that. Okay, it doesn't matter whether even
Speaker 1: if there weren't any I get theoretically propose that as
Speaker 1: a thing. Imagine you can't come up with every hypothetical
Speaker 1: you want. But well, that's why they're useful for debates,
Speaker 1: So it doesn't matter whether they exists and how you
Speaker 1: do debates bro So again, the point, as Obo see,
Speaker 1: is that when we say exactly what they mean by
Speaker 1: the supreme being, they have all these qualifications and these criteria,
Speaker 1: and then Chase shifts it to say, that's my personal
Speaker 1: ethical reason why I don't want a Satanist in here,
Speaker 1: shifting away from what the actual question is, which is
Speaker 1: does Masonry have a dogma? They admitted, yes, it's just
Speaker 1: a supreme being, but then we find out in practice
Speaker 1: and in reality it's not just a supreme being because
Speaker 1: what do you even know what that is? We're not. Again,
Speaker 1: it's like over and over and over. Having a dogma,
Speaker 1: or specifically having the dogma of a belief in a
Speaker 1: supreme being, is in any way, shape or form incompatible
Speaker 1: with Christianity, because that's one of the dogmas of Christianity too,
Speaker 1: that you must believe in a supreme being. It's called
Speaker 1: a word concept fallacy. It's called the quantifier shift fallacy.
Speaker 1: Let me give an example really quick. I have one mother,
Speaker 1: You have one mother. You have one mother. Therefore we
Speaker 1: all have the same mother. That's a fallacy because just
Speaker 1: because they're all having one as they're referent, it doesn't
Speaker 1: mean they're the same. So likewise, because all the religions
Speaker 1: believe in a God, it doesn't mean it's the same God. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so you don't claim that it is right, but freemasiety,
Speaker 1: I think, well, I see what you're saying, and I
Speaker 1: understand your point. You're right, but freemasonry does not make
Speaker 1: a claim as to which supreme being is the real
Speaker 1: true supreme being. Then it's meant to be ambiguous so
Speaker 1: that all faith could connect. It's meant to be ambiguous,
Speaker 1: and thank you, that was the point for frick an
Speaker 1: hour and a half. It was meant to be ambiguous
Speaker 1: so all the faiths can join. But remember a minute ago,
Speaker 1: it's not ambiguous. We don't allow certain bad people. This
Speaker 1: is the whole point. They don't understand. They keep it
Speaker 1: my point about it being a contradiction, and you turn
Speaker 1: around and you specify who gets in and who doesn't
Speaker 1: get in based on the theology. That's the whole argument. No,
Speaker 1: I didn't, in fact solicitly denied the term theology. And
Speaker 1: what I explicitly stated, how is that there's no way
Speaker 1: that a Satanist would get into a lodge because in
Speaker 1: any given lodge that person would death certainly be blackballed
Speaker 1: by one of the members. Dude, do you not understand
Speaker 1: the argument? I'm not asking you do Mason's like Satanists.
Speaker 1: The question is the point is that the argument demonstrates
Speaker 1: that supreme Being is sufficiently vague as to not mean anything,
Speaker 1: and your arbitrary when you start to say who doesn't
Speaker 1: get in because those are theological assertions? That's the argument
Speaker 1: percent agree with you on. That is it took an
Speaker 1: hour and a half again to come back to this
Speaker 1: same obvious argument, and he every time shifts it to
Speaker 1: saying we don't like Satanists do.
Speaker 3: That's not I don't. It's not the question. The question
Speaker 3: is it's a test.
Speaker 1: Case that's used like possible world's arguments. They're not saying
Speaker 1: the possible worlds are real multi versus their examples to
Speaker 1: illustrate the logical inconsistency and saying that Freemasonry has a
Speaker 1: dogma that you have to believe in a supreme being.
Speaker 3: Okay, what if the supreme Being is Satan? Oh, that
Speaker 3: doesn't count.
Speaker 1: Why because of this, this, this, this, this, and all
Speaker 1: the other qualifications are theological positions?
Speaker 3: Well no, but it's because we don't like you personally.
Speaker 1: How could it be I don't like you personally when
Speaker 1: the question is what's the theological contradiction between that being
Speaker 1: my personal higher supreme being? So they keep shifting it
Speaker 1: over to we don't we wouldn't let a Satanist in?
Speaker 1: Not asking you would you let a Satanist in? I'm
Speaker 1: asking on what basis is a Satanist not allowed in?
Speaker 1: If the supreme Being is himself or Satan? And they
Speaker 1: just can't compute that what you just said. I just
Speaker 1: don't understand the point, Like, I don't see how you
Speaker 1: don't have one dogma and there's no this thing as
Speaker 1: in eerth is And that's the point. We don't have
Speaker 1: a dogma. We don't have one dogma. Is that what
Speaker 1: you're saying? Yes, then how is that incompatible with Christianity?
Speaker 1: If there's no dogma to be in conflict with Christianity?
Speaker 1: The point is that you claim to not have a dogma,
Speaker 1: but you actually have a whole bunch. That's what you're saying.
Speaker 1: We have a dogma, now, yeah, it's a condrediction. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the dogma is that we require the belief in
Speaker 1: a supreme being. And that is right more than Christianity
Speaker 1: requires a belief in a supreme being too. And it's
Speaker 1: totally doatible with Freemasonry for you to believe that's suprevicre
Speaker 1: He went back to the quantifier shift fallacy. Because there's
Speaker 1: a supreme being, then it's a supreme being. What's the
Speaker 1: pro and it is the God of Jesus Christ's Christianity.
Speaker 1: Supreme Being is the Triune God. It is not generic
Speaker 1: theism that allows a Muslim and Hinder diet sample. Say, oh,
Speaker 1: where in Freemasonry does it say that the Triune God
Speaker 1: is not the supreme Being? Yes, it is, because you
Speaker 1: just said that. You can be a member of the
Speaker 1: lodge if you believe in all these crazy heretical groups
Speaker 1: because you recognize a supreme being. No, no, you don't
Speaker 1: want supreme being is legitimate. You recognize that that person
Speaker 1: believes in that supreme being. Therefore you can believe that
Speaker 1: if they take an oath upon the Supreme Being, that
Speaker 1: they believe in that they will be held accountable. They
Speaker 1: will believe that they will be held accountable to that oath,
Speaker 1: regardless of whether or not they actually will be held accountable.
Speaker 1: For example, if I'm a Muslim and I want to
Speaker 1: take my oath on a Karan instead of a Bible
Speaker 1: because I'm a Muslim, right, Freemasonry doesn't claim whether all
Speaker 1: is God or he always God, or whether Jesus Christ
Speaker 1: is God. But if you're a Muslim, we want you
Speaker 1: to take an oath on. But it does by claiming
Speaker 1: that the higher power of Masonry is a generic theism.
Speaker 1: That's the claim. That is a denial of Christianity's exclusivity
Speaker 1: exclusivity claims.
Speaker 3: That's the point. That's my argument that they can't.
Speaker 1: Get books that you believe in because we believe that
Speaker 1: you believe you'll be held here. You believe it. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say you're trying to remove it from what said.
Speaker 1: But did you just say free Masonry does not believe
Speaker 1: that Jesus song of God. I said. It doesn't even
Speaker 1: claim either way, it doesn't make it claim. All it
Speaker 1: claims is that you must believe in a supreme being.
Speaker 1: And I'm arguing that the Supreme Being itself. This line
Speaker 1: of argument that you guys have is a denial of
Speaker 1: Jesus and the Trinity. That's my argument. No, it is right,
Speaker 1: just like you said that. The just like you said
Speaker 1: that the believe even higher power and does what you
Speaker 1: say about the Supreme Being and when you flesh it
Speaker 1: out contradicts the Christian theology of No Jesus is. There
Speaker 1: is no contradiction. But I believe that Jesus. The fact
Speaker 1: that you make it subjective doesn't remove my arguments for us.
Speaker 1: That has nothing to do with what we're arguing.
Speaker 3: I think it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you guys, O there, you guys think thory objectively
Speaker 1: entire argument. Masonry objectively does not deny Christ. It's just
Speaker 1: objectively doesn't when you all like our alcoholics anonymous doesn't
Speaker 1: your believing and the supreme Deity is itself a denial
Speaker 1: of who Christ is. That's the argument. You don't believe
Speaker 1: in a supreme God. You already showed you the word
Speaker 1: concept fallacy and the quantifier shift that when you say
Speaker 1: supreme God, if I believe the Supreme God is Satan,
Speaker 1: you qualify it to prove my point that it's a quantify,
Speaker 1: I understand, but it's just to require people to believe
Speaker 1: in a supreme being. It's not the same thing as
Speaker 1: acknowledging the authenticity of any specific supreme being Freemasonry. He's
Speaker 1: not claiming which God is the real God's requiring My
Speaker 1: point right, because it's not a religion, it's a secular
Speaker 1: There we go.
Speaker 3: So the supreme Being is sufficiently generic to be Shiva, Hindu, whatever, allah.
Speaker 3: But also you can't be in it if you're a
Speaker 3: Satanist and Gnostic, et cetera. Hopefully people see this is
Speaker 3: so silly.
Speaker 1: Oh, it is, as we've seen, as you qualify all
Speaker 1: of these things that exclude you. So yeah, but the
Speaker 1: way I qualified it was not by the official policies
Speaker 1: of any Masonic doctrine or law or writing. I was sufficient.
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you that the culture of the fraternity
Speaker 1: is never going to have house somebody like that culture.
Speaker 1: That doesn't matter. All I have to do is logically
Speaker 1: prove that when you say that it's a supreme being,
Speaker 1: it is not equivalence to the Christian doctrine of the
Speaker 1: Trinity in the d of Christ. It's it's a quantifier
Speaker 1: shift fallacy. It's a word concept fallacy because you keep
Speaker 1: asking me, don't you believe in a supreme being? I
Speaker 1: don't believe in the supreme being. As masonry philosophy lays out,
Speaker 1: Masonry doesn't lay out. It does lay out at you see.
Speaker 1: Every time we talk about it, they explain that masonry
Speaker 1: philosophy allows it to be anything that you paste onto it.
Speaker 1: That is the argument why it's false. It accepts different
Speaker 1: philosophies in thanks geology, the idea there we go, so
Speaker 1: it's sufficiently relativistic that it's not a specific God. Does
Speaker 1: the God of the Bible sound like he's nonspecific or specific?
Speaker 1: If he's specific, then you pushing the Masonic gibberish is
Speaker 1: against him. The non specific God in Acts seventeen is
Speaker 1: the one that they don't know the end of the organization.
Speaker 1: It accepts those, but it does not condone or endorse
Speaker 1: any of them to be. Acceptance of a supreme generic
Speaker 1: being is itself a rejection of the trinity and is
Speaker 1: the one has it's lux anonymous requires you to believe
Speaker 1: in a higher power, but does not specify which higher
Speaker 1: power you must believe in. It is explicitly denying Christ.
Speaker 1: If you're arguing that the supreme Being that allows for
Speaker 1: all of the sex to come together under the Masonic banner. Yes, no,
Speaker 1: but there is no personification of a specific God in freemasonry.
Speaker 1: There's just the requirement that you believe in the Supreme
Speaker 1: Being the required and you say believe in the Supreme Being.
Speaker 1: You are attaching predicates that specify certain types of things,
Speaker 1: and then when you explain what that is, you say
Speaker 1: that it can't be theistic Satanism and it can't be
Speaker 1: me being God. So you refute yourself when you explain
Speaker 1: the terms. I disagree because the right for you. But Rsjoen,
Speaker 1: that's wrong. The reputation of a satan is getting into aldge.
Speaker 1: It is not a matter in policy. It's a matter
Speaker 1: of practical outcome that's irrelevant to the way that you
Speaker 1: theologically describe the Supreme Being.
Speaker 2: Still, having a base set of requirements or foundational beliefs
Speaker 2: is not the same as us being a religion or
Speaker 2: making the claim that all religions are equal. Then we're
Speaker 2: all words being the same God.
Speaker 1: And I didn't argue that. I just simply argued that
Speaker 1: the claim that you allow for and require a belief
Speaker 1: and a higher power that is a supreme being, is
Speaker 1: itself already a rejection of the Trinity indi duty of Christ.
Speaker 1: That's the argument. Now you can say we don't require
Speaker 1: specific belief. None of that addresses the argument that I'm making.
Speaker 1: Do you not understand?
Speaker 9: Now?
Speaker 1: I think I understand. I just I just fundamentally disagree.
Speaker 1: And how is it wrong? Because I think that requiring
Speaker 1: someone to believe in a supreme breed, this is supreme being,
Speaker 1: in order to be a member of an organization is
Speaker 1: not explicitly denying any specifics. There's nothing you denied that
Speaker 1: it's the theistic Satanist being. So that's why you're wrong.
Speaker 2: There's no conga I've ever experienced or been required in
Speaker 2: masonry that has alluded to or required me to somehow
Speaker 2: not have a belief in a trinity, not have a
Speaker 2: belief in Jesus. The fact that these are my individual
Speaker 2: personal beliefs that make me a part of this organization.
Speaker 2: And we've beat this to death, but we could go
Speaker 2: into like why this even exists?
Speaker 1: Like why what I mean? They're still not addressing the argument.
Speaker 1: It's flying, it's right in their face and it's going
Speaker 1: over their heads. The argument is that must Masonry is
Speaker 1: teaching that you have to believe in some supreme higher power.
Speaker 1: The genericism there is inconsistent and as a dogma, and
Speaker 1: is also contradictory to what Jesus says about himself. That's
Speaker 1: the argument, and they keep saying, but you don't have
Speaker 1: to believe anything to be in masonry.
Speaker 3: That's the thing that's contradictory to Christianity.
Speaker 2: Why do we even have this fraternity where we allow
Speaker 2: members of different beliefs to be in it? And it's
Speaker 2: essentially goes back. You know, there's a little bit of
Speaker 2: debate on who started first, the Scots and the Londoners
Speaker 2: kind of argue over who had the first lodge, but
Speaker 2: essentially you're coming out of the era of the English
Speaker 2: Civil War, and prior to the English Civil War you
Speaker 2: also have several other religious wars in Europe, and they
Speaker 2: were trying to create a society of men who had
Speaker 2: different religious beliefs but could still come together and work
Speaker 2: on themselves and work together for good. That was that
Speaker 2: was the entire purpose of it and why we allowed
Speaker 2: it to be open to these different religions. Yes, with
Speaker 2: some qualifiers, jay are those theological qualifiers perhaps if you
Speaker 2: want to lay it. Oh wait, it's two hours to
Speaker 2: get this at it does that?
Speaker 3: So there he admitted theological qualifiers right there?
Speaker 1: Make it a theology? Does that make it yeah? I'm
Speaker 1: genera that makes it yeah.
Speaker 2: I feel a some sort of qualifier against Satanism makes
Speaker 2: it incompatible leak or Sianity.
Speaker 1: These qualifiers, here's what it here. I'm the problem. These
Speaker 1: qualifiers are not a matter of explicit written Masonic policy.
Speaker 1: These qualifiers are a practical outcome of the content of
Speaker 1: the membership. All right, I think we've beat this to death.
Speaker 1: Let's uh, I have a final question. I want to
Speaker 1: go around the horn, and anybody wants to ask a
Speaker 1: question during this can go walk up over there and
Speaker 1: go towards the audience. Mike, Joel, and Sara, would you
Speaker 1: mind getting a position for that? And okay, so I
Speaker 1: want to ask a ending question real quick, and so
Speaker 1: we can start with Chase and go all the way
Speaker 1: around here. If Paul were alive today and he was
Speaker 1: writing a letter to Freemasonry more broadly, now I know
Speaker 1: it's not a centralized force. Let's just say the same
Speaker 1: letter goes to each each lodge. So he's writing to
Speaker 1: you know, Freemasonry TM more broadly, yeah, the Institution First
Speaker 1: Masons Chapter three. Well, I just what do you think
Speaker 1: Paul's sentiment towards Freemasonry would be. So he's writing letters
Speaker 1: to all churches, not you know, not just Freemasonry as
Speaker 1: you know, an institution or whatever, But what do you
Speaker 1: have positive things to say, negative things to say? Do
Speaker 1: you think he'd be just in different period. That's a
Speaker 1: really good question. Frankly, I don't know the answer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd really hate to pretend that I could speak
Speaker 2: for the Apostle Paul that said. You know, Paul was
Speaker 2: a student of comparative religion. He did study other religions,
Speaker 2: and he went in and tried to connect with him.
Speaker 2: I don't think I can't think of a theological position
Speaker 2: of the Apostle Paul that would be contradictrit.
Speaker 3: Science exactly right.
Speaker 1: Hopefully people can figure out where I'm immediately going to go,
Speaker 1: because it turns out there already is a biblical discussion
Speaker 1: from Paul about the Unknown God towards Freemasonry. Maybe Jay
Speaker 1: as one right, Well, so we actually have a biblical
Speaker 1: example of the very thing that was asked, which is
Speaker 1: essentially the mars Hill discourse where Paul goes to debate
Speaker 1: the Greek philosophers and the Pagans in Act seventeen. And
Speaker 1: if you look at Act seventeen in the philosophy that
Speaker 1: they have, and certainly there were probably different philosophers there.
Speaker 1: The Postoics are mentioned, Epicureans are mentioned, but probably Platonists
Speaker 1: by Thagorieans. Who knows. But one of the dominant elements
Speaker 1: of Hellenic philosophy was the idea that the world was
Speaker 1: eternally in motion or eternally moved. And that's whether that's
Speaker 1: Plato's emanations or Platonius's later emanations after Paul, or whether
Speaker 1: that's Aristotle's eternal mover arguments. Again, you heard me at
Speaker 1: the very beginning mentioned that in Basil Sexameron, in Lecture two,
Speaker 1: he mentions the deity of Aristotle being a diad, which
Speaker 1: is an eternal world moved and accessarily existing through the
Speaker 1: first cause or the first actualizer. So in that philosophy
Speaker 1: you can see Paul refuting them in Act seventeen, having
Speaker 1: a sense of the philosophy of generic theism that Masonry
Speaker 1: holds to, and Paul argues that the deity that the
Speaker 1: Athenians are worshiping. He says that they even have an
Speaker 1: idol to the unknown God there without any anim And
Speaker 1: he says that deity that you claim to worship, this
Speaker 1: unknown God or this law lost name that we mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: that I mentioned earlier tonight, that Mastron has this lost
Speaker 1: name of God. Well, it turns out Paul actually answers
Speaker 1: all those questions. He says, the unknown God is the
Speaker 1: one that you actually worship unknowingly. And I don't believe
Speaker 1: that that means that Masons are actually worshiping God or Christ.
Speaker 1: It is the trinitarian deity that is expressed through the
Speaker 1: incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. So he actually says
Speaker 1: that we do know the name of God. It's Jesus,
Speaker 1: it's not Jabalan, it's not the Tetragramaton. All the Tetragramaton
Speaker 1: points to Christ. So the answers in XT. Seventeen ironically,
Speaker 1: all right, right, we got time for a few questions.
Speaker 1: Keep it to one, please, and go for it. So
Speaker 1: on the Freemason sider, I remember when you said that
Speaker 1: you don't know which books are in the Bible.
Speaker 3: And which There's some really good questions, by the way, which.
Speaker 10: Aren't, and I really like that kind of Christianity. I
Speaker 10: have here with me the recently discovered Gospel of Jack.
Speaker 10: It's a very short book, but it is divinely inspired
Speaker 10: and perfect. Just like the rest of the Gospels. It says,
Speaker 10: and then Jesus said, give Jack Althorney all the women
Speaker 10: he may, he alone may have infinity wives. Do you
Speaker 10: reject the Gospel of Jack? If yes, why please?
Speaker 4: Jay?
Speaker 1: Answer? First, Well, Christianity was provided by Christ with a
Speaker 1: normative authority within history to make these types of decisions
Speaker 1: in a synodial conciliar way. We can see in the
Speaker 1: first thousand years of the Church that Christianity always had
Speaker 1: these types of local and ecumenical synods, and so that's
Speaker 1: the normative way that the church is governed. There are
Speaker 1: people who make the decisions of who's in and who's out.
Speaker 1: That's the Orthodox Church pretty clearly in the first thousand years,
Speaker 1: and I would say that that's probably still the case today.
Speaker 1: Do I reject the Gospel of Jack?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: What?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: I reject the Gospel of Jack. I'm going to answer
Speaker 1: the question why. Other than the fact that it was
Speaker 1: made up as an example an argument to ask a question.
Speaker 1: They never understand theoretical lines of argument. It's kind of
Speaker 1: blows my mind, like they actually just take every hypothetical
Speaker 1: as if you're saying it literally. This is so silly.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't. It doesn't line up with any that
Speaker 1: the context of the currenteology that I have, but I
Speaker 1: currently believe it's unnecessary.
Speaker 3: So because it doesn't line up with Chase is current
Speaker 3: theology is the reason why.
Speaker 1: It doesn't line up at all with any of the
Speaker 1: Christian philosophy in the New Testament. So do you determine
Speaker 1: the canon? Do I determine now? And Jesus does, but
Speaker 1: we do our best to determine the canon scripture. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: where did Janus determined? I'm sorry that your question. Yes,
Speaker 1: So here's my philosophy on on the on the Bible.
Speaker 1: Let me just be explicit here. It's obvious he used the.
Speaker 5: Term my current theology, right, So this is, of course
Speaker 5: assumption that your theology is in flux, is changing.
Speaker 4: It's not eternally true.
Speaker 5: I mean he affirmed earlier that he doesn't even think
Speaker 5: you can know absolute truth or have any sort of
Speaker 5: epistemic certainty.
Speaker 1: So that's that's Briefically, it's from from the New Testament,
Speaker 1: that you can be a Christian before the Bible was
Speaker 1: compiled or written. Right, it's obvious that people readingmatized Christian
Speaker 1: even before Jesus was dead or any of it actually happened.
Speaker 1: There was Baptists that were taking place. And one of
Speaker 1: the concerns that I have about contemporary Christianity. I don't
Speaker 1: mean to make this specifically theological, because it doesn't really
Speaker 1: matter what I think is true or not religiously, as
Speaker 1: far as is relevant to the argument that rab about
Speaker 1: whether or not Free Mason's campatible Christianity. I think one
Speaker 1: of the mistakes that modern contemporary Christians make is they
Speaker 1: worship the Bible as a false idol, and they study
Speaker 1: it more than they contemplate and pursue a relationship with God.
Speaker 1: So if you can be a Christian without the Bible,
Speaker 1: that means that the Bible is it's something that's added
Speaker 1: that's unnecessary. It's important, it contains true truth, It documents
Speaker 1: why happed historically, it explains the theology. But I get
Speaker 1: I feel miffed sometimes by Christians who who spend all
Speaker 1: their time studying specific verses and specific letters that weren't
Speaker 1: even required to be known or written or conceived in
Speaker 1: order to be a Christian originally, and I think that
Speaker 1: we should focus on a relationship with God through Jesus
Speaker 1: Christ more than we focus on studying the scripture. I
Speaker 1: do feel that way personally. No, it's a controversial. Take mind,
Speaker 1: you want answer that? Or do you want to go
Speaker 1: next one?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 1: What are we still on?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 1: Jack? Yes, let's just go to the action one here
Speaker 1: for a time sake.
Speaker 11: I believe God's a paradox, and I think even now
Speaker 11: the Orthodox Church allows non Christians beyond the nave. But
Speaker 11: my question is specific for Ja, but everyone to chime in.
Speaker 11: I'm employed at a multinational corporation. We have over six
Speaker 11: hundred thousand employees, and we even employ irreligious atheists.
Speaker 1: I have private, closed door business meetings with them. This
Speaker 1: is so, this is so low to here. This guy's like,
Speaker 1: so I can't be a new corporation because I'm in
Speaker 1: there with other non Christians. As if it's like an
Speaker 1: equivalence between the Masonic lodge and a corporation. Does that
Speaker 1: conflict with my Roman Catholic Christian duties in religion? I
Speaker 1: wouldn't think so. As a Roman Catholic, you have there
Speaker 1: that I've never heard of anything that would conflict between
Speaker 1: a corporate stance unless you were, through the corporation explicitly
Speaker 1: required to do something that would be immortal sin or
Speaker 1: something like that. Thank you are Are you making the
Speaker 1: equivalence to Masonry if you gather that and deduce it,
Speaker 1: I think it's fair. I think he's trying to I
Speaker 1: don't want to speak for him. I think he's trying
Speaker 1: to imply that what he's trying to ask the question,
Speaker 1: what's the difference between looking for an organization that allows
Speaker 1: people who deny Christ and in joining a fraternity that
Speaker 1: that's ambiguous in its definition of the Supreme Being? Because
Speaker 1: the ambiguity actually turned into specificity, which was the point.
Speaker 1: And your own Catholic Church dogmatizes and mandates that you
Speaker 1: can't be a freemason in the canon law. So you
Speaker 1: would be against Roman Catholic canon law being a Mason,
Speaker 1: but you would not be against romccallay cannon law, but
Speaker 1: being in a corporation. And the differences precisely because Masonry,
Speaker 1: as we're seeing tonight, is not just a philosopher or
Speaker 1: secular society. It actually has an explicated theological requirement, and
Speaker 1: that was what I was trying to demonstrate. That's a
Speaker 1: false equivalence. It's a good point. I didn't make the equivalents.
Speaker 1: Let's go to the next one. Sorry, good question, good question. Uh,
Speaker 1: we got time for a few more, so go for it. Hey,
Speaker 1: it's for a Jay christ has risen first of all,
Speaker 1: And quickly, do you have any plans for a Freemason
Speaker 1: cringe core track? And what are some good books that
Speaker 1: I can read on the Jewish accomplistic connection with freemasoner.
Speaker 1: I might get my throat slid if I make a song. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you gotta get that's a Joe Hull. You plug your
Speaker 1: own books, Jay, that's just a Joe. There's a book
Speaker 1: that's somebody spent aymen years ago by William Green called
Speaker 1: The Blazing Star and the Jewish Cabala, and it's about
Speaker 1: the influence of Cabala on Freemasonry. William bring.
Speaker 8: A question for the two Freemasons. Saint Paul wrote about
Speaker 8: not being unequally yoked with unbelievers. Yeah, and I know
Speaker 8: you guys kind of touched on the oath taking and
Speaker 8: how we do take an oath in a court room
Speaker 8: and that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: But you call your lodge members brothers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and.
Speaker 1: I wonder about God.
Speaker 8: Specifically calls us in the Christian faith to be set
Speaker 8: apart from the world. Why would you frat fat fraternize
Speaker 8: with people who believe in a version of the deity
Speaker 8: that is Antichrist exactly exactly?
Speaker 1: Well said, yeah, that's a good question. I would say that,
Speaker 1: and Ryan out other t your thoughts too. I think
Speaker 1: that distinguishing between who's a legitimate brother in Christ is
Speaker 1: different than qualifying the people's fraternity brothers. So there are
Speaker 1: some brothers in the fraternity, for example, who would not
Speaker 1: consider brothers in Christ because we don't share the same
Speaker 1: theological I wouldn't take a meniing with these people. But
Speaker 1: what we're doing in the in the Masonic lodge is
Speaker 1: not It's not like a religious sacrament or or that
Speaker 1: type of that type of communion.
Speaker 2: What would you say, Ryan, Yeah, that's essentially that. I mean,
Speaker 2: I would just add to it that, you know, the
Speaker 2: idea that what your original point about being unequally yoked.
Speaker 2: There is no you know, I've never had a Masonic
Speaker 2: brother try to talk me out of my Christianity to
Speaker 2: proselytize another faith. There's nothing that's made me doubt my faith.
Speaker 2: It's a personal journey, an individual journey that exposes you
Speaker 2: to different ideas, but you're left up, you know, as
Speaker 2: a man, to still make your own determinations. And I've
Speaker 2: actually seen the opposite. I've seen men that joined the
Speaker 2: fraternity that didn't start out as Christians. Maybe they had
Speaker 2: a more deistic view, maybe they were just kind of
Speaker 2: you know, I'm an example of that. And through their
Speaker 2: involvement in the fraternity, which stresses doesn't tell you which,
Speaker 2: but it stresses the need for you to seek out God,
Speaker 2: these men have become strong Christians through freemasonry.
Speaker 1: And I've not seen the opposite. I've not seen a strong,
Speaker 1: strong Christians who don't even know when the Bible was
Speaker 1: put together, what Constantine did, I don't know anything about anything,
Speaker 1: but they're strong Christians.
Speaker 2: Now, well, Christian man join and then somehow be turned
Speaker 2: into a Hindu or et cetera.
Speaker 1: I would say that that's a great text because in
Speaker 1: the context of Corinthians or Paul's talking about that, he's
Speaker 1: talking about religiously, physically, theologically, you know, all types of
Speaker 1: unions that you could have with somebody says we can't
Speaker 1: share the table of demons and the table of God.
Speaker 1: We can't be unequally of for examply advices against marrying
Speaker 1: and unbelieving life. So there are spiritual realities, according to Paul.
Speaker 3: That lead So again people in the chat, like you
Speaker 3: guys are not getting it.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter that Freemasonry says it's not religious. The
Speaker 1: argument is know it in fact is religious. And we
Speaker 1: demonstrated that for the first hour that they have religious commitments,
Speaker 1: even in saying that you believe in generic theism and
Speaker 1: a quote supreme being, that is a religious commitment that
Speaker 1: entails a bunch of other commitments. That's what I demonstrated
Speaker 1: to them when I said, can I be a Satanist?
Speaker 3: Can I be a Gnostic? Can I believe that I'm God?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 5: No, no, no no.
Speaker 3: So there's all these.
Speaker 1: Criteria that exclude you from membership. And it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: if they say, but it's just because we don't like you,
Speaker 1: that's the exclusion. Well, the exclusion that you don't like
Speaker 1: me is still based on some standard of the good.
Speaker 3: Or the bad. So they have an ethic.
Speaker 1: Yoke us and link us through these types of oaths
Speaker 1: and organizations even though they claim that it's purely secular,
Speaker 1: as we've seen, I think tonight the claims are not
Speaker 1: actually when they're fleshed out purely secular, they're actually have
Speaker 1: lethological So actually think this is a really good point.
Speaker 2: Bring up the obligations again. You're specifically told that they
Speaker 2: are not incompatible or above the obligations, the duties that
Speaker 2: you have to God, your family, your country.
Speaker 1: Okay, are you brotherhood yoked with Hindus? Say again, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: are you a brotherhood yoked with Hindus? Hmm, I'm in
Speaker 1: the context of a lot Ooh, I think this was
Speaker 1: a I forgot this part ODJ. I think probably the
Speaker 1: answers yes, but yeah, all right, I only each point, right,
Speaker 1: and just for the time's sake, Okay, sure you be
Speaker 1: one file point one final point. What I'm brotherhood yoked
Speaker 1: with my biological brother too, regardless of what he believes.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The implication there is that you're somehow because of that, uh,
Speaker 2: being yoked as in a marriage perhaps where you know
Speaker 2: you have someone of a different faith that you're married to,
Speaker 2: that there's there's some obligation or pressure there to adopt
Speaker 2: their faith and there's not.
Speaker 1: Paul doesn't say that. He just simply says to be
Speaker 1: unequally oaked. I mean, could I be in the myth
Speaker 1: recult at the same time as being a Christian?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: Thanks y, next question, Thank you everyone for being here.
Speaker 1: Appreciated debate. This question is for Riyan.
Speaker 6: You talked about how monotheistic Satanist would not pass a
Speaker 6: moral character test of Freemasons, so that kind of talks
Speaker 6: to objective morality. So I was wondering, how are Muslims
Speaker 6: able to become Freemasons when they believe in child brides, females, circumcision,
Speaker 6: other demonic wouldn't get in my lodge, I would.
Speaker 3: Say, oh, and then they say I don't want it.
Speaker 3: That's not the question.
Speaker 1: They would not be allowed. But there were not asking you,
Speaker 1: whereas in the lodge. Sure, yeah, well there's okay.
Speaker 2: You brought up a funny example about the safety and
Speaker 2: my pronouncing that right and one of your videos to
Speaker 2: the practice of widow burning and Hinduism, and you imply
Speaker 2: that you know, because we may allow a Hindu that
Speaker 2: that we would have to accept this practice of widow burning.
Speaker 1: I think no, the argument is what he said, it's
Speaker 1: what's the argument it's arbitrary? Did you not make that
Speaker 1: claim or I mistudying? More of the argument is not
Speaker 1: that you support widow burning, it's that the ethics or arbitrary.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is solo tier.
Speaker 1: It's like, obviously if I said, Hindus who believe in
Speaker 1: widow burning, how are you going to have a common
Speaker 1: ethic with people that believe that.
Speaker 3: That's the point. So you're saying that I have to
Speaker 3: accept widow burning. No, this guy is just like, cannot
Speaker 3: get that.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, There the entire system, the degrees are
Speaker 2: teaching very specific ethics, philosophy.
Speaker 1: This is where I get him right here, and all
Speaker 1: that that was from. We don't know where cardinal virtues. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that's who That was one small example, but I
Speaker 1: mean where you never said where.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna slow this down because it's the best part right.
Speaker 1: Here they're from.
Speaker 3: You said, I don't know.
Speaker 1: No, I said, we pulled from a lot of different religions,
Speaker 1: and you pull from religions for your ethics. Oh we remember,
Speaker 1: this wasn't a the theological society. Those from religion.
Speaker 3: It's not a religious it's not a theological society. Where
Speaker 3: do you get your ethics. We pull from religions.
Speaker 1: Hear that the arbitrary.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, the entire system the degrees are teaching
Speaker 2: very specific ethics philosophies from.
Speaker 1: And we saw that that was from. We don't know
Speaker 1: where cardinal virtues. Okay, says who that was one small example,
Speaker 1: but I mean where. You never said where they're from.
Speaker 3: You said, I don't know.
Speaker 1: No, I said, we pulled from a lot of different religions,
Speaker 1: and we you pull from religions for your ethics. Oh
Speaker 1: we remember this wasn't a theological society.
Speaker 3: Oh that's where it was really over it there, I
Speaker 3: think from religion.
Speaker 2: Didn't you agree that religions contain philosophies? That weren't theos
Speaker 2: going about what you just said? Yeah, so you do
Speaker 2: you pull from religions. We pour your ethics philosophies that
Speaker 2: are You just said relative religions.
Speaker 1: You messed up and said religions. We pulled from religions.
Speaker 1: We pulled philosophies at England with it. Do you pull
Speaker 1: your ethics from religions? That's what he said, and not
Speaker 1: just religions.
Speaker 3: Some of it.
Speaker 1: There is some stoke. You tripped up.
Speaker 3: This is like a kid getting caught stealing in the
Speaker 3: cookie jar.
Speaker 1: And he's like, what I didn't I was.
Speaker 3: Going to get the cookies and also feed the dog
Speaker 3: with the cookies. And it's not just cookies for me.
Speaker 1: I'm stealing the cookies for other robinhood. I'm stealing the
Speaker 1: cookies for all the kids in the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: It's like, yeah, okay, we got you, dude, we got you.
Speaker 1: And undid all of your first hour of argument is
Speaker 1: pressed on where.
Speaker 5: You get ethics and morals from and that those are
Speaker 5: inherently religious values that you would have.
Speaker 4: To be pulling from a religion. And then for him
Speaker 4: to even admit that, you.
Speaker 5: Know, freemasonry or either at the cold boundaries do we
Speaker 5: we believe in certain ethics and morals And there are
Speaker 5: boundaries and you could be you know, if you were Satanists,
Speaker 5: you couldn't be it. If you're a bad guy, you
Speaker 5: can't join. It also contradicts. There's so many ways that
Speaker 5: you got him on that same point from so many
Speaker 5: different angles that it's, uh, it's it's crazy that he
Speaker 5: still thinks that he's able to kind of square the
Speaker 5: circle there, Oh, swear.
Speaker 3: In the circle there? You just went full Mason on
Speaker 3: them right there, dude.
Speaker 1: No, yeah, yeah you did. You just said you pull
Speaker 1: from religions and does everything in the first hour. I've
Speaker 1: said that you your whole first hour with us.
Speaker 3: There you go, and I don't I hammer him Martal, Right, there.
Speaker 1: Go the next person place.
Speaker 12: I think you kind of us with a previous question.
Speaker 12: But you know, Jesus say is no one comes as
Speaker 12: a father. But through me, do you all make as Christians?
Speaker 12: In being Mason's do you make an effort to proselytize.
Speaker 3: Muslims or anyway? The last part is the if you
Speaker 3: guys want to watch it, you can go watch it.
Speaker 3: But that's enough of this.
Speaker 1: They didn't get me on the part about the there's
Speaker 1: just another false equivalence to say that for citing the
Speaker 1: Pledge of Allegiance is the same thing as Mason. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a false equivalent saying the pledge allegiance is not
Speaker 1: initiation into a blood over brotherhood based on around the Zohar.
Speaker 1: So no uh, anybody else. So overall thoughts, you guys
Speaker 1: feel free to talk about.
Speaker 3: Whatever you want to. We'll read some super chats if
Speaker 3: you want to watch the rest of it. If you
Speaker 3: think I'm lying, you can go watch it here. What
Speaker 3: did you guys think? Who won the debate?
Speaker 4: Here?
Speaker 3: I'm gonna put a little stud poll here and and
Speaker 3: you know, be honest if you think that and do that, well,
Speaker 3: feel free.
Speaker 4: Yes, but Jobulon is an option.
Speaker 3: Jabulon won the debate.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think jabul.
Speaker 3: Anybody else.
Speaker 4: There was really one sided. I don't think uh.
Speaker 5: I was expecting them to seem a little bit more
Speaker 5: heated too, like you said it, maybe it was more Well,
Speaker 5: this is edited the physiclean you can see their physical
Speaker 5: reactions to what's going on in the level.
Speaker 4: Of the voice.
Speaker 1: Well, they they balanced the audio levels and also uh,
Speaker 1: several I mean it was clipped. I'm not saying they
Speaker 1: didn't cut cut out any argumentation, but they might have
Speaker 1: cut out some of the angry parts. But it was intense.
Speaker 1: You can ask the people who were there. Uh, let's see,
Speaker 1: I'm re used a couple of super shots two cop
Speaker 1: True Tuca Trupa twenty dollars. Great to see Tristan back
Speaker 1: on the stream.
Speaker 3: Guys.
Speaker 1: I will split the super chest with Tristan tonight, so
Speaker 1: you guys are also supporting him.
Speaker 3: Dank Bud five dollars. This was a dank stream. Snake
Speaker 3: Foot two dollars. Our last stream exactly bad.
Speaker 1: Yep, it was a straight up pimp as hell, dude,
Speaker 1: The stream was pimp as hell, so sick, d it
Speaker 1: was so sick. Snake Foot says, get a PhD and
Speaker 1: then start a bipoc church and then Gavin will debate
Speaker 1: you exactly be cursed.
Speaker 3: Five dollars. Will you be part of the new network
Speaker 3: with Alex?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 1: I mean I will at least continue what I've been doing.
Speaker 1: I don't know whether I'll have my own show or whatever,
Speaker 1: but we'll see. Nick says, I love the clip where
Speaker 1: Alex is interviewing the gall on the street about WHEMI Grove.
Speaker 3: That's Dave Gergan.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: You know we played that before. Dad to the world.
Speaker 3: What's up? Craftsman?
Speaker 1: Alex Jones getting a rear show by Craig Jones was awesome.
Speaker 1: Tango twenty dollars. It's gonna be a good night, boys
Speaker 1: and girls.
Speaker 3: Cheer up. Cheers to Jay and the Chat and Tristan.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Frontier says Alex Jones is Bill Hicks. That's
Speaker 3: not true.
Speaker 1: Alex looks like him. That doesn't you know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people look like people. That doesn't mean the
Speaker 1: art of them.
Speaker 4: You don't look like them at all anymore. I mean
Speaker 4: maybe twenty years ago and that kind of rumors started,
Speaker 4: there was a little bit of physical resemblance.
Speaker 5: But also if he was Bill Hicks, he would be
Speaker 5: like seventy something years old.
Speaker 3: I know, it's so retarded.
Speaker 1: I used to watch Bill Hicks in the early nineties
Speaker 1: on stand up and Alex was like, Alex would have
Speaker 1: been like a teenager. So no, Alex Jones was not
Speaker 1: Bill Hicks doing stand up in the nineteen nineties. That
Speaker 1: like noted the improv with Caroline Ray and all the
Speaker 1: stand ups of the nineties.
Speaker 5: Bill Hicks just he blasted himself so hard with mushrooms
Speaker 5: at the end of his career when he was like dying,
Speaker 5: remember he was, he was getting really into the psychodey
Speaker 5: was he was a psychology MK ultra and he went
Speaker 5: and he he emerged from his MK ultra you know,
Speaker 5: kompa chamber.
Speaker 4: He just as Alex Jones.
Speaker 5: I don't understand the like people lived legit believe that
Speaker 5: people actually think that that is a Dogmas.
Speaker 1: Pepper prophet says Jay Tristan. How does it feel to
Speaker 1: be podcast mogged by Jay Diaper?
Speaker 4: I think I actually the first one is say Jay Dipper.
Speaker 4: We were saying that, like making fun of the people
Speaker 4: that have make fun of your names. There was Jay Dipper,
Speaker 4: there was j Dryer. I don't.
Speaker 5: I think I might have been because I just thought
Speaker 5: Jane Ryer said like, that's not even an insult.
Speaker 4: But then Sam Shamoon still causing a dryer.
Speaker 3: No, now I'm gay Crier, so he's up to his
Speaker 3: game there, just like, yeah.
Speaker 4: We're at fourth grade level now, But I did. I
Speaker 4: do think jasper Is is funny one.
Speaker 3: It is like a four Well in grade school, I
Speaker 3: was Jay Diarrhea, so wasn't.
Speaker 4: I thought that was oh ingement said Jay Diarrhea.
Speaker 3: Know what I'm saying that it didn't begin with Benjamin.
Speaker 3: It began in grade school.
Speaker 4: Grade sorry, that was actual grade school?
Speaker 5: Okay, Well yeah, I would say I was trying to
Speaker 5: separate Internet for.
Speaker 4: Reality, but I mixed it in there when I brought
Speaker 4: up to what was that? What's your favorite? Do you
Speaker 4: have a favorite like anshul name?
Speaker 3: I mean, Jay Diarrhea is just classic because it goes
Speaker 3: back to grade school. So and speaking speaking of speaking,
Speaker 3: do you like how oh?
Speaker 4: And also I had to make like a saw.
Speaker 5: He had to turn it into like a sodomy, things
Speaker 5: like you can't spell.
Speaker 1: Analysis with when when does he not turn it into
Speaker 1: pepe poopoo? And that's all I got to Yeah, you
Speaker 1: can't good sodomy all in his mind.
Speaker 4: He had to go there. That was That was funny.
Speaker 3: This might be the highest percentile debate. Yeah, so far,
Speaker 3: And of course it is my audience.
Speaker 1: But right now pulling ninety four percent, there must be
Speaker 1: six percent freemasons but locksteps of for ten dollars, I
Speaker 1: literally poot my pants today at the park. Speaking of
Speaker 1: poopy stuff, he says, I was playing disc golf. We
Speaker 1: had to stop. Thank you for the strain. I hope
Speaker 1: your guts are okay. Intrinsic five dollars day. Do you
Speaker 1: know anything about You don't know anything. Tiger sauce is
Speaker 1: I don't know what that is and it works. So
Speaker 1: he's a fan of Charlie Sheen's Tiger Blood. Apparently it works.
Speaker 1: Adward twelve dollars is an old clip of Alex talking
Speaker 1: about things I can't mention on YouTube.
Speaker 3: He spurgs out. I don't believe Alex is faked, so
Speaker 3: I disagree recking five dollars. Do you see Rouslin sermon?
Speaker 1: He cited Saint John Christistom as if Saint John christistm
Speaker 1: supports the teachings of the Rhythm Church. Well, I hope
Speaker 1: people are seeing through the fraud here of the nonsense,
Speaker 1: because Rousseline shared Redeem Zuomer's comment that the Protestant Reformers
Speaker 1: and the Church Fathers have identical beliefs on everything.
Speaker 3: That's what they said, So not a masaud agent. Ten dollars.
Speaker 3: I'm at a at my friend's old Protestant church.
Speaker 1: They said west Huff was the best apologist because he'd
Speaker 1: beat Billy Corson.
Speaker 3: I said that west Huff is gay because he won't
Speaker 3: debate anybody. How can you be the best apologist when
Speaker 3: you won't debate anybody, Well, you just debate the one
Speaker 3: lowest hanging fruit, and then you declare yourself the victor.
Speaker 3: Rosie'll find out nobody even.
Speaker 4: Knew Billy Corson was like, I had never even heard
Speaker 4: of Billy Corson.
Speaker 1: No, he was actually he was on a he was
Speaker 1: on a podcast tour right before he was on Rogan
Speaker 1: PbD right before west Huff debated him and pretty much
Speaker 1: ended all.
Speaker 3: That bumblebee five dollars.
Speaker 1: Do you think Rouselo would agree to rap battle or
Speaker 1: would it have to be him battling your catechumen? Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's only going to battle a catechumen, right snake for
Speaker 1: two dollars.
Speaker 4: No, we did that.
Speaker 3: Leave it to Ethan ten dollars.
Speaker 9: Jay.
Speaker 3: The karaoke interview was phenomenal. I really I hope he
Speaker 3: comes back from more conversations. Yeah, I hope so too.
Speaker 3: It was a great, great chat, probably my favorite, one
Speaker 3: of my best interviews. Craftsmen ten dollars, we.
Speaker 1: Did that, Tingu twenty dollars is going to be a
Speaker 1: long night boys, Thank you Frontier. No, we did that,
Speaker 1: Vanilla five dollars. Protestants used Luke twenty four to justify
Speaker 1: the Protestant.
Speaker 3: Canon because Jesus mentions laws, the prophets, and the psalms.
Speaker 3: That doesn't tell us what the canon is. That's such
Speaker 3: a low tier argument.
Speaker 1: That's just assuming that him saying that, I mean, you
Speaker 1: can make the same argument that in another verse where
Speaker 1: he says, you know in the law that, oh well,
Speaker 1: Jesus only says the law. So the canon is only
Speaker 1: the law, right, I mean, it's facilly.
Speaker 3: How do we know? How do we if we're.
Speaker 1: Gonna base our canon on generalized statements of the Old Testament,
Speaker 1: how do we know which statement is a canonical statement?
Speaker 1: Maybe we're supposed to be Torah only Christians because Jesus
Speaker 1: says in the Law. Well, the fact that he says
Speaker 1: in another verse in the Law, the prophets and the Psalms,
Speaker 1: there's nothing about that that tells us the specific list
Speaker 1: of the canon.
Speaker 3: This is just silly.
Speaker 1: Tipper Jay, Where do I buy your prayer book? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's the blue one from Transfiguration Monaster. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you can still get him or not. Joseph ten dollars?
Speaker 3: Will you cover the archangel urials text and fourth Ezra? Uh?
Speaker 3: Maybe I never thought about that. There's a response on
Speaker 3: the Mystery of Suffering. It mirrors the response to job. Interesting.
Speaker 1: It's been a long time since I read any of
Speaker 1: the deuterocononical historical texts. I mean I was actually I
Speaker 1: did reread Sirich recently, and I read reread Wisdom, but
Speaker 1: I haven't read judahth or Toba or Maccabee's or as
Speaker 1: us or any of those in a long time.
Speaker 3: Soday, I should go back to those A million oh
Speaker 3: five dollars. Thank you for your content. I'm writing a
Speaker 3: paper on the Big Z for my pastor. You have
Speaker 3: books on the history of the Big Z.
Speaker 1: Well, the best one is roth Chill's biography by Morton,
Speaker 1: and Moses has his book Jerusalem and Athens.
Speaker 3: Nick, ten dollars. In the scope of you two, you
Speaker 3: have two hundred k. Rouselm has eight hundred k. They're
Speaker 3: not far apart. Uh, what do you mean? Not far apart?
Speaker 3: We're blowing them away. What are you talking about? Simple things?
Speaker 1: Pointing out that we're meant to be in nature of
Speaker 1: me Nashville, and this is where we find the source
Speaker 1: that God made you transcend the new world order. And
Speaker 1: that's why the one trying to keep us agree.
Speaker 3: I've had these people there, a bunch of Christian murderings,
Speaker 3: coms death back just keeping baby is alive.
Speaker 4: He needed all about these people.
Speaker 13: I go round to taste these stones and literally crawl
Speaker 13: out from a box and.
Speaker 14: Skin and ruating we want babies.
Speaker 1: I had them on the all.
Speaker 3: Right, that's not bad, No, Nick, We're blowing away.
Speaker 4: Is right happened?
Speaker 3: Okay, here we go.
Speaker 4: You resist the.
Speaker 3: Creepy weird six set up.
Speaker 14: Man, she sleeps in the same room with that creepy
Speaker 14: weird a woman who's mother wizzard.
Speaker 4: Hood over her head.
Speaker 1: The woman noble.
Speaker 15: Woe is ugly.
Speaker 1: Imagine how bad she smells.
Speaker 14: Man, I'm told her head Obama, just stick Obama and
Speaker 14: you reports.
Speaker 9: And a sofa.
Speaker 4: In help fire About there.
Speaker 14: The captains holding around the after rose, steering.
Speaker 4: Against close to that evil head up heeling gold.
Speaker 15: Are such self serer crap we don't even know it
Speaker 15: head itself rising up against the billions of parting.
Speaker 14: The people of the very worst stapp Man, I'm so
Speaker 14: dis We're gonna stab your daughter at the moment. Oh
Speaker 14: oh oh, I'm gonna.
Speaker 4: Stab your wealth.
Speaker 14: Yes, we're gonna stab you with the budget.
Speaker 1: And then ladies Jesus going to say we know we
Speaker 1: love our Muslims.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: Bond Ever thought they were going to really get at
Speaker 1: Alex with that satire and it ended up being like
Speaker 1: thirty million views on that song.
Speaker 4: Bony Be didn't do that. That was like a honeion
Speaker 4: type thing that they did. It was some game turn.
Speaker 3: Type as yeah, yeah, it's not bonny Bear.
Speaker 5: It's it's super well done and they innitated a style
Speaker 5: like perfectly.
Speaker 1: But it's not it's this whole All this time, I
Speaker 1: thought it was let's see, because it sounds like that,
Speaker 1: we'll see.
Speaker 4: I'm thinking intern it was like somebody. It wasn't even
Speaker 4: you know, didn't comedian or anything. I think it was
Speaker 4: obviously a few people wrote that together and didn't write it,
Speaker 4: but it found really good clips. I mean it also shows,
Speaker 4: I mean, they really proved.
Speaker 5: That Alex is just legitimately like one of the best
Speaker 5: modern poets. Literal vampire pop elly goblins are hobbling.
Speaker 4: Around coming after Its like you don't even have to
Speaker 4: sing it.
Speaker 5: It just sounds so literal vampire pop belly goblins are
Speaker 5: hobbling around coming after Okay, So Sander crap, we.
Speaker 4: Don't even notice hell itself rising up against us.
Speaker 3: So Nick, you're right.
Speaker 1: It's a guy named Nick lutz Lutskow, a comedian and singer. Okay,
Speaker 1: I've never heard of this guy, Nick lutz Lutskow. He's
Speaker 1: not even like capitalizing on it's like his biggest thing,
Speaker 1: and he's not even like capitalizing on it. Let's see
Speaker 1: maybe he's got it on his channel, Nick Lutzkow.
Speaker 4: And the thing is, it's all Alex, right, I mean
Speaker 4: Alex wrote all those lines, and every one of the
Speaker 4: lines that's in it was so good. Yeah, he's he's
Speaker 4: at that point with the time period where those uh,
Speaker 4: where this cliff came from. He was such a good wordsmith.
Speaker 4: He has he's lost his uh.
Speaker 5: I think he's he used up all his words because
Speaker 5: he's there was a time when he was just so funny.
Speaker 4: Man, he was so funny. I still like Alex, but yeah,
Speaker 4: it was there was there was a period where he
Speaker 4: was just on fire.
Speaker 3: Doctor Egman two dollars.
Speaker 1: I can't comment on that because I haven't read enough
Speaker 1: of other Stephen Young in the in the in the
Speaker 1: text to say so, I don't know roziel I message
Speaker 1: you on Discord.
Speaker 3: I'll check it out.
Speaker 1: Great Scott uh says, here's a little money for the
Speaker 1: stain remover for that shirt.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll spit the coffee out on my shirt earlier.
Speaker 1: Great Scott says, you use some club soda, it'll get
Speaker 1: the staining out. President Retard twenty dollars. Tristanna Diva Mogg's Jay,
Speaker 1: Oh my.
Speaker 3: Gosh, that's not true. I can't believe you said that
Speaker 3: Tristan is the songbird of a generation.
Speaker 4: Wow. Wow Is that a separate superhad or that was
Speaker 4: just one superchand.
Speaker 3: No, that was one guy. You have a one super
Speaker 3: fan in the audience.
Speaker 4: I can't refute that. I mean I would try. I can't.
Speaker 1: Emilia and twenty dollars, Jay, what book you recommend on
Speaker 1: Rome changing church Father texts and forgeries? Uh?
Speaker 3: The two volume set that Uncut Mountain put out, Uh,
Speaker 3: Latin Error's Blame one and Blame two.
Speaker 1: I forget which volume has the the sections of the forgeries.
Speaker 1: But uh, George whom we interviewed on the channel, you
Speaker 1: can find an interview on that. He's pretty much the
Speaker 1: guy who just kind of went all into that.
Speaker 3: Would it help with the Philly Okuay That one will
Speaker 3: deal with that.
Speaker 1: But the Philly Oquay book had to read Sashchensky's book
Speaker 1: on the Philly ok Way too.
Speaker 3: Sergi has five dollars.
Speaker 1: John Adams doesn't get enough props, good recommendations from him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's a great Uh.
Speaker 1: In fact, mat him on the on the trip out
Speaker 1: to California and he gave me a big old stack
Speaker 1: of books, so he's always given out books. I can
Speaker 1: him as sisteen dollars. The Masons sound like they're a
Speaker 1: blend of new agers who pretend to be fancier and
Speaker 1: smarter than they are. Maybe I'm wrong, No, and the New.
Speaker 3: Age actually comes out of Masonry.
Speaker 1: In fact, Madame Levatski wrote an article back at the
Speaker 1: turn of the last century for the Scottish Rite Journal,
Speaker 1: which is a Masonic journal, saying that Masonry would be
Speaker 1: kind of the era of the religion of the future,
Speaker 1: so to speak.
Speaker 4: And then also in the Sri publication.
Speaker 3: Was it called what's the changing Changing Images of Man?
Speaker 4: Changing Images of Man? Yeah, the last few chapters of that,
Speaker 4: I think if he's the last few chapters.
Speaker 5: Basically their model for the future man and how you
Speaker 5: structure society is Freemasonry.
Speaker 3: MATD.
Speaker 1: Burns says rouslan Ak, the failed rapper Jay Rock is
Speaker 1: co opting Orthodox Christianity because he knows that his grip
Speaker 1: is now exposed.
Speaker 3: This is the natural progression once people get exposed, it
Speaker 3: seems to be the case.
Speaker 1: And by the way, like I'll never stop going against
Speaker 1: these guys once you you know, try to do this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff to me, like, I'm not donna stop,
Speaker 1: so we'll be like Alex Jones over here, I'll keep going.
Speaker 3: JB five dollars the biggest EVA again, I think that's
Speaker 3: already been decided a long time ago.
Speaker 5: So well, I mean, I don't see any super chess
Speaker 5: backing up.
Speaker 4: You're a good claim, But that's.
Speaker 3: Fine, Tristan.
Speaker 1: I sent that one in under a soccer account to
Speaker 1: make you feel better, just so you would come back
Speaker 1: to the streams.
Speaker 3: I did that so you come back to these streams, dude.
Speaker 1: Come on, Uh, let's see we got JB says that
Speaker 1: the Masonic position is demonic.
Speaker 3: They're blatant relativists. It was implied, but decidedly acknowledged in
Speaker 3: the debate. Yeah, I think that. I think they did constantly.
Speaker 3: They wasn't just implied, They multiple times were relativistic in
Speaker 3: their arguments. But Guru ten dollars, I was a retarded
Speaker 3: vegan for seven years, not that I ever liked that clown,
Speaker 3: but I love the debate that you have with Vegan gains.
Speaker 1: Back in the day. Through with Tristan. That's how I
Speaker 1: discovered you and how I got back into good stuff.
Speaker 3: That's good. It's how I've seen you. It's good to
Speaker 3: see that you've climbed since. Thank you. Yeah. In fact,
Speaker 3: that was one of the.
Speaker 1: Early debates was actually me and triest in versus ask
Speaker 1: yourself in Vegan Gains Remember those days.
Speaker 4: That was such a funny people still laugh about. But
Speaker 4: some of my like i OL friends.
Speaker 3: Still the fact, the fact, the fact, the fact, the fact,
Speaker 3: the fact, the fact.
Speaker 5: They both short circuited so badly. I actually I forgot
Speaker 5: how much I interacted with Vegan Gains. I had so
Speaker 5: many So I had a lot of interactions with Vegan
Speaker 5: Gates over the years.
Speaker 4: He still makes videos. I guess he's still around.
Speaker 1: He hopped into the debate that I did with Gnostic
Speaker 1: Informant and tried to mog Christianity by saying that his
Speaker 1: god is crom like Conan's.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was so stupid.
Speaker 15: I mean it's been this was.
Speaker 4: Almost ten years ago.
Speaker 3: It was a twenty eighteen or seven years twenty. I
Speaker 3: think it was twenty eighteen, twenty eighteen year.
Speaker 5: So yeah, we're eight years and he's still got a
Speaker 5: narcissistic wound from it.
Speaker 1: Sleeping gay Scuping Zebra five dollars. Patriarch Carol, how would
Speaker 1: you respond to reports of corruption? You're asking me if
Speaker 1: I was patriarch Carol?
Speaker 3: How whatever? Spawn I'll understand the question.
Speaker 1: How do you feel about blessing a weapon during a war?
Speaker 1: I mean Orthodox Church has always blessed the soldiers and
Speaker 1: the weapons. Chase ten dollars. I was sold by Masons
Speaker 1: that it's an allegory for fraternal use the way that
Speaker 1: college scholarships use is to say.
Speaker 3: And that thus would induct you through the symbolism.
Speaker 1: I'm not one.
Speaker 3: So what is Jabulin. It's it's a religious I mean
Speaker 3: they're using syncretistic principles to create secret societies that are
Speaker 3: so supposedly supra religious and supra national.
Speaker 9: Right.
Speaker 3: That's why it's an international body organization.
Speaker 1: So the fact that they liken it to a college
Speaker 1: fraternity has nothing to do with whether or not it's
Speaker 1: actually religiously committed and it's commitment and its positions. And
Speaker 1: that's what I argued in the debate I think successfully.
Speaker 1: So the fact that you're saying, and this is what.
Speaker 3: Almost everybody did, right, Like almost everybody who's defended it
Speaker 3: or argued for it says even the guys that came
Speaker 3: up at the end of the questions are like, how
Speaker 3: is this any different than joining a corporation that is secular.
Speaker 3: The whole argument is that it's not secular, and that
Speaker 3: you keep saying it secular, but then you go back
Speaker 3: to saying, here's all these religious positions is that you
Speaker 3: got to have to not be excluded.
Speaker 1: Proves the point. It's like, this argument just flies over
Speaker 1: everyone's head and I'm not being mean to you.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's Chase Geyser.
Speaker 1: But what about Leo Taxo admitting that he lied about Mason's. Well,
Speaker 1: what does that have to do with any of my arguments?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 1: So that's that's as fallacy of irrelevance. It's not relevant
Speaker 1: to if somebody lie. If somebody lied about Christianity, that
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with proving Christianity, right, So like, uh,
Speaker 1: I prove that, uh, this is the fallacy fallas Right.
Speaker 1: So if if Richard Dawkins writes a book and somebody
Speaker 1: exposes that he made up all these quotes and lied
Speaker 1: about Christianity, that would improve Christianity.
Speaker 9: Right.
Speaker 1: So Leo Taxil making up lies about Mason's doesn't mean
Speaker 1: Masonry is.
Speaker 3: Therefore good and not still a subject to critique. Look
Speaker 3: up the fallacy.
Speaker 1: Fallacy chronicles the Freemason in the space sound retarded ice Wolf.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I will eventually convey this to my father.
Speaker 3: It convey what you miss them and I must miss
Speaker 3: something talking about some earlier I don't rember what you're
Speaker 3: talking about. Not a Massaud agent says, for ten dollars,
Speaker 3: it sounds like they're Masonic Supreme Being is part of
Speaker 3: the non binary, non identifiable, non gender community. Actually, in the.
Speaker 1: Masonic text they say that it's Adam Cadman and it's bisexual.
Speaker 1: So as you heard me offer as an argument at
Speaker 1: the by the way, they never addressed the yone argument
Speaker 1: at the very beginning that they worship PEPs and the
Speaker 1: JJ's exactly.
Speaker 4: So they admit in their own system that Freemasonry is fake,
Speaker 4: gay and Jewish.
Speaker 1: Well, if you say, if you want to say that,
Speaker 1: direct to people to go to the Zohar to figure
Speaker 1: out who God is is Jewish, that's up to you.
Speaker 1: Tristan Consequently, he said, coincide. Coincidentally, he says that this
Speaker 1: is also the ven number to a twenty eleven explorer,
Speaker 1: the m M I w G two s Joel LBG
Speaker 1: t q q I a community TINGU twenty five dollars.
Speaker 1: If you could sit down for a couple hours to
Speaker 1: talk to anybody from history that isn't Jesus, who would
Speaker 1: you pick?
Speaker 3: I don't know, Tristan, after we die, how's that energetic distinction?
Speaker 4: But I think that's just a death threat.
Speaker 3: No, it's not. It's okay, Candice. I know you think
Speaker 3: everything is a threat against you.
Speaker 1: Suddenly, but it's the gang Stalkers exactly, the gang shovistaraty. There,
Speaker 1: I've sent the hitman, and in Tristan's gonna I'm gonna
Speaker 1: regret it, and then I'm gonna wish that I could
Speaker 1: talk to Trustan afterwards.
Speaker 4: But the top of the top diva, I'm the top
Speaker 4: t I'm the top target targeted individual diva and there
Speaker 4: after me.
Speaker 3: But climbing to the top requires ruthlessness. And if I'm
Speaker 3: going to be the top of diva, sometimes sometimes you know,
Speaker 3: something might happen to the competition. I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's a joke, by the way, where people try to
Speaker 1: full the stream energetic distinction of dollars, How do we
Speaker 1: get our family.
Speaker 3: To understand that Masonry is Satanic?
Speaker 4: Is it?
Speaker 3: And it's a different alter than God's. I mean, do
Speaker 3: you not think that? I mean, the debate debate not
Speaker 3: show that.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you don't believe that, if you can't
Speaker 1: see that relativism is the Satanic point, then your your
Speaker 1: your family's just going to be Normies like every other
Speaker 1: normy because all the normies are all relativest.
Speaker 3: That's your truth, man, it's true for you. It's true
Speaker 3: for you, dude.
Speaker 1: That's like basic bitch normy right there. And the Masons
Speaker 1: are basically saying that throughout the debate.
Speaker 3: So Altar boy, five dollars, what.
Speaker 1: Are you saying if the cops say I'm not driving drunk,
Speaker 1: but my actions are that I was driving drunk. I
Speaker 1: guess you're talking about the Masons, Like if they're saying
Speaker 1: I'm not denying Christ by joining us society that denies
Speaker 1: Christ because I still believe in Christ. Right, I caught
Speaker 1: him at ten dollars. John says, anyone denies the deed
Speaker 1: of Christ is Antichrist, exactly as we say against the Muslims.
Speaker 1: So is it fair to say that Masonry is Antichrist? Yes, exactly,
Speaker 1: just like Islam serge, Yes, five dollars damn. Ecumenism is
Speaker 1: pressing in from every angle, kind of terrifying what you
Speaker 1: start noticing and recognize. Yeah, it's the same position as Ruslin,
Speaker 1: redeem Zomer, Trent Horn, all the humanists, the Freemasons, they
Speaker 1: have the same position. Nobody can say what Christianity is,
Speaker 1: although they can say what masonry is. If you saw
Speaker 1: we saw that pointed out in the debate. They can
Speaker 1: tell you who's a regular and irregular lodge, but Chase
Speaker 1: couldn't tell you who isn't isn't a Christian in terms
Speaker 1: of historical bodies.
Speaker 3: I thought that was absurd in the debate. D jewels
Speaker 3: five dollars day. It's interesting that you aren't tagged on
Speaker 3: that video and there's a bunch of edits. Yeah. I
Speaker 3: don't know why DJ did that. Maybe he may be.
Speaker 1: Working with Chase. Chase moved to Nashville, so they might
Speaker 1: have work that they're doing together. I don't think he was.
Speaker 1: I mean, I didn't notice him cutting out any substantial
Speaker 1: debate points, So I'm not accusing DJ of doing anything
Speaker 1: in that regard because that was everything that I remember
Speaker 1: from the debate. So they didn't edit anything out of
Speaker 1: the debate, except that they just even the audio levels
Speaker 1: so that we weren't getting really loud and you didn't
Speaker 1: hear the audience laughing when I was making fun of
Speaker 1: them at several points. But I kind of wish they'd
Speaker 1: kept that in Illuminati Checkboard Flooring twenty dollars Doing a
Speaker 1: R storiography the OSS and CAA. Have you covered Donovan
Speaker 1: by the CAA Thomas Troy. It's very dry compared to
Speaker 1: the old boys, but good stuff.
Speaker 3: I don't have.
Speaker 1: I have a couple biographies of will Build Donovan, and
Speaker 1: I have his own autobiography, but I don't have that.
Speaker 4: No, that's a big project. I mean a historiography, like
Speaker 4: if it's going to be exhausted, that's going to be.
Speaker 3: Like I mean, yeah, like.
Speaker 1: I want to write a book on geopolitics and espionage.
Speaker 1: But the problem is that it would just be so
Speaker 1: difficult to to figure out how to do it, and
Speaker 1: it would be so much work. And then then you
Speaker 1: have to think, will anybody even buy this? I don't
Speaker 1: even know that they would.
Speaker 4: You have to pick, you know, think of like one
Speaker 4: chapter you would do in that book, and that's a book.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I might have to like I might have to
Speaker 3: like narrow it down to like uh, espionage and the church,
Speaker 3: you know what I mean something like that, or really.
Speaker 4: YE think if you do a broad a broad take
Speaker 4: on it, it's it's impossible. It's gonna end up being
Speaker 4: like a you know, three one thousand page volumes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, i'd be like a life's work.
Speaker 4: There's a complete historiography on OS s c. I A, yeah,
Speaker 4: and written about things in twentieth century history.
Speaker 3: Right, exactly material.
Speaker 1: I remember the my French Revolution professor when I was
Speaker 1: in the undergrad the French Revolution professor, he said that
Speaker 1: no event And I think you wanted to say because
Speaker 1: it's it's so long since the French Revolution. I think
Speaker 1: that and this was way after the Big nine event.
Speaker 1: I think he said that no event even world War two,
Speaker 1: that like maybe it was World War two in French Revolution,
Speaker 1: like you could never read all the books that have
Speaker 1: been written on those two events.
Speaker 4: So yeah, that's that. Tracks that makes sense.
Speaker 3: Death takes.
Speaker 1: I'm going to the shape story. Do you need anything?
Speaker 1: Lamarconi five dollars? What is your beef with Sam Schamun.
Speaker 3: You can go watch all the old live streams where
Speaker 3: you lay out what the problems were with Sam Shimun.
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna rehearsal that right now.
Speaker 1: JV Jay, you should do more with John Kiriaki. The
Speaker 1: two of you complimented each other very well.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Lamarconi says, for five dollars, can you explain
Speaker 3: Orthodox stance on faith and works.
Speaker 1: I'm having a hard time explaining it and defending it
Speaker 1: in OC. You over there in Orange County, dog I
Speaker 1: don't know if he means Orange County or the Orthodox Church,
Speaker 1: but you get something like, you know, Rock and Sand
Speaker 1: Father Josiah or look up. But guys, we've got a
Speaker 1: lot of old podcasts and videos on you know, justification
Speaker 1: by faith alone and the problems with that. So I
Speaker 1: would say you gotta gotta check out those old live trems.
Speaker 1: I don't try and be rude, but shout out to
Speaker 1: a c. We haven't seen Ac in in a good.
Speaker 3: In a in a hot minute. It's been a hot minute,
Speaker 3: but Ac is back in the chat. Long time supporter
Speaker 3: super chatter.
Speaker 1: Ac says, this is my hit job for Captain tazariyak
Speaker 1: uh Oh. So we've done lost Ac from Orthodox to
Speaker 1: the BHI. He's now a black heeber Israeli as a
Speaker 1: white man. Don't make me make sense to it, because
Speaker 1: it ain't gonna make sense.
Speaker 3: Mad Finland eleven dollars in regard to Ruslan and his
Speaker 3: comment about Jade Jay's Lovely which Jay fails to realize
Speaker 3: that the five.
Speaker 1: Langue Love Language are like the DITTI key to evangelicals. Oh,
Speaker 1: I didn't even know this is a thing amongst evangelicals.
Speaker 3: I didn't really.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know they're gay as hell, but like,
Speaker 1: I don't even know what that is. They literally handed
Speaker 1: out copies of the Love Language at my old church
Speaker 1: of Christ. Jay puts on respect on Gary Chapman. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this is an evangelical like way to make yourself
Speaker 1: more gay.
Speaker 3: Okay, I got it.
Speaker 5: That's actually a marked I think that's actually a Marvin
Speaker 5: Gay album language.
Speaker 3: Okay. But it's starting to make more sense now that
Speaker 3: this is like a popular evangelical thing, which I don't.
Speaker 3: I mean, I haven't been in the world of evangelicalism
Speaker 3: since nineteen ninety nine, so but maybe I don't know
Speaker 3: when this came out. Let's see when it come out. Okay,
Speaker 3: so this is nineties. Oh look they got that Memphis.
Speaker 3: What's that horrible dystopian tech art style Corporate Memphis. Oh
Speaker 3: my gosh.
Speaker 1: If I see corporate Memphis and faceless black and white
Speaker 1: people together, yeah, that's perfect.
Speaker 3: For the rusalom Ruslan. Ruslan's whole rhythm Church should be
Speaker 3: decked out in icons with Rouslan Saints in corporate Memphis.
Speaker 3: That would be perfect for him. Triple seven, you know branch.
Speaker 4: In New York, you can be.
Speaker 1: Uh, excuse me, excuse me, you mean Tristan Tristan. I
Speaker 1: think you mean a franchise of the church. Franchise exactly
Speaker 1: triple five dollars. When will we get a Gnostic pope
Speaker 1: with Jay Dyer Who's Gnostic pope? He is an ex
Speaker 1: Muslim who became Orthodox Catechyuman. Okay, well, I'm not familiar
Speaker 1: with him, but that's he sounds like he's making the
Speaker 1: right moves. Uh, all right, hold on, we got to
Speaker 1: check the super chats over here on YouTube because those
Speaker 1: are separate and always always missed some of.
Speaker 3: These, so uh, TJ's takes five dollars. I can't see
Speaker 3: if you made a comment.
Speaker 1: Ac says for five dollars, this really shows the trajectory
Speaker 1: of the Middle Ages and Protestantism to Masonry to relativism
Speaker 1: and liberalism. That's actually a good point, right, You kind
Speaker 1: of have these phases historically in the West, ideologically speaking
Speaker 1: of the movement from you know, medieval Papism to Enlightenment
Speaker 1: and Protestantism and Enlightenment and then you get Masonry and
Speaker 1: then you get atheism. Right, And that's exactly what sat
Speaker 1: Gregy Palmos said, the trajectory would be of the West.
Speaker 3: Great comment there, ac two.
Speaker 1: The we sing gave out a bunch of memberships. Appreciate that, man,
Speaker 1: I appreciate the generosity tonight. I think I got all
Speaker 1: the super chests there. Making sure guys remember head on
Speaker 1: a chalk dot com remember to subscribe to our bro
Speaker 1: a Tristanna. Tristan is linked in the show description the
Speaker 1: Tristan Haggard YouTube channel. Be sure to subscribe to me
Speaker 1: on x and everywhere.
Speaker 3: Digital says for ten dollars, it would have been funny as.
Speaker 1: Hell if you could have dropped the Muslim painting from
Speaker 1: the Masonic Museum. When the ball guy said that they
Speaker 1: would say hell no to Muslim members, that's not true
Speaker 1: though they have Muslim members. You can, I mean, Chase
Speaker 1: admitted that what they were saying was they don't believe
Speaker 1: they personally are worshiping the same God as Islam, but
Speaker 1: they can be in the society with Muslims because they're
Speaker 1: affirming the same quote generic God personally.
Speaker 3: So you know, it's how silly that is. Oh.
Speaker 1: Rachel Wilson says, for twenty dollars, Jay one over two Freemasons.
Speaker 1: The Freemason homo is an easy dub. Rachel says, give
Speaker 1: Jay your money.
Speaker 3: All you pay piggys ooh pay Piggy pro Zilch coming
Speaker 3: in clutch for twenty memberships. He gifted twenty memberships. Thank
Speaker 3: you so much. Zell's appreciate that. Appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Alan Yee says, stop that Freemason cap. Pay Masons is
Speaker 1: where it's at you exactly, and now I have no
Speaker 1: more to this Freemason. I'm talking about getting paid Mason
Speaker 1: over here.
Speaker 3: Again.
Speaker 1: We got people talking about Tristan mogging me in terms
Speaker 1: of diva status.
Speaker 3: I'm just going to have a rage quick. I'm going
Speaker 3: to have a rage quick read these ones. All right.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry we got Walter, I've been waiting minute. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. I forgot to go to the people in
Speaker 3: the in the queue here, what's up dog?
Speaker 4: Hey, good to hear you guys again. I just I'm
Speaker 4: just here. It's like quite early.
Speaker 5: I'm from Germany, by the way, I guess I want
Speaker 5: to tell you I want to start Twitter spaces myself,
Speaker 5: trying to do the social media thing.
Speaker 4: Got the blue check mark and all that.
Speaker 16: I'm wondering, like, I need some guests, like and I'd
Speaker 16: be very glad if like you are Tristan or both ideal,
Speaker 16: like we could set up some cool Twitter spaces.
Speaker 4: I would like to interview you guys.
Speaker 9: Uh.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I hit him up, hit me up in
Speaker 3: the the messages.
Speaker 1: Uh, and I'll.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I appreciate that. Okay, I appreciate it. Man. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we'll take a look at that and we'll forgot out
Speaker 3: a time when we can do something.
Speaker 4: Colper, what's Up's my handler? So he speaks from me?
Speaker 3: He has and I have to ask, right.
Speaker 1: I asked Karaoku what to say, and Karaoku asked Putin
Speaker 1: what to say. So it has to come down the
Speaker 1: chain of hierarchy properly.
Speaker 3: We have to do it in the right order. TJ says.
Speaker 3: For five dollars, pay grind g. I think he's talking
Speaker 3: about Brian Shapiro.
Speaker 1: I don't think when I mentioned when I started laughing,
Speaker 1: when I missed when I was talking to John Kiyaku
Speaker 1: and I was thinking about peaky blinders and I said
Speaker 1: peaky grinders, and I was thinking of Brian Shapiro. And
Speaker 1: I don't think John Kiyaku. He probably just thought I
Speaker 1: was talking about the sandwich, the grinder, Culpeper. What's up,
Speaker 1: col Pepper?
Speaker 3: I'm you.
Speaker 1: Hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Can you hear me? Uh? Huh?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 4: Man? You said Culpepper.
Speaker 17: You understand the history of that, right, No, Coulpepper was
Speaker 17: the name that Washington gave Colper before he named them Culper.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, I can't see I got Boomera. I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: Yeah, No, I'm a boomer too, dude, don't worry. Uh, Tristan,
Speaker 9: I'm a fan of you.
Speaker 1: I just followed you, all right.
Speaker 3: I'm immediately going to meet this guy because we're getting
Speaker 3: too many.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: This is not I did not expect it to go
Speaker 3: this way. There's too many, Tristan. My biggest thing.
Speaker 9: I called before you, Remember I told you my mom
Speaker 9: like married a bunch of people and had a bunch
Speaker 9: of husbands or whatever I called like months.
Speaker 3: Ago, me or him or who are you talking about?
Speaker 4: I called you.
Speaker 3: I called you and your mama had a bunch of husbands.
Speaker 5: Yeah, he said.
Speaker 3: This, This ain't Jerry Springer signing the Saint Oprah.
Speaker 9: But what I was trying to say one of the
Speaker 9: husbands had a Masonic Bible. Oo. Yeah, dog, So I
Speaker 9: love the Bible. My grandmama she gave me a King James.
Speaker 4: I read it. They went through you remember the King James.
Speaker 4: I had like the maps in the back. Yes, yeah,
Speaker 4: you would go through the maps.
Speaker 9: You're like, ooh, just as the old Israel and here
Speaker 9: we go.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if you go back in the back of a.
Speaker 5: Masonic Bible, it's like a bunch of Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Speaker 4: Oh I didn't know that, dude. I opened up the
Speaker 4: Masonic Bible.
Speaker 17: Wow, it was like the Iohaus a bunch of Egyptian
Speaker 17: highero glyphics.
Speaker 4: And I was just like, Mama, what the fuck is this?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I'm not Yeah, I'm not surprised because I
Speaker 1: have seen appreciate that culprit.
Speaker 3: I have seen Masonic Bibles, you know, the big, big
Speaker 3: ones that they have the lot.
Speaker 1: I've just never spent a lot of time flipping through them,
Speaker 1: so I'm not surprised that there's you know, like egypt
Speaker 1: you know, esotery, Egyptian gibberation in the back.
Speaker 3: But that's that's fascinating, Connive. What's in the back? Exactly right?
Speaker 4: I would to make an edit, like a cringe core
Speaker 4: edit song of some of the same thing. That's some
Speaker 4: of the things he just said.
Speaker 3: Talks by the way, Uh, your mom with anybody right now?
Speaker 5: Jay, you know that nickname of your mom is the
Speaker 5: I Ah Risk.
Speaker 1: Oh shit, connive conveyive, what's up man, I'm here now.
Speaker 3: My Michael isn't working earlier. But I just had a
Speaker 3: question about and just for.
Speaker 18: Context, I told you I was a Catholic before, and
Speaker 18: I'm currently discerning between the Catholic Church.
Speaker 3: And Eastern Orthodoxy.
Speaker 18: And I've been writing an evangelical letter to someone that
Speaker 18: I know that's a non practicing Catholic and just believing
Speaker 18: in atheism. And I thought it was going to be easy,
Speaker 18: like an easy letter, right. Oh, I'm gonna list the
Speaker 18: five arguments from Aquinas.
Speaker 4: And while I was writing the letter, I found.
Speaker 18: A video by you rejecting the first argument of motion.
Speaker 4: And I found an argument against.
Speaker 18: Natural theology by Father and I don't know how to
Speaker 18: pronounce his name, Deacon Annius.
Speaker 4: Nice, Yeah, I blink, but.
Speaker 18: Yeah, And that was based on like epistemology. But I
Speaker 18: don't have a very good understanding of epistemology yet because
Speaker 18: I haven't studied it.
Speaker 4: So my question to you is, if.
Speaker 18: You were in my situation, how would you create the
Speaker 18: most coherent argument for the existence of God if you
Speaker 18: reject natural theology and correct me if I'm wrong on
Speaker 18: your position, and what arguments would be the most logically
Speaker 18: valid while also being plausible to a heathen.
Speaker 1: That's going to be really difficult to convey in a
Speaker 1: letter to an atheist. I mean, I'm not telling you
Speaker 1: not to do it, but you know, we got a
Speaker 1: lot of videos kind of explained TAG, so I'll go
Speaker 1: I would say, go check out any of the TAG
Speaker 1: explanation videos or Father Deconductor and Ice on his channel.
Speaker 1: He has a whole playlist on TAG and his channel
Speaker 1: is Patristic Faith Chase.
Speaker 3: H uh oh, this is.
Speaker 1: Getting a little too haggardly. I mean, we've got too
Speaker 1: much haggard energy in here. It's just kind of sap
Speaker 1: in the room. So yeah, you can.
Speaker 4: You can boot Tristan. Let's see he's done. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 4: you can remove him. Tristan, are you there? Hello?
Speaker 3: I think he's not going to talk to you.
Speaker 4: He's a tuning out the sound of his voice. Who's this?
Speaker 4: This is your former brother.
Speaker 5: The family asked me to send you a message because
Speaker 5: of your good performance tonight, we'd like to.
Speaker 1: Go back to stop.
Speaker 5: Stop mute him, mute him, please mute him. Sorry, this
Speaker 5: is this is not your cross exam time. The family
Speaker 5: would like to offer you a place back at the table. Okay,
Speaker 5: we'll call you by your name. You know you got
Speaker 5: mad and calling you the other son. But we'd like
Speaker 5: to offer you a chance back at the table.
Speaker 3: See we got reconciliation happening right here.
Speaker 4: Do you accept the terms? Somebody just tell me when
Speaker 4: he's done talking, I'll come back.
Speaker 5: Okay, all right, Well, you.
Speaker 4: Know we're proud of you. Parents said that they'd like
Speaker 4: to soon say they love you. So that's all I want.
Speaker 3: This has to do with people transition.
Speaker 1: This has to do with detransitioning and where people are
Speaker 1: at and their journey and you know, that's.
Speaker 4: Kind of what's not funny? I know that's not funny.
Speaker 3: I'm not making a joke.
Speaker 5: That's not a funny joke. Bro, all right, no apology.
Speaker 5: All right, well I'm headed out.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 4: That's all right.
Speaker 3: Well that's all you can do. That's all you can do.
Speaker 1: Chase, good luck with him, Kristen says, get on with
Speaker 1: gnostic Pope.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, we'll see nastic Pope, he says.
Speaker 1: Triple Triple says he has three hundred and eighty six
Speaker 1: on TikTok. I'll have to just see who he is.
Speaker 1: I'm just not familiar with him, but I appreciate the recommendation.
Speaker 1: All right, had the Heath what's up Heath? Who that's
Speaker 1: a Heather Heath?
Speaker 3: Guys, I'm gonna split the supertisal twist and last chance
Speaker 3: to also support Tristana Heath. What's up man? Last chance?
Speaker 3: All right, you're done? Goodbye?
Speaker 5: Uh for the record, Jade, just want to clear things
Speaker 5: that with some of the slander that you you levied
Speaker 5: at me earlier, saying that it was my tech problem.
Speaker 5: I've done two separate tests and my connections one percent,
Speaker 5: so I think there's something.
Speaker 4: With uh.
Speaker 1: It could no collab cam on O B S. But
Speaker 1: I mean I don't like I had no problems with
Speaker 1: UH karaoke, So I don't know. Dictis what's up?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 9: How you doing?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 13: I sent the super shad about the UH the C
Speaker 13: I a storiography. I have an interesting passage here if
Speaker 13: you want to hear it.
Speaker 4: Sure you're familiar with Intrepid the Montgomery.
Speaker 3: Right, William Stevens and William Stevenson Inupid.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 13: Yeah, there's a quote here. So this is from Donovan
Speaker 13: and the CIA by Thomas Troy, which is a semi
Speaker 13: official uh CIA history. It was written for incoming CIA
Speaker 13: agents to know the history of the Foundation and UH.
Speaker 13: He says here in the preface to the second printing.
Speaker 3: About the book a man called in Trumpid.
Speaker 13: He says, the story an impressive and fascinating one has
Speaker 13: never been told. However, on the basis of publicly available
Speaker 13: primary sources, and consequently many claims or details remain undocumented.
Speaker 4: Two of these name mentioned here.
Speaker 13: The first is the market quotation attributed to the author
Speaker 13: Stevens and Donovan, detailing the time plays the subject of
Speaker 13: the conversation.
Speaker 4: The first meeting of Donovan TRUMPID.
Speaker 13: So basically he's saying that there's evidence that Donovan and
Speaker 13: uh and Trumpitt knew each other by the comic connection
Speaker 13: to Vincent astor Uh in FDR.
Speaker 3: Yeah that, I mean, that comes up in old boys
Speaker 3: like they talk about.
Speaker 1: I mean, Donovan was a Rockefeller representative, and Donovan had
Speaker 1: an office at Rockefeller Plaza from from the Rockfellers.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. William, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: William Stevenson had an office at Rockfeller Plaza from the Rockefellers,
Speaker 1: and Donovan was a work for the Rockfeller Foundation before
Speaker 1: he would do all that stuff.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I picked up hersh on your recommendation. That's been
Speaker 4: great to have for the project.
Speaker 3: Yeah. We arguing for extensive I'm limited to like seven pages, right,