Speaker 1: So, uh, how long ago? Was this a couple of months?
Speaker 1: I can't remember. We were hanging out here.
Speaker 2: At the old tim Cashiers right before the show, and
Speaker 2: I'd made a comment about fertility rates being low but
Speaker 2: among conservatives still around like one point eight, to which
Speaker 2: I think it was Phil Lebanti responded that Catholics have
Speaker 2: a higher than replacement rate fertility at like two point four,
Speaker 2: and then I was like, is that true? And Mary
Speaker 2: Morgan was also on the show, and then I think
Speaker 2: she mentioned something about divorce rates are also really low,
Speaker 2: and then I jokingly said Catholics are the superior Christians,
Speaker 2: and to which everyone chuckled, and I antagonistically said should
Speaker 2: I tweet that? Because I just knew it cause a storm,
Speaker 2: you know, ish storm, and then Mary and Phil both
Speaker 2: said yes, and I was like, okay, so I did.
Speaker 1: And here we are.
Speaker 2: Now do I have the uh, we don't have the
Speaker 2: oh I can pull well whatever, we don't have the
Speaker 2: people to do. But now we actually we're actually gonna
Speaker 2: have that debate because admittedly I am a lapsed ethleic.
Speaker 2: I was ten years old and my family left the church,
Speaker 2: so what do I know? So I brought in a
Speaker 2: handful of gentlemen to have this conversation and have this
Speaker 2: debate over the religion the denomination.
Speaker 1: Sir, would you like to introduce yourself first?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Jay Dyer, I host the Alex Jones Show, have
Speaker 3: done that for the last five years right for the
Speaker 3: Sam Hide Show doing comedy. I've debated all the top
Speaker 3: atheist Muslims that are out there and looking forward to.
Speaker 1: This one right on.
Speaker 4: I'm Aiden Mattis. I'm the host of the lore Lodge,
Speaker 4: The Weird Bible and History Unhinged on YouTube, and I
Speaker 4: have not debated all that many people, so this is
Speaker 4: going to be an interesting day for me.
Speaker 5: I'm Timothy Gordon. I'm the representative of the superior religion
Speaker 5: here today. You know me from YouTube. Rules for Introgrades
Speaker 5: is the name of the show. I'm the author of
Speaker 5: five books and I'm excited to defend.
Speaker 4: Your position that you meant totally literally today. Can we
Speaker 4: just end with that?
Speaker 1: So well, I'll start with why it's not the superior legit.
Speaker 1: Who wants to go first?
Speaker 6: I'll go first. So I used to be Catholic?
Speaker 1: Where are you now?
Speaker 3: Orthodox? Been Orthodox for the past eight years? Orthox Christians.
Speaker 3: So I think there's some key things that stand out
Speaker 3: as the reason why Catholicism is not superior. One would
Speaker 3: be the contradictions that I think have occurred in Catholic dogma,
Speaker 3: particularly after the first millennium. You have the notion that
Speaker 3: the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop is necessary for
Speaker 3: salvation from the time of Dictatus Pope in ten ninety
Speaker 3: all the way up to thirteen oh two when I'm
Speaker 3: sunk them. So you have to believe that the pope
Speaker 3: has basically Quiza's hotterog type status. He's the world emperor,
Speaker 3: and if you don't believe that, you will lose your salvation.
Speaker 3: So that was clear dogma in the Middle Ages. Nowadays,
Speaker 3: post Vatican Two, when we go to the documents of
Speaker 3: Vatican two, that is no longer even mentioned. In fact,
Speaker 3: it's de emphasized, and in fact many of the Vatican
Speaker 3: two popes have called for the decatholicizing of various Christian states.
Speaker 3: So one would be that there's a contradiction there the
Speaker 3: relationship with the Church to the other religions. For example,
Speaker 3: in the Middle Ages you have the condemnation of Muslims
Speaker 3: at the Council of n As the abominable sect of Muhammet. Nowadays,
Speaker 3: post Vatican two, post Acumenism post notes rotate, which are
Speaker 3: Vatican two documents. Not only is Islam a selvific religion.
Speaker 3: We can actually go and pray in the mosques towards Mecca,
Speaker 3: which the last several popes have done, exemplifying their faith
Speaker 3: that they can't know. There's also the Abu Dhabi Faith
Speaker 3: Center which has been built now and I'm sure Tim's
Speaker 3: going to take issue with whether you actually can. But
Speaker 3: the Vatican two documents actually do promote, especially the Vatican
Speaker 3: two Acumenist documents, the notion that we can participate with
Speaker 3: and engage in inter religious faith ceremonies and dialogue, which
Speaker 3: is in direct contradiction to Mortalium animos in nineteen twenty
Speaker 3: nine from Piss eleventh, which says that to do so
Speaker 3: is quote the surrendering of the faith. So these are
Speaker 3: a couple contradictions. There's many more than death penalty has
Speaker 3: recently been changed according to Catholic Catechism. Now according to
Speaker 3: Pote Francis, it is quote contrary to the Gospel. If
Speaker 3: you go back to the Catechism of Trent, it was
Speaker 3: said to be part of natural justice or natural law.
Speaker 3: So certainly nobody would believe that the papacy can change
Speaker 3: or alter natural law.
Speaker 2: But is the implication then that the Orthodox Church is static,
Speaker 2: it doesn't change.
Speaker 3: Yes, we would argue that the first thousand years of Christianity,
Speaker 3: as you look at it from the Council's perspective and
Speaker 3: the canon law and the church father's teachings, that the
Speaker 3: Orthodox Church is absolutely synonymous.
Speaker 6: With that church.
Speaker 3: So it's exactly the same as the first thousand years
Speaker 3: of Christianity Rome and the papacies. What has departed, particularly
Speaker 3: in the eleven, twelve thirteenth centuries.
Speaker 1: What about you? You're what denomination are you?
Speaker 4: So I have been a Methodist for many years. I
Speaker 4: have recently began inquiring into the Anglican Catholic Church, which
Speaker 4: is not the Anglican churches in the Church of England,
Speaker 4: nor is it the Episcopal Church and actually split off
Speaker 4: from that, and I want to say nineteen seventy eight
Speaker 4: with Episcopal Church's decision to begin ordaining women. So it
Speaker 4: is a conservative Anglican theology. And to be perfectly honest,
Speaker 4: I don't really disagree with much of what Jay just said.
Speaker 4: Our church largely does tie itself back to the pre
Speaker 4: twelfth century Christian Church tries to emulate that. And that's
Speaker 4: kind of the position of the Anglican Catholic Church is
Speaker 4: we are not the one true Church. We are not
Speaker 4: the perfect representation of Christianity. We are doing our best
Speaker 4: to retain Christianity prior to councils like the Council of
Speaker 4: Trent that we felt changed the religion too much. So,
Speaker 4: like Jay said, it's very much the eleventh century and
Speaker 4: back is what we consider to be the unified Church.
Speaker 2: I have a question, but I'm gonna wait until you
Speaker 2: can set your position on Catholicism.
Speaker 4: Great Catholicism is the one true Church.
Speaker 5: We make this claim based on many premises, but the
Speaker 5: first ones are this indefectibility.
Speaker 4: The Church can never defect. It won't affect.
Speaker 5: Our Lord promised that when the spirit of truth comes
Speaker 5: in scripture, he'll guide you into all truth. In John's Gospel,
Speaker 5: Gates of Hell won't prevail against the Church of Matthew's
Speaker 5: Gospel and Firs.
Speaker 4: Timothy.
Speaker 5: The Church of the Living God is the pillar and
Speaker 5: bulwark of truth. And therefore our Lord is a liar.
Speaker 5: If there is some change and you know, this is
Speaker 5: a little bit funny because what I'm going to be
Speaker 5: doing is talking about super specific church terms religion terms
Speaker 5: with Jay today, and then we'll be talking about more
Speaker 5: broad things, because really Protestantism isn't technically a religion, it's
Speaker 5: a faith. But we can talk about things like the
Speaker 5: ecumenical councils, the first seven ecumenical councils, about which Orthodox
Speaker 5: and Catholic agree in something like four of these first
Speaker 5: four ecumenical councils.
Speaker 4: I'll read you chapter in verse.
Speaker 5: But so Orthodox, the Orthodox has a the you of
Speaker 5: the Pope, which is the church's view, the church's second
Speaker 5: millennium view of the pope, and the Orthodox defected on this.
Speaker 5: Now Protestants defected. They represent the soul of defectibility. Indefectibility
Speaker 5: means that nothing's going to change. Protestants are are religion
Speaker 5: that sprang forth from the earth like Athena from Zeus's
Speaker 5: head in the sixteenth century. It's it's proto Enlightenment, abstract
Speaker 5: rationalism that's vaguely pro Jesus. But Orthodox Catholic debates are
Speaker 5: are more specific because we have to talk about what
Speaker 5: the at the very least the first seven ecumenical councils
Speaker 5: require and the first second ecumenical councils about which Jay
Speaker 5: and I agree. If you go to like number three,
Speaker 5: Ephesus involves the Patriarch of Constantinople, the highest guy in
Speaker 5: their second millennium church, being fired by being requested to
Speaker 5: be fired by other Eastern Orthodox guys like Cyril of Alexandria.
Speaker 5: He writes the Pope and he says, can you excommunicate
Speaker 5: the Patriarch of Constantinople. Thestory is because he's saying this absurdism,
Speaker 5: like like unto what many Protestants say today that marries
Speaker 5: the Mother of Jesus but not God, and so kind
Speaker 5: of like Dwight Schrut says in the office, if you
Speaker 5: are the guy that can, that's actually boss, you can
Speaker 5: make a firing.
Speaker 4: And tons upon tons upon tons.
Speaker 5: Of first millennium Eastern thinkers from the Eastern lung of
Speaker 5: the Church associated with Orthodoxy, but also Catholic saints like
Speaker 5: you know, the Cappadocian Fathers, all the Gregory's say, Bowsel
Speaker 5: the Great. They acknowledge the unity, the visible sign of
Speaker 5: unity that is represented on earth by the Pope and
Speaker 5: the headship of the Pope. Just tons upon tons of
Speaker 5: these guys, and tons upon tons of the councils also
Speaker 5: Nicea two, Constantinople, three, Constantinople four. We kind of disagree
Speaker 5: with it about it, and even the union of Florence
Speaker 5: at the Council of Florence, which is an ecumenical council.
Speaker 4: It was called by an emperor. Well, a lot of
Speaker 4: people don't know this.
Speaker 5: We had a reunification of the Catholic in the Orthodox churches,
Speaker 5: and it was a legit unification. Thirty one out of
Speaker 5: thirty three bishops in whatever it was, fourteen thirty nine
Speaker 5: of the Orthodox came and voted for unification, including the
Speaker 5: patriarch of Constantinople, and then they went home and essentially
Speaker 5: they were strong armed into nullifying the unification.
Speaker 2: So let's try and simplify as much as we can
Speaker 2: real quick to make this point. Like I do, I
Speaker 2: do have a question, but is the Orthodox argument is
Speaker 2: you want to stay true to the original view of
Speaker 2: scripture and what it dictates, and is the Catholic view
Speaker 2: that it can be updated and changed by the political
Speaker 2: structures of the religion.
Speaker 5: Absolutely not, I would say, I would say you have
Speaker 5: that reverse the Orthodox always being centered in Constantinople, were
Speaker 5: close to the emperor. The first thing Constantine did you
Speaker 5: know after he legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan,
Speaker 5: is he moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople. He
Speaker 5: named the city after himself, which is a badass move,
Speaker 5: chad mu and is tim city Constantine city. And so
Speaker 5: the Orthodox over the remainder of the first Christian millennium,
Speaker 5: they had the patriarch of Constantinople who would be elevated
Speaker 5: to the second most powerful under Rome eventually, and they
Speaker 5: always had they were next to the emperor, and so
Speaker 5: they were always alongside the emperor. And of course there's
Speaker 5: multiple Orthodox churches, so they don't even agree on things
Speaker 5: like whether they can't be one because they can't be
Speaker 5: true to the Gospel, because they don't agree on things
Speaker 5: like whether you can have divorce, whether you can have contraception.
Speaker 5: Whereas the Roman Catholic Church, under the single you know,
Speaker 5: sign of unity, the pope, which everybody hates, they are
Speaker 5: kept together. And the second millennium Catholic view of the
Speaker 5: pope is exactly what the first.
Speaker 4: Millennial review of the pope was.
Speaker 3: But Rittinger emits it's not so that he was a lefty.
Speaker 2: Again, I'm not, you know, I don't follow any of
Speaker 2: the organized religions or anything like that. But real quick,
Speaker 2: I'm just the reason I asked the question is different
Speaker 2: popes have had different positions on cultural issues. I think
Speaker 2: you mentioned the death penalty just now, but there's also
Speaker 2: questions of gay marriage and abortions.
Speaker 3: Gave the lessons that are allowed in the Francis's and cyclical,
Speaker 3: which was a change from the previous Congregation for the
Speaker 3: Doctor of the Faith, which is basically the successor to
Speaker 3: the Holy Office.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, and I'm not trying to be rude to Tim,
Speaker 3: but Tim didn't actually mention or address any of the
Speaker 3: actual contradictions that I listed. He came up with a
Speaker 3: list of sort of I would say, equivocations on the
Speaker 3: way that different church fathers used the word head. Bazil
Speaker 3: in his letters, for example, talks about the Bishop of
Speaker 3: Antioch being the head of the whole body, the head
Speaker 3: of the world because in his region it was the
Speaker 3: chief see right, because he was dealing with the a
Speaker 3: schism in Antioch. So this flowery language a lot of
Speaker 3: times is used amongst many of the Church Fathers. You
Speaker 3: have at the seventh the Commenical Council the phrase the
Speaker 3: gates of Hell will not prevail against and then guess
Speaker 3: what they use the Emperor. I don't think anybody believes
Speaker 3: that Matthew sixteen is about the emperor. But we can
Speaker 3: find in the acts of the councils, if you have,
Speaker 3: like Prices, books and whatnot, multiple examples of the sort
Speaker 3: of language this use. But that doesn't equate to the
Speaker 3: idea of Vatican one. And like Temple said, not only
Speaker 3: do you have changes in practice or practice, such as
Speaker 3: the complete revolution in the most holy thing in the
Speaker 3: Roman Catholic Church, the liturgy itself. You have a protestantization
Speaker 3: after Vatican two, a liturgical revolution that's more important than
Speaker 3: other types of issues.
Speaker 6: Like you know, can we have the death penalty?
Speaker 3: And I think for Roman Catholic theology, the liturgy itself
Speaker 3: is more important. And the post Vatican two popes have
Speaker 3: all enforced the.
Speaker 6: Dogma of the New Mass.
Speaker 3: In fact, Francis said in I Think twenty seventeen, I
Speaker 3: have the reference if anyone wants to look and see.
Speaker 3: But he said that the reforms of Vatican two are
Speaker 3: dogmatic magisterial and irreformable. That means that you cannot reject
Speaker 3: any of the things of Vatican two that you don't like,
Speaker 3: even if you want to debate the status of them.
Speaker 3: So not only have the morals and the ideas changed
Speaker 3: and the dogma has changed, even the worship of God
Speaker 3: has undergone a substantial Protestant change.
Speaker 4: There's no dogma that's changed, there's zero dogmas that What
Speaker 4: about what I'm sunk in the deposit of faith? Ununk
Speaker 4: wait unam sanctum doesn't represent a dogmatic view?
Speaker 1: What does that mean?
Speaker 6: So necessary for salvation?
Speaker 4: And what Nsinger is not the deposit what it's.
Speaker 3: The collections of Catholic dogma. So it does include what
Speaker 3: is the normative dogma? So how could you think is
Speaker 3: unam sanctum is the thirteen oh two decree of Boniface
Speaker 3: that to be saved, not only must you be in
Speaker 3: co union with the Roman Pope, you must also accept
Speaker 3: the Roman sees temporal supremacy, that he is queizots Hoterac,
Speaker 3: the Roman bishop is the emperor of emperors. In fact,
Speaker 3: all the same terminology that's used in the first statement
Speaker 3: about this in Dictatus Pope in ten ninety is repeated
Speaker 3: not only in When I'm Sanctum, but also all the
Speaker 3: way into the eighteen hundreds into the Syllabus of Errors
Speaker 3: attached to Vatican One. So you're telling me that from
Speaker 3: the thirteen hundreds, from eleven hundred, thirteen hundred, all the
Speaker 3: way up to Vatican One and the Syllabus of Errors,
Speaker 3: all the rejection that they had of the proposition that
Speaker 3: the churches in the state could be separate and that
Speaker 3: you don't have to believe in the temporal supremacy. That
Speaker 3: wasn't dogma, even though it was necessary for salvation.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So what I would say to this is that
Speaker 4: the contradictions which in here in the heart of Orthodox
Speaker 4: Christianity tim are are are more are fundamental, and they're
Speaker 4: literally going to address what I call her Is that
Speaker 4: just too?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 5: No, is this is really important because the so called tensions, contradictions, developments,
Speaker 5: and things like uh, two swords theory are not at
Speaker 5: the heart of what's considered doctrine. There's reformable doctrine and
Speaker 5: the irreformable doctrine.
Speaker 6: And what i'm doctrine?
Speaker 5: What about Because we're looking at people that are are
Speaker 5: Protestant we're talking to Orthodox. The most important thing for
Speaker 5: the listeners out there is if there's a head of
Speaker 5: the church, then if there's a meaningful head of the church,
Speaker 5: then Roman Catholicism is true. And this so we have
Speaker 5: to start at the beginning. Literally, it's not equivocation. This
Speaker 5: is as direct as we can be. If there's a head,
Speaker 5: and we should we should be specific. Let's let's be
Speaker 5: specific to the actual councils about which we agree, and
Speaker 5: that This is what Jay is going to be trying
Speaker 5: to avoid today, is that the seven councils that they
Speaker 5: accept defines what the pope is and the specific kind
Speaker 5: of headship that the visible sign of unity on earth
Speaker 5: that they are. I'll read some to you in a
Speaker 5: second from Emphasis from Nicia two from Constant Noble.
Speaker 4: Three to four.
Speaker 5: And if there's a pope that is a meaningful boss
Speaker 5: that is appealed to with a kind of appellate supreme jurisdiction,
Speaker 5: then Roman cathals is a mass to be true, because
Speaker 5: it's the only one of the three sects that represents this.
Speaker 5: So listen to what was said at Ephesus, signed onto
Speaker 5: by the Orthodox Holy and Blessed Peter the Prince and
Speaker 5: head of the Apostles, the column of Faith, the foundation
Speaker 5: of the Catholic Church. The Prince of the Apostles received
Speaker 5: the keys of the Kingdom of from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Speaker 5: and that to him was given the power of binding
Speaker 5: and loosing sins, who until this day and forever lives
Speaker 5: and judges in his successors. Now, what happened leading to
Speaker 5: the Third Ecumenical Council Ephesus is you have this guy
Speaker 5: in Nestorius that's teaching falsely. He's the patriarch of Constantinople,
Speaker 5: that that Mary was mother to human Jesus, but not
Speaker 5: God Jesus dividing his natures. Lots of Protestants today say
Speaker 5: this neither Orthodox nor Catholic.
Speaker 3: Clust or lots of person, not the nature's right.
Speaker 4: Sorry, yeah, dividing his person, not the nature.
Speaker 5: So Cyril of Alexandria writes, the pope writes the boss
Speaker 5: of the churches, or early early on, this is the
Speaker 5: exact view of the papacy that the Roman Catholic Church has. Now,
Speaker 5: it's a collegial first, but the Orthodox are going to
Speaker 5: hit you with this idea that the pope was merely
Speaker 5: the first among equals. This is one of those nonsense
Speaker 5: terms that would mean like a roundtable where he's not
Speaker 5: actually appealed to. He doesn't have a kind of appellate jurisdiction.
Speaker 5: He would not be able to excommunicate any of the
Speaker 5: other patriarchs. And so they they write to him, and
Speaker 5: Cyril says, to the Pope, we rely on the authority
Speaker 5: of the blessed Apostle Peter, on whom the church was founded,
Speaker 5: and whose success of the Blessed Celestine, who his pope
Speaker 5: at the time is.
Speaker 4: He also says, your holiness.
Speaker 5: Who holds the place of Peter, the Prince of the
Speaker 5: Apostles has rightly judged this matter and condemned the stories.
Speaker 5: Now what Jay and the Orthodox have to say is
Speaker 5: that it's merely honorary position.
Speaker 4: But he could fire people well like you would tell me.
Speaker 6: I can I address that up.
Speaker 4: I just want to I want to cut I mean,
Speaker 4: I think the term prince here is very important because prince.
Speaker 4: A prince is not an emperor. A prince is not
Speaker 4: a king. A prince is first citizen princeps That's what
Speaker 4: the word meant, princess prerogative. Prerogative goes with sure, but
Speaker 4: what what the orthoro appealing to his prerogative. What the
Speaker 4: Orthodox position is and what the Protestant position is historically
Speaker 4: is that the pope has primacy, he is first among equals.
Speaker 4: That does not mean that he gets to unilaterally make
Speaker 4: decisions in in an objection, in the objection to the
Speaker 4: other pope.
Speaker 5: Well, that that fault that runs vul of ephesis. I'll
Speaker 5: read you and I see it too, after Jay says.
Speaker 3: So I'll answer his claim from emphesis, and that the
Speaker 3: idea of an appleate jurisdiction.
Speaker 6: Everyone is well aware of this.
Speaker 3: In fact, the Vatican itself has a great commentary on
Speaker 3: the meaning of this appellate structure in the recent document
Speaker 3: from Chi eighty, which is a Vaticant approved document on
Speaker 3: exactly what.
Speaker 6: Was not authoritative, it's a proved document.
Speaker 3: So this is what. This is what Rome nowadays says him.
Speaker 3: Doesn't like what Rome says nowadays, but this is what
Speaker 3: not dogmatic what It doesn't matter because this is what
Speaker 3: Rome says nowadays, not a Church document.
Speaker 4: It's dogmatical, dogmatic.
Speaker 3: Your quote mind isn't dogmatic either, So allow me to
Speaker 3: allow me to.
Speaker 1: It is just real quick. This is one of the
Speaker 1: most esoteric debates.
Speaker 2: Ever, it's going to be there are even Christians of
Speaker 2: each denomination been like, what are they talking about?
Speaker 3: So what Rome nowadays says about this is that Sartica
Speaker 3: was received at the Council of Trello. The Canons of
Speaker 3: Sartica determined that a bishop who has been condemned can
Speaker 3: appeal to the Bishop of Rome, and that the latter,
Speaker 3: if he likes it or deems it appropriate, can order
Speaker 3: a retrial. Notice it is not a unilateral statement, very
Speaker 3: contrary to exact to the reading that you gave of it.
Speaker 3: He can order a retrial to be conducted by the
Speaker 3: bishops in the province neighboring that bishop. It is not
Speaker 3: real room unilaterally deciding it totally contrary to the reading
Speaker 3: that he gave of it. And then it says such
Speaker 3: appeals it doesn't matter. Such appeals two major seeds were
Speaker 3: always treated in a sonodal way. Appeals to the Bishop
Speaker 3: of Rome from the East expressed the community of the church,
Speaker 3: but the but Rome did not exercise canonical jurisdiction over
Speaker 3: the churches of the East. So when Athenasius gets appeals
Speaker 3: to excommunicate people, does that make athenacious The head of
Speaker 3: the church.
Speaker 6: Of course not that's eighties.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter because it's Rome's present statement on what
Speaker 3: your church's tradition is. These are so this is what happens.
Speaker 3: Pick and choose the documents that you don't like. So
Speaker 3: this is Rome so more then the Roman theologians. Now,
Speaker 3: because Rome actually says what I'm saying about apple jurisdiction,
Speaker 3: I understand a retrial. Can you name a single scholar
Speaker 3: that talks about this that doesn't have the giady of view?
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, yeah, all of the scholars who aren't with community.
Speaker 6: Yeah yeah, that is.
Speaker 4: That is not one.
Speaker 6: Let me name one.
Speaker 5: Let me see, scholars aren't the mind of the church.
Speaker 4: By the way, really, I'm talking about dogma. It hasn't changed.
Speaker 3: I mean, like the three dogmas I listened to, Dogma
Speaker 3: one is the contradiction those were in dogmas.
Speaker 4: See it too, so was on the christ Book.
Speaker 3: When I'm sicked, When I'm sicked them all the way
Speaker 3: up until syllabus of errors is necessary for salvation And
Speaker 3: it's not.
Speaker 5: Dog But we're talking about the first seven councils. Let's
Speaker 5: get to you talking about that. I'm the reason I'm
Speaker 5: talking about it is because Jay, because well if the.
Speaker 4: If the first seven councils didn't be with the current
Speaker 4: position of the church.
Speaker 5: But see the trick is that. So what we have
Speaker 5: we have is quote my perio, you have thirty nine
Speaker 5: thousand sec. Nine thousands. Okay, no we are there are
Speaker 5: fourteen Auducephalus. There are fourteen Autocephalist churches. So the tensions
Speaker 5: resides in for for we're autphalus fourteen.
Speaker 6: Do you know where it comes where?
Speaker 5: But so autocephalus churches what relatively unified with themselves? He
Speaker 5: dates we have when you have a business back century,
Speaker 5: when you have one holy Roman Catholic Church, the fore
Speaker 5: marks of the church. This comes from nicea one. When
Speaker 5: you have one, there's of course, this is what they're
Speaker 5: playing on. It's a strong rhetorical position. Naturally, there's going
Speaker 5: to be lots of disparity within the religion, and so
Speaker 5: documents have to be ordered hierarchically. What's called the depositom fide,
Speaker 5: what never changes in the church, best represented in real
Speaker 5: time by something called the act of apostolic Ascetus is
Speaker 5: something that is airtight. And there are tons and tons
Speaker 5: of liberal scholars since Vatican two, since Vatican One that
Speaker 5: present opinions that they alied on. Francis is probably the
Speaker 5: worst pope we've ever had that do not make it
Speaker 5: into the act Apostolic ascetis, and certainly don't make it
Speaker 5: into the deposit of Faith. I thought we'd come here
Speaker 5: and talk about the first seven Councils because it's that
Speaker 5: which we agree about. Me and I see it too.
Speaker 5: Let me just get this out.
Speaker 4: It says this.
Speaker 5: If you think that that I was quote mining Ephesus Jay,
Speaker 5: primatial authority everywhere on earth was given by the Redeemer
Speaker 5: of the world himself, Jesus to the blessed Apostle Peter,
Speaker 5: through the same Apostle the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman
Speaker 5: Church has held till now and will hold for all
Speaker 5: time primacy and sovereign authority.
Speaker 4: So you have the lineage there.
Speaker 5: It's for all time, it's primacy, it's sovereign authority. If
Speaker 5: there's a head of the Church that can fire other guys,
Speaker 5: then this is the kind of pope that the Roman
Speaker 5: Catholic Church describes as.
Speaker 3: A huge objection to this. First of all, Pope Virgilius
Speaker 3: at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in the Acts of Constantinople two,
Speaker 3: the council decrees that he be excommunicated and removed from
Speaker 3: the Diptys Virgilius submitted to the council. Does that sound
Speaker 3: like a autocratic position or does it sound like the
Speaker 3: councils above the pope collegial?
Speaker 4: No, it's not. No, the pope is collegial.
Speaker 5: This is exactly what Vatican one says. Vatican one says
Speaker 5: that the pope has a collegial relationship to the rest.
Speaker 6: Of the bishop, but does it say that he relies
Speaker 6: on the church to doing it?
Speaker 5: Submitted to the pope, same as you know, i'mius.
Speaker 3: The people ain't gonna fall this, but bill to the council,
Speaker 3: not the pope. Yeah, but Jillius was excommunicated by the council.
Speaker 5: Right, According to Richard Price, the pope submitted to the council.
Speaker 5: You said, Yeah, that's what the post one view.
Speaker 4: The pope submitting to the council not prove that the
Speaker 4: council has.
Speaker 5: At all, No, no, no proofs that the pope bears a
Speaker 5: collegial relationship.
Speaker 3: Listen, Vatican one says that the council is not above
Speaker 3: a pope. You know that, so of course it's not
Speaker 3: above a pope. And why is Vigilius submitting.
Speaker 5: Because everyone else, Protestants and Orthodox misunderstand what the pope's
Speaker 5: primacy that seems quite convenient primacy exactly well it is,
Speaker 5: it's it's well, it's highly inconvenient to the Catholic argument
Speaker 5: that you misunderstand it. The pope's relationship to all of
Speaker 5: the all of the other churches is specifically this.
Speaker 4: He is sorry to the bishops. Is this he's collegial.
Speaker 5: He has this ex cathedral power to declare infallible truth
Speaker 5: when and only when he makes the claim, and most
Speaker 5: of the time the only two times we know that
Speaker 5: he's used the power in the last thousand years. Everyone
Speaker 5: misunderstands it. What he did first in eighteen fifty four
Speaker 5: and then in nineteen fifty is he pulled all the
Speaker 5: bishops of the world to make sure that this ex
Speaker 5: catho draw power which is not oracular. He's not divining
Speaker 5: out of his head magical truths that have never been
Speaker 5: taught the pope. Because the Roman Catholic Church is the
Speaker 5: one church that goes all the way back to Scripture,
Speaker 5: the pope wants to make sure that bishops always and
Speaker 5: everywhere have taught the immaculation objection.
Speaker 4: Thought also, how does make rich alone? Go back to scripture.
Speaker 5: You see the distinction, though, tim So when the Pope
Speaker 5: says I'm going to say something the ex cathedra and
Speaker 5: everyone goes apious. This is not he's divining when he
Speaker 5: special the pope has a collegial relationship to the bishops.
Speaker 3: I got their boss, I got community. Then he can't
Speaker 3: be he can't be fired if he's their boss. And
Speaker 3: that's exactly what happens with the vigilius.
Speaker 4: It's more like the board of a company firing.
Speaker 3: This one says that the pope is not superior to
Speaker 3: a council.
Speaker 6: He doesn't submit to the council.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me ask you said it, you said it, Okay,
Speaker 2: I got a question. I'm not a Catholic. I got
Speaker 2: no idea. What half the stuff you got your and
Speaker 2: all these Latin things and everything you said? The Pope
Speaker 2: can decree infallible truth?
Speaker 1: Am I wrong?
Speaker 4: Is that he say when he speaks from his special
Speaker 4: chair from pastor.
Speaker 1: So if he's if he's in his is it actually
Speaker 1: a special chair?
Speaker 4: Like? What is it? From the chair?
Speaker 2: So from the chair he can declare something to be true,
Speaker 2: like if he said gary marriage is never a thing.
Speaker 1: Is that an example of what he might say.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he could also say the opposite. He would have
Speaker 4: to respect it, of course, right, And here's the proof.
Speaker 5: He could say something ex cathedra has never been declared
Speaker 5: that wasn't held from all time, the beginning of the church,
Speaker 5: which is what happened.
Speaker 4: I didn't really get it out.
Speaker 5: When the pope has made ex cathedra claims, there are
Speaker 5: things that he pulled the bishops on first to prove
Speaker 5: that Vatican One was not a new lone ranger view
Speaker 5: of the pope.
Speaker 4: He's not an autocrat.
Speaker 5: It's just a quick way of safeguard or something that
Speaker 5: was always taught the bishops.
Speaker 4: He did claim to be an autocrat. He fully claimed that.
Speaker 2: Clarify my point. He is not deciding that he wants
Speaker 2: gay marriage when he says it. He is sitting in
Speaker 2: the chair and saying what the church believes, based on
Speaker 2: what the church believes.
Speaker 5: That your point, well, the church doesn't have gay marriage,
Speaker 5: never has never en.
Speaker 2: My point is if the pope went to a chair
Speaker 2: and said there is no gay marriage, it's not that
Speaker 2: he's deciding it. He's saying, this is what the Church
Speaker 2: has always held to be true.
Speaker 5: Precisely, yeah, and that's what everyone misunderstands at Pastor attornis
Speaker 5: Vatican One the most important thing?
Speaker 2: And so hold on, sorry, And then it would sound
Speaker 2: to me the issue of removing a pope would be
Speaker 2: if he was clearly stating things that were fallible untruths
Speaker 2: from the chair.
Speaker 3: Well, the first question, yes, correct, is the notion of
Speaker 3: that authority, whether he actually possesses the Vatican One authority.
Speaker 3: That Tim is reading back into the many examples that
Speaker 3: contradict his reading. For example, Pope Vigilius is literally excomunicated
Speaker 3: and suspended at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. That's from Richard Price,
Speaker 3: the famous Catholic scholars translation of the Acts of the Council.
Speaker 3: And so the argument is not that the pope has
Speaker 3: no relationship to the bishops, so he deflected and defeated
Speaker 3: a strawman. The argument is that at the time of
Speaker 3: the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the Pope submitted to and was
Speaker 3: excommunicated by the council. And then now at Vatican One,
Speaker 3: it says the literal opposite that no council is above
Speaker 3: or can't fire the pope. So it's a complete contradiction,
Speaker 3: and it's not just Vigilius. Tim said in his opening
Speaker 3: statement that the Church via the roman Sea cannot defect.
Speaker 3: If it could, it would lose one of its constituent components.
Speaker 3: And yet at the next Ecumenical Council, the sixth Council,
Speaker 3: Pope Honorius famously is a heretic.
Speaker 6: He did defect.
Speaker 3: All he did was write one letter that contained heretical statements,
Speaker 3: and the Church at that council said he is a Heritic.
Speaker 3: He's defected, and then three subsequent councils after also reaffirmed
Speaker 3: that condemnation. So again, indefectibility.
Speaker 6: The notion of.
Speaker 3: Authority is all fluctuating and elastic, depending upon what Tim
Speaker 3: needs to be the case at the time. His only
Speaker 3: answer was a too quotua and he didn't address any
Speaker 3: of the things that.
Speaker 4: I want to build on what he just said too,
Speaker 4: Because if if Enorious had declared monothelitism ex Cathedral to
Speaker 4: be the truth, what would you have to believe?
Speaker 5: Well, the claim of the Church is that the church
Speaker 5: is indefectible. This is Christ's promise.
Speaker 3: Roman Sea is ineffectible. Says the Roman sea is indefectible. Okay,
Speaker 3: the Roman Sea is indefectible. Insofar as this this requires interpretation.
Speaker 3: What if you get an honorious What if you get Yeah,
Speaker 3: if you get it's a system.
Speaker 5: The theological opinion, whether we're going to Suarez or Bellaman
Speaker 5: or Francis Xavier, theological opinion can vary on this because
Speaker 5: what what happens?
Speaker 4: Then? Obviously we know the church has to be one.
Speaker 5: It's got to be whole holy, it's got to be Catholic,
Speaker 5: it's got to be Apostolic the Roman.
Speaker 4: Church, why does it have to respect the pope? At
Speaker 4: least let me get an emerald prince.
Speaker 5: I don't to talk to two two barking dogs, so
Speaker 5: let let me just let me get it out.
Speaker 4: We have to make these things really clear.
Speaker 3: First, Jodd Nelson's getting met uh more of a bobcat
Speaker 3: really uh And I see it too, primacial authority everywhere.
Speaker 5: What what does this mean to you, Tim if you
Speaker 5: were to hear Constantinople three, Because if you're if your claim,
Speaker 5: if the claim is that I'm expanding upon the view,
Speaker 5: you know, the Catholic view of of what the Orthodox
Speaker 5: view of popes might have been in the first millennium.
Speaker 5: Then just explain what this language means, that that the
Speaker 5: Church has never aired from the path of apostolic tradition,
Speaker 5: nor she's been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations. But
Speaker 5: from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from
Speaker 5: her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and
Speaker 5: remains undefiled to the end according to the divine promise
Speaker 5: of the Lord and Savior himself. Now, because there are
Speaker 5: there are bad popes in history, there are lots of them.
Speaker 4: We've had two hundred thirty seven, not just you have to.
Speaker 5: Differentiate between which you know one in this audience ten percent,
Speaker 5: between material and formal heretics, right, which is going to
Speaker 5: take another five minutes. I'm not going to get out
Speaker 5: what i want to say because I'm defending this position.
Speaker 5: Look at Constantinople four. You can't have material heretics, you
Speaker 5: can't have formal heretics. Constant Nople four. What does this
Speaker 5: mean to you? This is a the the eight hundred
Speaker 5: and seventy nine version. It was originally convened in eight
Speaker 5: sixty nine. That's the Catholic version. I'm reading from the
Speaker 5: Orthodox document. Listen to this, What do you do with this?
Speaker 5: For just the Apostolic throne, having received the keys of
Speaker 5: the Kingdom of Heaven from the First and Great High
Speaker 5: Priest Jesus Christ, through the chief of the Apostles, Peter,
Speaker 5: he has the authority of universal binding and loosing. Binding
Speaker 5: and loosing is the power to forgive sins, which Protestants
Speaker 5: don't have at all. Orthodox have it. But except this
Speaker 5: is an Orthodox document, this is an Orthodox council. We
Speaker 5: hold this council to him, he Peter, that's my whole.
Speaker 4: We have this council. If he don't disagree with you. You
Speaker 4: don't have bishops, Yes, we do. The guy in the room,
Speaker 4: we do have bishops. And they go all the way
Speaker 4: back to Aristobola. They're Britain.
Speaker 5: What does this mean to you, Bishop? And as the
Speaker 5: authority of universal binding and loosing? They say, this is
Speaker 5: just a symbolic power. Jolli honorific. It's merely first emoment.
Speaker 5: Now now hold on, if you're appealed to.
Speaker 4: I think that all twelve apostles have the power to
Speaker 4: forgive sin, of course, of course, but only one has
Speaker 4: what's called here at in this particular council the power
Speaker 4: of universal binding and loosing, which is why you would
Speaker 4: appeal to a pope to excommunicate the second in charge
Speaker 4: of the church. You have to get you have to
Speaker 4: tell me how.
Speaker 3: And that's why a council can excommunicate the post, because
Speaker 3: the councils above communicate.
Speaker 4: I just read the bishops are above the.
Speaker 3: Pot The acts of the council say the Julius was excommunicated.
Speaker 3: Your translation of your people say he was.
Speaker 2: I would like to hear from you, guys, what about
Speaker 2: the arguments you've made or believe makes your denomination superior
Speaker 2: in the true sense of the word superior. Are you
Speaker 2: saying that it's because you are right, you are correct,
Speaker 2: or is there something about your belief that inherently better
Speaker 2: serves the people and God.
Speaker 4: The I mean, just to be very clear, the Anglican
Speaker 4: Catholic position, and by extension, the Methodist position, because Methodists
Speaker 4: are Anglicans, is that the Methodist Church, the Anglican Church,
Speaker 4: all of them. They're not the superior, one true church.
Speaker 4: They are a group of Christians in their genuine, best effort,
Speaker 4: attempting to follow Christ in the most proper way possible.
Speaker 4: Using the seven Ecumenical councils using the seven sacraments. We
Speaker 4: are Catholic up until the end of the eleventh century.
Speaker 4: Why what happened then we began to disagree with the pope?
Speaker 4: I mean it's a long process. The Reformation did not
Speaker 4: happen in fifteen seven.
Speaker 2: Eleventh century. A pope came in who was saying stuff
Speaker 2: that was like way wrong.
Speaker 4: I would argue it started with Gregory the seventh, probably
Speaker 4: with the Dictatus pape and him coming out and because
Speaker 4: of a literal political situation, this was not a theological issue.
Speaker 4: If here's a political.
Speaker 3: Question, you're an Anglican, then do you agree with the
Speaker 3: Anglican Catholic?
Speaker 6: I don't agree with the branch.
Speaker 4: Can you elaborate on the branch theory?
Speaker 3: It's the typical Anglin idea that the Church is split
Speaker 3: amongst a bunch of different branches.
Speaker 4: I think I think that would probably.
Speaker 3: Do you think that any of the people who compose
Speaker 3: the documents and the canons at the seven Ecumenical councils
Speaker 3: believe that the Church was divided amongst a bunch of
Speaker 3: different sects?
Speaker 4: I don't, well, I I mean orthodox.
Speaker 3: Now, could you name anybody that believed that about the
Speaker 3: nature of the church.
Speaker 4: I don't know that I would agree that it was
Speaker 4: necessarily divided into several sects. And I don't know that
Speaker 4: my church would agree with that either.
Speaker 3: I think, don't you agree with the idea that Protestants
Speaker 3: are trying their best and whether they're Methodists or whether
Speaker 3: they're Anglican doesn't really matter.
Speaker 4: No, I would say that there are Protestant sects that
Speaker 4: are is.
Speaker 3: The church divided amongst those branches.
Speaker 4: Today? Yes?
Speaker 3: Okay, did anyone in those seven councils have that idea
Speaker 3: about the.
Speaker 6: Nature of the church.
Speaker 4: No, But I'll so don't think that your so, your.
Speaker 3: Church is not in communion with those ideas.
Speaker 4: My church is not in communicant with the Anglican communion.
Speaker 4: We're we're not Anglicans. We're Anglican Catholics.
Speaker 3: We hold our asking you about the first thousand years
Speaker 3: of Christianity, yes.
Speaker 4: We have, but you have a we are in agreement
Speaker 4: with all seven you're.
Speaker 3: Not because you just you couldn't name anybody that had
Speaker 3: your ecclesiology of those.
Speaker 4: I don't think we're having I don't think we're having converse.
Speaker 3: Maybe you should get on this conversation and answer the question,
Speaker 3: because that's what we're doing here today.
Speaker 4: The terminology you're using is confusing to me.
Speaker 6: Is common no.
Speaker 3: Ecclesiology that the people the first thousand years had, Did
Speaker 3: anyone of them have a branch theory?
Speaker 6: Or that the church is divided amongst a bunch of groups.
Speaker 4: Again, I don't think we're having the same conversation. I
Speaker 4: think we got off base at a certain point here.
Speaker 3: Does your ecclesiology have any basis in the first thousand years?
Speaker 4: Yes, we trace all of our ecclesiology back to the
Speaker 4: first thousand.
Speaker 3: Name a church father or or a council that has
Speaker 3: your branch the review of the church.
Speaker 4: I think branch theory is where we're having a disagreement here.
Speaker 3: It's a classic Anglican term for the nature of the church.
Speaker 3: That's how they justified their reformation position. So tell me
Speaker 3: one church father or a council that has that position
Speaker 3: about the church is a very simple question, I I
Speaker 3: off the top.
Speaker 4: So it's a historical Off the top of my head,
Speaker 4: I can't give you answer.
Speaker 5: With Jay's asking him for people out there listening about
Speaker 5: a historical When when a Protestant claims that I'm with
Speaker 5: the Church. I was with the Church the same way
Speaker 5: that the Orthodox were until ten fifty four. Set aside
Speaker 5: who excommunicated whom for a second. They might agree in
Speaker 5: abstracted which is why I called it abstract enlightenment rationalism.
Speaker 5: They might agree in abstracted with what was going on,
Speaker 5: you know, with the Orthodox or with the Catholics. They
Speaker 5: might favor They're always going to favor the Orthodox because
Speaker 5: none of these groups like the pope or the unity
Speaker 5: required by a papacy. But what Jay was asking here
Speaker 5: is for it to be true Christianity, true true Christianity
Speaker 5: in its truest.
Speaker 4: Sense, it's got to be one holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
Speaker 5: There's a problem for the one mark and the Catholic
Speaker 5: mark for Orthodox. But Orthodox are actually Christian in so
Speaker 5: far as they have the seven Sacraments and all of
Speaker 5: their bishops can be traced back to one of the apostles.
Speaker 4: That's what he was asking about ecclesiology.
Speaker 5: So when they say, all, I agree with this, but no,
Speaker 5: no Protestant has the seven sacraments or a bishop.
Speaker 4: We have the seven sacraments, I have bishops.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna I'm gonna get very reductive and simplify everything
Speaker 2: to a ridiculous degree and ask questions that maybe are
Speaker 2: ridiculously rudimentary for the Christian. Do you guys all like
Speaker 2: when it comes to like Mosaic law, laws of Leviticus,
Speaker 2: do you all follow those or are they considered archaic?
Speaker 2: How does the Old Testament play a role in how
Speaker 2: you live your lives.
Speaker 1: And what rules you follow?
Speaker 4: We have we're under the New Covenant. We yeah, So
Speaker 4: what does that mean?
Speaker 2: I just don't know, like the New Testament, So the
Speaker 2: laws of Leviticus, don't know?
Speaker 4: Yeah, the laws of Leviticus are specifically made for a
Speaker 4: very specific period in Jewish history, and there are that
Speaker 4: Jesus does not come to erase the law. He comes
Speaker 4: to fulfill the law. So his position in the hierarchy
Speaker 4: is not as somebody who washes things away, it's somebody
Speaker 4: who fulfills it. The law was basically a series of
Speaker 4: things that Jews had to do to stay in communion
Speaker 4: with God. Christ gives us a different set of rules.
Speaker 4: That doesn't mean we'd ignore everything, but it means we
Speaker 4: take his authority over the old law.
Speaker 2: So does that mean that when it comes to all
Speaker 2: of the old Testament's rules. Are there some that remain
Speaker 2: based on Jesus said outright, these are still to remain,
Speaker 2: and these are not to remain. How do you and
Speaker 2: this is not a question, how do you know which
Speaker 2: I don't imagine that Jesus addressed literally every single rule
Speaker 2: or law.
Speaker 1: How do you know which ones to fobiably?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 3: One way we disagree with him is to a degree,
Speaker 3: not totally, but I mean Orthodox and Catholics agree that
Speaker 3: there is an oral tradition that's passed on from the apostles.
Speaker 3: So you have with the written text of the New Testament,
Speaker 3: which the early Church didn't have a Bible, they had
Speaker 3: some documents, they had some letters, and they had tradition,
Speaker 3: and they had the church service, so everything was kind
Speaker 3: of done.
Speaker 6: In a liturgical service way.
Speaker 3: You would be getting catechized orally, and then eventually the
Speaker 3: Bible gets collected in later centuries to be the canon.
Speaker 3: But so basically, tradition and the Bible lets you know
Speaker 3: what things carry over and what don't. And that's one
Speaker 3: of the reasons why the councils have Church law. So
Speaker 3: church law kind of helps interpret that.
Speaker 1: So I have a question. I'm prively pouncing this wrong.
Speaker 1: But how do you all view who to writes?
Speaker 6: Is it the word Anabaptists?
Speaker 1: Like, yeah, yeah, how do you how do y'all view them?
Speaker 1: Are they we.
Speaker 6: Would say they're heterodox.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're outside of the.
Speaker 2: I think you guys would all agree it's a documinish
Speaker 2: So this is going to be a kindergartener level. Uh,
Speaker 2: you know urban liberals argument for the Christians right now?
Speaker 2: Why I say this, but is it not one of
Speaker 2: the instructions of God to be fruitful and multiply?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 2: Sure, So we're having a conversation over what is the
Speaker 2: the superior denomination?
Speaker 1: Watch look it up. I don't think Mormons count no
Speaker 1: offense to Mormons.
Speaker 2: I think for the purpose of this debate, Mormons are
Speaker 2: a different area.
Speaker 4: They're right, Mormons are nontrinitarian. They don't believe in the
Speaker 4: same God that we do.
Speaker 2: Pentecostals have a two point one fertility rate and hooter
Speaker 2: Rightes have six to two seven fertility rate. After that,
Speaker 2: Conservative Protestants one point eight, Catholics one point nine, Orthodox
Speaker 2: one point nine. Jovah's witness slight less than two Protestants
Speaker 2: one point five to one point six. Liberal Protestants one
Speaker 2: point five and unaffiliated Christians one point three to one
Speaker 2: point eight. So the Pentecostals and hutter Rights, according to
Speaker 2: just a cursorysearch, are the only actual groups that are
Speaker 2: being fruitful and multiplying, and that's to be honest, only
Speaker 2: the Hooterites, the Amish, Anabaptists, everybody else and having kids.
Speaker 3: I think traditional Catholics are having kids.
Speaker 2: Uh, just a cursor research, it is around one point
Speaker 2: nine two. I thought it was a little higher than that.
Speaker 4: There's not much of a difference between our three sects.
Speaker 1: Y'all ain't having kids.
Speaker 5: Well, if you go to multiply, what are you going
Speaker 5: with the Tridentine Latin mass It's a very different group.
Speaker 4: And I'm going to ask Chchi and know it's going
Speaker 4: to be above the part I do. I do really quickly.
Speaker 4: While he's doing that, I want to come back because
Speaker 4: I will have an opportunity to sit down and think
Speaker 4: about the branch theory thing. Do you not have a
Speaker 4: Russian Orthodox, a Greek Orthodox An Orthodox Church in America?
Speaker 6: Those are not branches.
Speaker 3: It's not at all the same ecclesiology of Anglican branch theory.
Speaker 4: That's all I would point out that branch theory is
Speaker 4: not dogmatic.
Speaker 6: It's but I was just looking for whatever it was.
Speaker 4: I know. But the Anglican position is that we were
Speaker 4: part of the one true, Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, and
Speaker 4: then you're not and then that church.
Speaker 6: What's dogma in your church?
Speaker 4: How do you determine it the same way that Catholics
Speaker 4: and Orthodox But we don't have we no longer have
Speaker 4: a pope, but we are.
Speaker 3: Councils of bishops, So how do you determine them?
Speaker 4: We have councils of bishops?
Speaker 6: Okay, but what's a dogma?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 6: Do you accept icons?
Speaker 4: No? Well, yes, we were not iconoclasts.
Speaker 3: Well, but is it a dogma or is it an opinion?
Speaker 4: Because most of the same position as the Roman Catholic Church.
Speaker 3: No, you don't because Orthodox and a Roman Catholics excommunicate
Speaker 3: people that don't believe in imagery, and most Protestants historically
Speaker 3: have allowed it to be something that's an opinion audio offer.
Speaker 4: There is a lot of pious opinion.
Speaker 6: So is it a dogma or not? That's the question.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure exactly what icons. I don't believe that
Speaker 4: we excommunicate people for thinking that icons, so.
Speaker 3: It's not a dogma, and thus many of the basics
Speaker 3: are not actually settled in.
Speaker 4: It depends on the if we're in again, I'm not
Speaker 4: as well versed on the specifics of the councils, but
Speaker 4: if it's in this first seven councils, we're in the
Speaker 4: same We're of the same opinion.
Speaker 5: But the problem with your ecclesiology is that when there
Speaker 5: are no leaders, right, I mean.
Speaker 4: We have bishops, we have archbishops. I don't know why
Speaker 4: we keep coming to the.
Speaker 5: Bishops that that can trace the lineage, yes, way back
Speaker 5: to one.
Speaker 4: We can trace back to Augustin of Britain, and we
Speaker 4: can trace back to ball Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Our
Speaker 4: bishops traced back to the first century a d.
Speaker 6: In Britain.
Speaker 4: Okay that according to your if you have a totally no, no,
Speaker 4: it's not a broken lineage. The church remained in Britain
Speaker 4: even after the Saxons got.
Speaker 5: They're identifying as an Anglican Catholic today, yes, or you're
Speaker 5: identifying as a Methodist.
Speaker 4: I'm identifying as a Methodist who is inquiring into the
Speaker 4: Anglican Catholic Church getting later this year. I mean this
Speaker 4: is part of the pitch right now, we're having a
Speaker 4: historical discussion. I am a historian, but we're having a
Speaker 4: conversation about history right now. So your church recognizes the
Speaker 4: risk of ballast of Britain. Your church recognizes the risk time.
Speaker 3: You're a historian, but you didn't know about branch theory,
Speaker 3: which is like the number one.
Speaker 4: I'm not a religious historian. I'm a historian on medieval
Speaker 4: historian specifically. So when we're looking at this arista, Ballus
Speaker 4: is the earliest week can go back with the Anglican
Speaker 4: Catholic Church because of the union between the churches in
Speaker 4: Kent andology. No not, I I know that's that's fair.
Speaker 5: It's just you're not You're not a faithful representatively both
Speaker 5: in your church is acknowledgeious?
Speaker 6: We don't.
Speaker 3: We don't acknowledge your ecclesiology. You understand that from the
Speaker 3: Orthodox perspective, it doesn't matter if you have a laying
Speaker 3: on of hands.
Speaker 4: Is Augustine legitimate?
Speaker 3: If you leave the faith of the church, none of that.
Speaker 6: From the Orthodox perspective.
Speaker 4: I can't leave the faith the church. That's our position.
Speaker 6: I know your position.
Speaker 3: I'm saying from our position, our ecclesiology doesn't recognize your ecclesiology,
Speaker 3: nor does his. They think that Anglican orders are invalid
Speaker 3: via the other thirteenth.
Speaker 4: That's so, that's because that's what's convenient to their theology.
Speaker 4: It doesn't actually have any sort of I'm.
Speaker 3: Saying that either of us recognizes your lineage, and I
Speaker 3: understand that you think that it's there, But that's why
Speaker 3: is there.
Speaker 4: That's why it all the way back to only.
Speaker 3: On the basis of your ecclesiology, and presupposing we haven't lineage.
Speaker 4: We know we have an ordination that goes on.
Speaker 6: The basis of your ecclesiology.
Speaker 5: You understand people out there and need to understand that
Speaker 5: there there There is such a thing as Apostolic sacramental Christianity.
Speaker 5: The Roman Catholic Church has wrote on this in two
Speaker 5: thousand and four and in the nineties as well. We
Speaker 5: acknowledge that you can call the Orthodox Church's churches with
Speaker 5: a capital. See, they have bishops, they go back to apostles,
Speaker 5: they have seven sacraments represented acknowledged by the Church.
Speaker 4: They're valid sacraments.
Speaker 5: You wouldn't belicit for a Catholic to receive there or
Speaker 5: vice versa. But there is a shared ecclesiology. What people
Speaker 5: don't understand and need to about Protestantism. Anglican Catholics are
Speaker 5: slightly different. They're an exception to the rule. But of
Speaker 5: all the sects of Protestantism, they don't share any ecclesiology
Speaker 5: with us. So they'll say, oh, this is a dogma.
Speaker 5: What's a dogma? This isn't something that traces back to
Speaker 5: the acta Apostolic ascetis. It's not something that the bishop's
Speaker 5: always and everywhere taught together as a church.
Speaker 4: So we have to just say this.
Speaker 5: It's not to be exclusive, but Protestantism is a lay
Speaker 5: bastardization of the religion. You guys believe in a Trinitarian
Speaker 5: you have a Trinitarian baptism, baptism in the name of
Speaker 5: the Father Son, Holy Spirit. So so it is technically Christian.
Speaker 5: But except beyond that and baptism even in Roman Catholicism
Speaker 5: can be done by a layman, which is what makes
Speaker 5: it valid. But other than that, Protestantism is an abstract idea.
Speaker 5: I like the idea, I like this book that the Roman.
Speaker 4: So it's you think we're talking about Protestantism that is
Speaker 4: a big tense.
Speaker 3: You're part of that that domain.
Speaker 4: Yes, but the Anglican Protestantism is very different from the
Speaker 4: Lutheran Protestism, which is very different from the reform projects.
Speaker 3: Was my original point, right, there's not actually any clear
Speaker 3: unity there. It's all over the place.
Speaker 4: No Protestant is going to tell you that there is
Speaker 4: Protestant unity.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 4: They're going to tell you protism. No, no, it doesn't.
Speaker 5: Council and I see you guys must be one holy
Speaker 5: Catholic and apostology that does those four marks has a
Speaker 5: very specific.
Speaker 4: Doesn't mean that we have to be in communion with
Speaker 4: one another.
Speaker 3: Obviously, it means you have to have those marks.
Speaker 4: We have bishops, we have the sacraments, we have the history.
Speaker 6: It's bishop td takes a bishop. He claims to be one.
Speaker 4: I don't know who TD Jakes is.
Speaker 6: Woman the black.
Speaker 3: He's the black modalist preacher who says he's Bishop td Jakes.
Speaker 4: The bishop doesn't sound like he is.
Speaker 6: Okay, but you're a bishop.
Speaker 4: Your church has My church has bishops because they can
Speaker 4: trace their ordination back to August.
Speaker 1: The seventh time the question has been asked and he's
Speaker 1: answered the exact same thing.
Speaker 3: Because he's but he's not understanding that you're not.
Speaker 1: Going to get you.
Speaker 4: Guys aren't asking a question that makes sense. Why why
Speaker 4: do you have ordinations? Because we do?
Speaker 1: Okay, Okay.
Speaker 2: So I think there's an interesting view between the three
Speaker 2: of you and what a superior denomination would be. And
Speaker 2: it's largely about what you think to be true to
Speaker 2: the religion as opposed to what the religion does and
Speaker 2: what it's its adherents do.
Speaker 1: I I And that's fine.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying I don't want to diminish that, because
Speaker 2: obviously that's extremely important to know that, to know the
Speaker 2: truth and and and you know the history of things.
Speaker 2: But from my perspective, I take a look at the
Speaker 2: adherence to the really and what they're doing and whether
Speaker 2: they can actually follow what they're being told to do,
Speaker 2: and it largely feels like they mostly don't. I mean again,
Speaker 2: like if I was going to go off with the
Speaker 2: sheer numbers, I'm more convinced to be Homish than anything
Speaker 2: right right, anything else right now.
Speaker 5: The problem is Gandhi. Gandhi said the same thing. He said,
Speaker 5: if I ever met a perfect Christian, I would go
Speaker 5: be You don't. There's some validity to the proposition by
Speaker 5: a lord and that you judge a tree by.
Speaker 2: I got my point is this? So I looked up
Speaker 2: the fastest growing denominations. The Independent Network of Charismatic Christianity
Speaker 2: is the largest growth, apparently, followed by Pentecostal churches. Good God,
Speaker 2: Pentecostals have like between three to five percent growth.
Speaker 4: You understand the inverse proportionalism at work there though. It's
Speaker 4: that they're small, so they can grow really really fat.
Speaker 4: If the town's got one hundred people and it gets
Speaker 4: two new people, it just increased its population by two percent.
Speaker 4: Catholic also Pentecostals. It's terrifying.
Speaker 3: Also the the way the debate is framed, which is
Speaker 3: not bad, but superior begs the question of like what standard,
Speaker 3: Like what do you what's the metric for judging?
Speaker 6: What makes it suppear?
Speaker 4: I would argue the superior, like, the superior religion is
Speaker 4: the one that brings the most people to salvation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, but maybe what's maybe truth is first and
Speaker 3: foremost I think for most of us or all of
Speaker 3: us here. Yeah, that because we assume that the true
Speaker 3: religion will bear the fruits that go along with what's
Speaker 3: true first and foremost. So just having numbers isn't necessarily
Speaker 3: an indicator of the true religion, because you can have
Speaker 3: a lot of people who convert to a false religion
Speaker 3: or who think that they're converting and it's really just
Speaker 3: like Santarea or something like that by South America. That's
Speaker 3: not authentic, right.
Speaker 1: So to be fair, I want to make sure of
Speaker 1: the numbers, right.
Speaker 2: I just I just looked up Catholic to make the
Speaker 2: point about inverse three point nine million people in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty three became Catholic, whereas Pentecosta was fifty nine fifty
Speaker 2: six thousand. So yeah, it's correct, And I'll look up
Speaker 2: the other sex as well, because likely the same thing
Speaker 2: for for Orthodox they're much larger, so the percentage wise
Speaker 2: is going to be smaller. But I guess my ultimate
Speaker 2: concern is the initial point of the question of superior
Speaker 2: religion is I think, as you put, who brings people
Speaker 2: to salvation? Obviously the truth of the religion is going
Speaker 2: to matter, because, like you said, if they're practicing Santa Ria.
Speaker 1: Then they're not going anywhere.
Speaker 2: But there's also the fact that, I mean, largely among
Speaker 2: all of your sex people are not having kids at all,
Speaker 2: or I should say they're having kids, but they're having
Speaker 2: not enough, so you can keep converting, but eventually there's
Speaker 2: no people.
Speaker 1: I mean, where where does this ultimately go?
Speaker 5: Fair metric in some political sense, but it's also soteriologically
Speaker 5: who goes to heaven or not. It's a bit of
Speaker 5: a crass metric. We don't we should be having lots
Speaker 5: of kids. And obviously Roman Catholicism is marked as the
Speaker 5: only solidified version of Christianity on earth that stayed against
Speaker 5: contraception after the Anglican l Ambeth Conferences of nineteen ten,
Speaker 5: nineteen twenty, nineteen thirty, where all the other sects of
Speaker 5: Christianity capitulated. But it's true, and it's fair enough for
Speaker 5: people to say, particularly after Vatican two and the liberalizing
Speaker 5: trends popular trends among Catholics, almost as many Catholics contracept
Speaker 5: as Protestants or Orthodox.
Speaker 4: This isn't quite true.
Speaker 5: If you go to a Tredentian Latin Mass, you're going
Speaker 5: to see big, big, big families.
Speaker 4: But which Day pointed out, But I do.
Speaker 5: Think that everyone should, each of the three of us
Speaker 5: here should have a segment to state.
Speaker 4: But you know, some sort of answer to.
Speaker 5: The posit if that's cool, Like, what what's your case
Speaker 5: for why you are the best version of Christianity, best
Speaker 5: major side.
Speaker 4: I don't hold a position that we are. We just
Speaker 4: hold a position that you're not. That's incredibly weak and weak.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of Mennonites around here and the Rock.
Speaker 1: They're awesome.
Speaker 2: They have animals, They sell food. It's always like real food,
Speaker 2: no chemicals, no garbage. They got big families and these
Speaker 2: I looked it up that the main the moderate Mennonite state.
Speaker 2: There's a shop not too far away twenty minutes we
Speaker 2: used to go to all the time. They got ice
Speaker 2: cream and cheeses and it's all this really great stuff.
Speaker 1: I love it. That seems pretty cool, you know, so
Speaker 1: if I was trying to figure.
Speaker 6: Out which one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well my point is largely.
Speaker 2: Like looking at the world today and the state of things,
Speaker 2: they make a pretty good argument. You know, don't eat garbage,
Speaker 2: be with your family, honor like they tend to honor
Speaker 2: their families, their communities, their parents, They go to church.
Speaker 2: They maintain this. They have lots lots of kids. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I know they're small, it's only a few million.
Speaker 3: Well, can I address that, because there's two points. It
Speaker 3: actually addressed the point I was trying to make to
Speaker 3: you earlier. So, like, if you go back to the
Speaker 3: early Church, there was a group called the Arians, and
Speaker 3: the Arians believed that Jesus was a creature. But the
Speaker 3: Arans were also very into morality and pushing morals, so
Speaker 3: they were at least outwardly speaking moral kind of like
Speaker 3: Jose this as you could say. But Arians had apostolic succession,
Speaker 3: but they lost the church and the faith even though
Speaker 3: they had the mechanical succession. Likewise, Christianity can't be identified
Speaker 3: as hutter rights or amish because historical. It's a historic religion,
Speaker 3: so it has to be tied to the historic succession
Speaker 3: not just of the bishops, but the apostles that Jesus
Speaker 3: appointed in the Gospel to hand down that authority and
Speaker 3: that rulership of the church. So when you look at
Speaker 3: the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh centuries, you
Speaker 3: don't see anything like anglic Catholicism. You don't see anything
Speaker 3: like hutter rights or Amish. You see people coming together
Speaker 3: having councils with bishops, with the eucharists, with monastics, with
Speaker 3: you know, the episcopacy, with you relics with all the
Speaker 3: things that characterize Catholic Christianity and Orthodox identify as.
Speaker 2: To be fair, though, I would argue that in those
Speaker 2: time periods, people were more likely to live in practice
Speaker 2: and worship as the Hutter rights.
Speaker 3: Do you know the church which is liturgical worship that
Speaker 3: you see with icons and incense is literally out of
Speaker 3: the Old Testament worship with that you mentioned earlier, like
Speaker 3: the levitical laws. The church adopted all of those, many
Speaker 3: of those ceremonial things like having the you know, the
Speaker 3: priests decked out the way he is with having an altar. Nope,
Speaker 3: like typically speaking, Baptists don't believe in an altar for
Speaker 3: the purpose of the Eucharistic offering, right, so Baptists believe
Speaker 3: in it being a purely symbolic remembrance ceremony. But the
Speaker 3: early Church is doing the liturgy. They're doing the Mass
Speaker 3: or the you know, the divine Liturgy from the earliest days.
Speaker 4: Everything he just described as what early Church Catholics did
Speaker 4: applies to Okay, it doesn't. I don't think he knows
Speaker 4: what Anglican Catholicism is.
Speaker 3: You didn't know the basics of Anglican ecclesiology.
Speaker 4: I'm not aware of a non dogmatic a.
Speaker 6: Very well known thing. You're not.
Speaker 3: It's your common doctrine of ecclesiology.
Speaker 6: You didn't know it. You're not gonna lecture me on Anglican.
Speaker 4: Also, don't. We also don't hold to the thirty nine
Speaker 4: articles as dogmatic.
Speaker 6: Because there's not dogma.
Speaker 7: As we showed a minute ago, the marks of the
Speaker 7: marks of natural religion qua religion are are really important
Speaker 7: here and they do set off a kind of rift
Speaker 7: where the Protestants are alone.
Speaker 4: They're they're a voice crying in the wilderness, and we
Speaker 4: have to acknowledge them. That's what I tried to acknowledge
Speaker 4: at the very beginning, the basic marks of religion. Even
Speaker 4: the Pagan Greeks had some of these. You would say
Speaker 4: Buddhism doesn't, Protestantism doesn't, but even some of the Polytheists
Speaker 4: religions do. They have things like smells and bells. Having
Speaker 4: an altar is something from even pagan Greek religion. But
Speaker 4: but for for incremental Jews. The Jews, Jews had them right.
Speaker 5: Sacramentals sacrifice, blood, blood sacrifice, which really from Judaism to
Speaker 5: Christianity became sacrament precepts, the you know, daily things you
Speaker 5: have to do. What are the five precepts of Catholicism,
Speaker 5: assasserdotal order.
Speaker 4: Or ritual or what we call what we call liturgy.
Speaker 5: These are things that are lacking in Protestantism. I'm not
Speaker 5: saying this to be rude or exclusive, but when you're
Speaker 5: dealing with what I actually say makes the Roman Catholic
Speaker 5: faith the superior form of Christianity is at the first
Speaker 5: ecumenical council ever, which was Nicia, where we defined the
Speaker 5: most important stuff about the Trinity. There were four marks
Speaker 5: of the Church laid out that Christ promised us the
Speaker 5: Church would never defect. It would be this way until
Speaker 5: the end of time. It would be one. So there
Speaker 5: can't be competing sex. There can be arguments within one sect,
Speaker 5: but there can't be actual different competing sex. Wholly this
Speaker 5: means sacraments Catholic, this means worldwide, and of course apostolic.
Speaker 5: This means that there has to be a direct line
Speaker 5: of every bishop in the world. Back to one of
Speaker 5: the apostles, we would say, with all due respect, Protestantism
Speaker 5: by and large lacks all four. Now we do not
Speaker 5: make the same. The Church doesn't make the same claim
Speaker 5: about Orthodox Christianity. They have real bishops that the Church acknowledges,
Speaker 5: and that means that they have all seven sacraments. Seven
Speaker 5: This means complete. So there's a different conversation that needs
Speaker 5: to happen between Catholics. You heard it because we're talking
Speaker 5: about the first seven Councils versus a kind of quasi
Speaker 5: religious products.
Speaker 4: Once again, we acknowledge and hold the First seven Councils,
Speaker 4: but you don't.
Speaker 3: As I showed from the Seventh Documenical Council, you fundamentally
Speaker 3: reject the thing that that council was about.
Speaker 6: You said, it's audiopera.
Speaker 3: They say you're excommunicated if you don't accept images, So
Speaker 3: you don't accept the seventh.
Speaker 6: In theory and name.
Speaker 1: What are you?
Speaker 6: That was what you said.
Speaker 4: If I said that we if we.
Speaker 6: Have dogma, you don't know that these terms, I.
Speaker 4: Said, okay, No, if I said that we don't agree
Speaker 4: with the Seventh Council, then I misspoke because.
Speaker 6: Of no, you said that.
Speaker 3: I asked you if it was dogma meaning you're excommunicated
Speaker 3: if you don't believe in images, and you said no,
Speaker 3: we don't believe that, then you don't believe this the
Speaker 3: council because it does that.
Speaker 6: It's a simple point.
Speaker 4: Because we don't excommunicate people for not as you don't
Speaker 4: have ecclesiologyesiology. But listen, I was gonna bring I want
Speaker 4: to bring in another.
Speaker 1: We got another denomination.
Speaker 2: Who's got some words for you, Warpeg with a super
Speaker 2: test saying Baptists don't pray to middlemen and call them saints,
Speaker 2: and we don't pay for our salvation by giving Rome
Speaker 2: our coin. Long live American Independent Baptists.
Speaker 4: What say, y'all, that's got to be a joke, Rock, Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's so.
Speaker 3: In First Timothy, for Paul says to Timothy, be good, Timothy,
Speaker 3: because you will save those around you. Okay, does that
Speaker 3: mean that Paul thinks Timothy is the Savior. No, Timothy
Speaker 3: is participating in by cooperating with God, helping and being
Speaker 3: a conduit of grace to those around him in the
Speaker 3: same way Mary and other Saints are not God. They're
Speaker 3: conduits that pray for us and help us, exactly the
Speaker 3: way Paul's talking to Timothy.
Speaker 5: If you've ever asked your your buddy to pray for you,
Speaker 5: I'm going through something that's that's the Saints thing is
Speaker 5: absolutely retarded. Uh when when Protestants spurg out about this,
Speaker 5: it's it's literally asking the saints in heaven to pray
Speaker 5: for us.
Speaker 4: They're they're closer to God.
Speaker 5: It's the church triumphant rather than the people that if
Speaker 5: I ask you to pray for.
Speaker 4: Me, you're still a church militant. It's it's a closer
Speaker 4: prayer to get I'm just still confused on why icons
Speaker 4: are any show.
Speaker 2: Okay, but I don't want to because let let's just
Speaker 2: let's just we have icons, have icons.
Speaker 4: We have icons. If a church did not, If a
Speaker 4: church you're missing the icons, you not be recognized as
Speaker 4: a church.
Speaker 2: We we've, we've we I don't want to go in
Speaker 2: circles on that over and over and over again with
Speaker 2: everyone saying the same thing.
Speaker 1: So I have a question. I got a question. Do
Speaker 1: each of you think you will meet each other in
Speaker 1: heaven or no? Yes?
Speaker 4: My church does.
Speaker 3: Well. I guess it's true if you think that, right,
Speaker 3: If it's more liberal, does that I get true?
Speaker 4: It's not liberal. We are.
Speaker 6: It's a liberal position.
Speaker 4: It's not liberal liberal and a different saying you're a trinitarian,
Speaker 4: you're a trinitarian.
Speaker 3: I'm a truticized sacraments audio.
Speaker 4: My apostolic succession goes back just as far as yours
Speaker 4: and yours.
Speaker 6: All you've done is a start your position.
Speaker 4: So question just haven't rejected, You haven't actually rejected.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna.
Speaker 6: I've already showed you twice.
Speaker 1: We go, we gotta. I'm kidding, don't actually you you
Speaker 1: have You have said, you have said that.
Speaker 6: You even't understand the arguments I'm making.
Speaker 1: TikTok.
Speaker 4: Your argument seems to be and you restate the argument.
Speaker 4: Your argument seems to be that if somebody doesn't have
Speaker 4: icons in their house.
Speaker 6: Yeah, okay, no I didn't. That is so dumb.
Speaker 4: That is you're not iconically.
Speaker 1: Do you think these two gentlemen will meet you in heaven.
Speaker 3: We don't make personal judgments on people's destinies. All we
Speaker 3: know is that we believe that the Orthodox Church is
Speaker 3: the arc. It is the mystical body of Christ, and
Speaker 3: so it's our duty to tell people to join it.
Speaker 3: We can't say what God will judge at the end
Speaker 3: of time and at the grade, So let's.
Speaker 1: Put it this way.
Speaker 2: Outside of them individually, you think it is, it is
Speaker 2: less likely that people who don't follow your religion will
Speaker 2: will find their way less likely.
Speaker 1: And then and then how do you guys view it?
Speaker 5: Catholics highly similar, almost identical view. We do believe you
Speaker 5: have to be in communion with Rome, but there are
Speaker 5: exceptions like baptism by desire.
Speaker 1: Does everyone agree that the Holy Land belongs to Rome?
Speaker 4: Rome depends on how you define Rome.
Speaker 3: I think parts of the Holy Land along to Orthodox
Speaker 3: Orthodox ord Our Church is the third largest landowner in Israel,
Speaker 3: so technic Jerusalem patriarch, it would probably be the best claim.
Speaker 1: In fact, I was half kidding. It was a joke
Speaker 1: from Seamus when over the Israel Palestine debate.
Speaker 4: Ye belongs to Christians.
Speaker 3: I mean there was at one time in the Middle
Speaker 3: Ages it was a Byzantine it was it was part
Speaker 3: of the Business Empire, so it was at one point
Speaker 3: a Christian colony, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is there's a chat here. I'm gonna read
Speaker 1: that's that's I guess somewhat insulting to me.
Speaker 2: This h Bros Says this was always the problem with
Speaker 2: Tim hosting the debate. You know what's going to turn
Speaker 2: into something something he brings up with no epistemic foundation.
Speaker 2: Uh my view, it's kind of like, yeah, probably because
Speaker 2: I don't follow any of these religions or or I
Speaker 2: do believe in God. I guess theist is probably the
Speaker 2: best word, not deist.
Speaker 1: But if.
Speaker 2: If I can't be convinced, if you can't convince, you know,
Speaker 2: if you find somebody you're like, yeah, they believe in God,
Speaker 2: it's like, okay, here's why we're correct. If it's esoteric
Speaker 2: and hard to understand and you can't easily explain why
Speaker 2: your religion is correct to someone like me, and how
Speaker 2: do you convert people?
Speaker 3: But a Muslim that's a Muslim market. Muslims will say
Speaker 3: our religion is true because it's simpler. But then when
Speaker 3: you get into the religion, you realize, oh, actually there's
Speaker 3: a million hadiths that you got to learn, and it's
Speaker 3: really complex.
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm saying, how do you convince someone who
Speaker 2: doesn't know about the ecumenical councils and all of that stuff.
Speaker 2: So I hear I hear a lot of very esoteric
Speaker 2: terms that I'm like, unam sanctum.
Speaker 1: I don't know what that is.
Speaker 5: But Jays, I'm not trying to be evangelical right now,
Speaker 5: Jay is not. None of us really are trying to
Speaker 5: be evangelical, because when you bring everyone into a room,
Speaker 5: the Catholic and the Orthodox are going to be debating
Speaker 5: counsels and and specifically what the constitutions require. So it
Speaker 5: sounds boring and stupid, but but it's actually important the
Speaker 5: way anyone would evangelize, I guess, since you do have
Speaker 5: a more secular audiences by saying Christianity is demonstrably true,
Speaker 5: I was demonstrably suey generous, it's under but I'll pause on.
Speaker 2: Saying I think it's probably like eighty five percent Christian
Speaker 2: of different denominations that watch.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, well fair enough.
Speaker 5: But then you havestually you have to ask which which
Speaker 5: version of Christianity? To the eighty five percent that are
Speaker 5: already convinced correctly that Christianity is true, you have to say,
Speaker 5: which of the competing sex Orthodoxy is. We would say
Speaker 5: a much much, much much closer have the foremarks of
Speaker 5: the church and and can trace there the practice of
Speaker 5: the religion today all the way back to our Lord
Speaker 5: handing the keys to Blessed Peter. That's that's what we
Speaker 5: would say, if we're kind of putting it in broad
Speaker 5: forward facing terms. And then that's precisely way I.
Speaker 1: See with with recently with the new pope.
Speaker 2: He's from Chicago and a lot of Chicago jokes. But
Speaker 2: there was another cardinal who had made comments about supporting
Speaker 2: the LGBTQ community.
Speaker 1: I forgot.
Speaker 2: He was the guy from the Philippines, and there was
Speaker 2: big concern over his views on overtly political cultural political issues.
Speaker 2: And to me, I look at that, I'm like, how
Speaker 2: how could there be truth in an ever evolving political
Speaker 2: climate that tries to adhere to politics.
Speaker 4: Well, that's the biggest problem with Catholic Church historically is
Speaker 4: it's very intertwined with politics, always has been.
Speaker 2: My personally, my opinion is that the Catholic Church is
Speaker 2: trying to maintain as large a base as possible, and
Speaker 2: so you end up with people like Francis and I
Speaker 2: forgot the name of this guy, this Filipino guy who
Speaker 2: said something like all these gay websites, I mean literally
Speaker 2: gay websites, not insulting them, we're.
Speaker 6: Pregnant vat.
Speaker 1: Oh no, there's like pink News.
Speaker 2: I think it was in like LGBT Nation or whatever.
Speaker 2: We're saying like, this is the good guy, he should
Speaker 2: be the pope because he was saying things like it's
Speaker 2: time to recognize gay marriage or whatever, or like things
Speaker 2: like that, going beyond what Francis had said with blessings.
Speaker 5: The Vaticanistas all said that this is what between him
Speaker 5: and the Cardinal of Bologna and some of the other
Speaker 5: far left cardinals that were considered papabularly popable at the
Speaker 5: last conclave last month. This is specifically why they weren't selected,
Speaker 5: even though they're considered most to pabaly, because we tried
Speaker 5: this with Francis, and it's true. It's I would never
Speaker 5: deny as probably one of one of France's is the
Speaker 5: best known American lay critics who is Catholic. Uh, the
Speaker 5: church is trying a bad approach to winning over converts.
Speaker 4: Since a little bit. It's like we're a Vatican too.
Speaker 5: And what they're actually finding now and the boomers and
Speaker 5: the dinosaurs in the cardinal it are finding to their chagrin,
Speaker 5: is that they're they're really mad about it. France has
Speaker 5: hated it. He said, these people have psychological problems. They
Speaker 5: like to go to the Latin mass, they like to
Speaker 5: go back to the mass of the ages too.
Speaker 2: That's this is what I see in the trends as well,
Speaker 2: that we're finding that gen Z, younger gen Z, not
Speaker 2: older gen Z, are finding faith in Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1: That that's that That polling was not a nomination all.
Speaker 2: It was just they were saying it the men are
Speaker 2: leaning more conservative, and then, uh, you know, I suppose
Speaker 2: it's a it's a it's a factor, and that Catholicism
Speaker 2: is so big and when the pope, you know, when
Speaker 2: the pope passed away and they were choosing the new pope,
Speaker 2: it's the biggest story in the world, so I can
Speaker 2: understand it. It just feels like they're lying to people
Speaker 2: to try and build up membership numbers.
Speaker 1: That's what it feels like.
Speaker 4: When to get into the lies of the Roman Catholic Church,
Speaker 4: this is not this is not some time that his
Speaker 4: church told the world that Constantine gave them the entire
Speaker 4: Western Empire.
Speaker 1: To be clarify, I'm not saying this of Catholics.
Speaker 2: I'm saying that that the current leadership seemed to be
Speaker 2: their political strategy of we need more converts, so let's
Speaker 2: say what we have to say.
Speaker 4: Again, and my church is doing the opposite thing. We
Speaker 4: separated from the larger church because we felt that they
Speaker 4: were doing that.
Speaker 6: Again, separating makes you not a part of that thing.
Speaker 1: Sure was.
Speaker 6: So the the point that I raised earlier about the papers.
Speaker 3: Let's let's move on, Papa, we didn't separate.
Speaker 6: We believe they left us.
Speaker 4: And we believe they left us.
Speaker 3: That's why I did an internal critique WHI you don't understand,
Speaker 3: But no.
Speaker 4: You didn't make your was veiled in esotery. We don't
Speaker 4: say communicate, I.
Speaker 6: Guess language the basically make your point on.
Speaker 3: So the the issue with when I'm sonctum all the
Speaker 3: way up to the Syllabus of Errors in the eighteen hundreds,
Speaker 3: where you had to believe in the temporal power and
Speaker 3: supremacy the Roman bishop to be saved. It was mandated
Speaker 3: all that time for those centuries to be necessary to
Speaker 3: be saved, which the Vatican no longer believes for salvafic purposes.
Speaker 3: They might theoretically still believe it, who knows, but I
Speaker 3: think Vatican too contradicts that with the de Christianizing principles.
Speaker 3: But the point is that ever since the Papal states,
Speaker 3: ever since the eleventh century, especially with the Gregorian reforms,
Speaker 3: the papacy has united itself with and tied itself into
Speaker 3: politics at a.
Speaker 6: At an intense level.
Speaker 3: And that's not all totally the fault of Rome or
Speaker 3: just power seeking. You had the collapse of the Roman Empire,
Speaker 3: which led to the vacuum that allowed.
Speaker 6: The papacy to step in.
Speaker 3: But by the time that we get to Dictatus Pope,
Speaker 3: just a couple of things that we have in this document.
Speaker 3: The pope alone can use the imperial signa insignia. All
Speaker 3: princes in the world must kiss the Pope's feet. This
Speaker 3: is the only name in the world. He alone may
Speaker 3: depose all emperors. He alone may confirm all bishops. The
Speaker 3: Roman Sea has never aired and will never air unto
Speaker 3: the end of time. The Roman Church is founded by
Speaker 3: God alone. The Roman Church alone can call itself universal.
Speaker 3: It can alone depose the renstate bishops. Now already we've
Speaker 3: seen that from Dictatus popping the eleventh century. That's a
Speaker 3: contradiction with the way the councils acted and operated in
Speaker 3: the first several centuries. So the Roman bishop becomes a
Speaker 3: geopolitical world power, particularly in the eleventh century, comes to
Speaker 3: its nader you could say, a few centuries later, and
Speaker 3: it is still intimately tied up with geopolitics, because the
Speaker 3: CIA had a huge alliance with the Vatican during the
Speaker 3: Cold War, and at Vatican two on record and many
Speaker 3: many Catholic right.
Speaker 1: What explained Vatican two.
Speaker 3: So this is the council in the nineteen sixties that
Speaker 3: was called by John the twenty third, originally to update
Speaker 3: to make the Roman See and the Roman Church more
Speaker 3: amenable to the world. Ajornamento was his terminology, to open
Speaker 3: the doors and let the world into the Church.
Speaker 1: You would you agree with that assessmentor no?
Speaker 5: No, So Vatican two was I mean, it's true that
Speaker 5: it was all. It's true that it was called by
Speaker 5: John the twenty third. But what happened at the end
Speaker 5: of Vatican One in the eighteen seventies is the frank
Speaker 5: Opression War interrupted it. Vatican one is famous. If we
Speaker 5: look at both of the last two councils of the
Speaker 5: Roman Catholic Church, Vatican one of two, they're both vastly misunderstood.
Speaker 5: The reason Vatican one is vastly misunderstood is because the
Speaker 5: Franco Prussian War interrupted it. Literally in between the two
Speaker 5: goals of Vatican one laying out the power of the Pope,
Speaker 5: clarifying the power of the pope as it had always
Speaker 5: been for two thousand years, eighteen hundred years, and laying
Speaker 5: out the power of the bishops because it is a
Speaker 5: collegial relationship that the Pope has to them, even though
Speaker 5: he is the prince of the apostles. It got interrupted
Speaker 5: and separated by the Franco Prussian War, so Vatican two,
Speaker 5: so it ended up looking by the way like just
Speaker 5: the pope's powers were laid out. The powers of the
Speaker 5: bishops were never at umbrated because of the sudden conclusion
Speaker 5: of that. It was never actually concluded until John the
Speaker 5: twenty third concluded it almost one hundred years later, eighty
Speaker 5: five years later, right before he said, okay, we need
Speaker 5: to have a Vatican two. Yet to what the power
Speaker 5: of the bishops are was Vatican one? Vatican one laid
Speaker 5: out definitively what the power.
Speaker 1: Of it was like a meeting.
Speaker 4: Was all of these ecumenical count council, which means that
Speaker 4: it was a full council of the Church called dinamper
Speaker 4: not in amor no, no, it was.
Speaker 5: The first seven were called by emperors, some more were
Speaker 5: called by Emper's Council of Florence. Was but an ecumenical
Speaker 5: just means that Ecumenical Council just.
Speaker 4: Means that it's all the world, all the bishops of
Speaker 4: the world.
Speaker 5: Vatican one concludes, suddenly getting just to what the power
Speaker 5: of the pope is, which made it gave it a
Speaker 5: lopsided look our ecclesiology. Afterwards, Vatican Two needed to be
Speaker 5: held to get to what the power of the bishops
Speaker 5: were once we started getting more liberal popes like John
Speaker 5: the twenty third and Paul the sixth, who are the
Speaker 5: two popes alive during Vatican Two in the nineteen sixties,
Speaker 5: they changed the agenda. Actually it was Carl Ronner and
Speaker 5: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who a lot of people think was
Speaker 5: a right winger in the church.
Speaker 4: He was not. He and Ronner together changed the agenda
Speaker 4: from finishing what Vatican one was supposed to do lay
Speaker 4: out the power of the bishops, to what he called
Speaker 4: a jornamento updating the Church doing doing essentially liberal things. Now,
Speaker 4: the documents themselves are are not are not bad. The
Speaker 4: documents themselves are insinuitive. Yeah, I read some of the documentary. Yeah,
Speaker 4: once I get done.
Speaker 5: Yeah, the documents themselves are insinuitive of a more liberal position,
Speaker 5: and they were intentionally written in such a way that
Speaker 5: they would be that they could be weaponized.
Speaker 4: Later.
Speaker 5: Lots of the Council fathers that were Rhnoites admitted this,
Speaker 5: things like, you know, what's our relationship to be with
Speaker 5: the Muslims? Jay Jay made reference to this earlier, what's
Speaker 5: our relationship to be with the Hindus?
Speaker 4: And it sounded more liberal.
Speaker 5: Really, what they were doing was quoting things from Pope
Speaker 5: Pious the tenth, a very based older pope. They're quoting
Speaker 5: even from medieval popes who acknowledged things like, technically speaking,
Speaker 5: the Muslims are monotheists. Technically they're one of the Western religions.
Speaker 5: Technically they they worship the one True God, but they
Speaker 5: worship the one True God in the false way.
Speaker 4: Trads, you know, rad Trad's orthodox.
Speaker 5: Everyone gets worked up about this, but it turns out
Speaker 5: that this is a very very old medieval term that
Speaker 5: the Church has.
Speaker 3: The same for Hinduism, because the Vatican too says the
Speaker 3: same as they they believe. They believe not about Hindus, Hindus,
Speaker 3: not moss Hindus.
Speaker 4: Okay, read what it says about Hinduss.
Speaker 3: In Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery and explore and
Speaker 3: express it.
Speaker 6: How do you explore the true mystery of God?
Speaker 3: You can explore what you're looking for, explore Christianity.
Speaker 4: It's absolutely don't explore.
Speaker 6: Christianity and Hinduism.
Speaker 3: They seek release from the trials of present life through
Speaker 3: ascetic practices and meditation and recourse to God in confidence.
Speaker 5: I agree, all that's bad, but you miss so it's
Speaker 5: bad my uncle Remus. Wait wait, my uncle Remus believes
Speaker 5: dogs like your uncle can fly.
Speaker 3: No, this is your dogmatic statements that are supposed to
Speaker 3: provide clarity. Right, they need to be interpreted by you
Speaker 3: because are ambiguous.
Speaker 4: No, No, are they clear or ambiguous? Perfectly clear? They're Hindu?
Speaker 6: Will you just said it was bad? It was bad? Wait?
Speaker 6: Was it clear or bad?
Speaker 4: You finished?
Speaker 6: Jail?
Speaker 4: I'll go after you're done.
Speaker 6: They have recourse to God.
Speaker 3: God will do the same thing. So just again that
Speaker 3: we have said of colection irrelevant. What that's a direct object,
Speaker 3: that's a genetic facis object genetic fallacy to say that
Speaker 3: because it is you just said, I don't know, so
Speaker 3: appealed authority, appealed authority and genetic fallacy. Other fallacy. They
Speaker 3: believe you're King of fallacy record say they believe you're lying?
Speaker 3: You added that explode? Where does it say they do that?
Speaker 4: Read?
Speaker 3: It says that they seek release, and they have recourse
Speaker 3: to God in confidence and the seek they have recourse, No,
Speaker 3: and have recourse. They seek and have recourse?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 3: And what he say and recourse and recourse?
Speaker 1: What does that mean?
Speaker 6: Recourse they have? They seek in.
Speaker 4: They cantafidence and love in God. I'll speak once he's done.
Speaker 4: So what in the Amatican two documents.
Speaker 3: That I was very hones By the way, it's a
Speaker 3: genetic fallacy.
Speaker 1: Can I see the book?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, read the sentence here, let me read it again
Speaker 4: for you. In the relations is going to keep it.
Speaker 3: In the religion of Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery,
Speaker 3: explore thank you.
Speaker 6: I just said that.
Speaker 3: It doesn't mean they found to repeat each word after
Speaker 3: I say each.
Speaker 4: What have you said? Ascertained? If they said ascertained, we'd
Speaker 4: have a hard time.
Speaker 3: So he doesn't want me to read the whole quote
Speaker 3: because he knows the the difference.
Speaker 4: In Hindu God, it is very real.
Speaker 3: They have recourse to God in confidence and love.
Speaker 5: They start the sentence over, they seek Jay thinks that
Speaker 5: the sentence said that the Hindu's ascertained, heaven ascertained.
Speaker 3: It says that through exploring it. But you said it
Speaker 3: was a bad statement earlier.
Speaker 5: No, no, no, I said, no, no, it's not that's
Speaker 5: from read the document. I'm saying that it's very easy
Speaker 5: to misinterpret if I say, mine, my dear old uncle remus.
Speaker 3: Why why do we need you to interpret the document?
Speaker 3: You're saying, why do we need you to interpret the
Speaker 3: doctas you to interpret the doc the logic professor keeps
Speaker 3: making fallacies.
Speaker 4: Let me read what I thought.
Speaker 6: Why do you need to interpret them?
Speaker 4: Let me read it.
Speaker 2: There's a paragraph before that one I want to read.
Speaker 2: I want to I just want to read the full paragraph.
Speaker 2: Or actually this is part of the full paragraph. It says,
Speaker 2: throughout history to the present day, there is found among
Speaker 2: different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power which
Speaker 2: lies behind the course of nature and the events of
Speaker 2: human life. At times, there is present even a recognition
Speaker 2: of a supreme being, or still more of a father.
Speaker 2: This awareness and recognition results in a way of life
Speaker 2: that is imbued with a deep religious sense. The religions
Speaker 2: which are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor by way
Speaker 2: of well defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions.
Speaker 1: Thus, in Hinduism, people.
Speaker 2: Explore the divine mystery and express it both in the
Speaker 2: limitless riches of myth and the accurately defined insights of philosophy.
Speaker 2: They seek release from the trials of the present life
Speaker 2: by ascetical practices, profound meditation, and recourse to God in
Speaker 2: confidence and love. Buddhism, in its various forms, testing costs
Speaker 2: to God to the essential inadequacy of this changing world.
Speaker 2: It proposes a way of life by which people can,
Speaker 2: with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation
Speaker 2: and reach supreme elimination, either through their own efforts or
Speaker 2: with divine help. So to other religions which are found
Speaker 2: throughout the world, attempt in different ways to overcome the
Speaker 2: restlessness of people's hearts by outlining a program of life
Speaker 2: covering doctrine, moral precepts, and sacred rights.
Speaker 6: Yeah, this is our perfect liberation in hindu and.
Speaker 1: Real quick, I do want to read this little bit.
Speaker 1: I didn't want to read the one paragphy. There's a
Speaker 1: little bit more that I think is interesting.
Speaker 6: You already said it's bad.
Speaker 1: It goes on.
Speaker 3: Again another fallacy at hominem fallacies.
Speaker 1: It actually says here we have im mute, but immediately.
Speaker 3: Follow because he's calling out, I'm calling out the logic professor.
Speaker 2: I just want to point out that by and okay, sorry, sorry,
Speaker 2: but immediately following this parer, what says the Catholic Church
Speaker 2: rejects nothing of what is true and wholly.
Speaker 1: In these religions.
Speaker 2: It is a high regard for the manner of life
Speaker 2: and conduct conduct, the precepts and doctrines, which, although differing
Speaker 2: in many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect
Speaker 2: array of that truth which enlightens all men and women.
Speaker 2: Yet it proclaims it is in duty bound to proclaim
Speaker 2: without fail Christ, who is the way the truth in
Speaker 2: life in Him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself.
Speaker 2: People find the fullness of their religious life.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 3: That shows contradiction. No, that doesn't help you.
Speaker 1: I actually agree with with the Catholic view.
Speaker 2: It's basically saying the way I interpret that, it's saying
Speaker 2: Hindus and Buddhists are looking through a keyhole and seeing
Speaker 2: these fragments that they're not quite understanding properly and if
Speaker 2: they were to adhere to Jesus Christ and find the way.
Speaker 3: The problem, the even liberals at the Council, problem is
Speaker 3: that only written by John fourteen, Jesus says that He's
Speaker 3: the only way right, the truth in the life. But
Speaker 3: I understand that the problem is that you cannot. It
Speaker 3: says in the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism, men find
Speaker 3: love in God and they find they seek lo the
Speaker 3: know it says they find it. They believe they fine
Speaker 3: phrase says seek it. Then it says they find it.
Speaker 6: Just like I said.
Speaker 3: Read it again, just like it says Muslims adore the
Speaker 3: one God. Well, well, Muslims are different because the religion, No,
Speaker 3: they're not.
Speaker 6: Do they believe religion? You believe?
Speaker 3: Do they believe in one God or multiple? They believe
Speaker 3: in monos the Bible teach. Does the Bible teach the
Speaker 3: Trinity or Monotheism the Trinity? But so the Muslims don't
Speaker 3: believe in the God of the Bible.
Speaker 6: You know that?
Speaker 4: Do you know what the sense reference dichotomy?
Speaker 3: That?
Speaker 1: Okay, I have a question.
Speaker 5: So if you understand what sense referenced dichotomy, okay, we
Speaker 5: can be referring to the thing.
Speaker 4: Does Jesus describe it as yellow?
Speaker 5: And we're still reserting to say that the Pharisees misunderstanding
Speaker 5: this reference.
Speaker 3: Does Jesus think that the Pharisees accurately worship the Father?
Speaker 4: No, of course not.
Speaker 5: Then then that undoes your argument, un does your Muslim
Speaker 5: lane Because you said you understand the sense reference dichotomy.
Speaker 5: Explain how by sense ans risk affirmative and by reference
Speaker 5: it would be a negative answer. We can be referring
Speaker 5: to the same thing. If you think Cleveland doesn't and
Speaker 5: I think.
Speaker 3: They disprove your sense reference argument, and we're not that
Speaker 3: you want to just prove your sense the question, I
Speaker 3: can disprove it by Muslims sense reference. Do Mormons believe
Speaker 3: in Jesus? No, but Mormons don't believe. Do they use
Speaker 3: the term Jesus?
Speaker 4: No, yes, they're not use the terms absolutely, Mormons use
Speaker 4: the term Wait, wait, wait, norm.
Speaker 5: Mormons believe Jesus is I'm the one guy that hasn't
Speaker 5: been interrupting. So Mormons believes that there is a historical Jesus.
Speaker 5: He believes that he that that Mormons Jesus is not
Speaker 5: the son of gods.
Speaker 6: I know what they believe religion.
Speaker 3: So just like Muslims, if they say I believe in
Speaker 3: the One God, it's the quantifier shift fallacy.
Speaker 5: No, that's just the quantity that's true. But that's what
Speaker 5: the document is. The quantifier shift fallacy. Then that undoes
Speaker 5: what what does that mean?
Speaker 1: What does that mean?
Speaker 3: So it's like if I say I have one mother,
Speaker 3: you have one mother. We all have one mother, therefore
Speaker 3: we come from the same mother. It's a quantifying shift fallacy.
Speaker 3: So one God, what we all believe in, one God,
Speaker 3: Therefore it's the same God. Vatican two is using the
Speaker 3: quantifier shift fallacy.
Speaker 4: Read the line.
Speaker 5: Read the line that you think is false definitively, because
Speaker 5: there are no definitive statements you've read that are false.
Speaker 4: Notice that seeking, searching, exploring need. It was just retarded.
Speaker 6: Just retard.
Speaker 3: The quarts shift fallacy is retarded, I think.
Speaker 4: Okay, guys, guys, no claim that there's something false you
Speaker 4: just read. It is retarded.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me, let me.
Speaker 3: Let's written by liberals. I gave you that it's written
Speaker 3: by liberals. But it's supposed to clarify. So the paper
Speaker 3: does the job of clarifying. But it's written by liberals,
Speaker 3: and we need him to interpret it for you don't
Speaker 3: need me to interpret anything. I'm defending against an attack
Speaker 3: that you're making. That's that's common miscar.
Speaker 6: One true God, living and subsisting in himself.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yea fallas with two bargaining dogs.
Speaker 5: Every time Muslims claimed how about this, Muslims claim to
Speaker 5: believe in one.
Speaker 6: It doesn't say it says they adore. It doesn't say
Speaker 6: they claim.
Speaker 5: Muslims the words now they adore the sense reference dichotomy.
Speaker 2: Right, okay, wait, wait, wait, hold on, I want to
Speaker 2: read this.
Speaker 1: This is important.
Speaker 2: It's as the Church also has a high regard for
Speaker 2: the Muslims. They worship God, who is one living and
Speaker 2: I'm not I said, I'm not done, the creator of
Speaker 2: having an earth, who was also spoken to humanity. They
Speaker 2: endeavor to submit themselves without reserve, to the hidden decrees
Speaker 2: of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God's plans
Speaker 2: and whose faith Muslims eagerly linked to their own, although
Speaker 2: not acknowledging him as God. They venerate Jesus, a prophet,
Speaker 2: his virgin mother. They also honor and even at times
Speaker 2: devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and
Speaker 2: the reward of the reward of God following the resurrection
Speaker 2: of the dead. For this reason, they highly esteem and
Speaker 2: upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer.
Speaker 1: Alms, deeds, and fasting. It.
Speaker 2: It does seem like they're saying, as far as I
Speaker 2: can tell, Muslims are worshiping the same God.
Speaker 3: Yes, well, yes, this is This is a community college
Speaker 3: primer on intro to religions and.
Speaker 6: How you couldn't get quantified ship.
Speaker 5: It's in your Islam is literally one of the three
Speaker 5: monotheisms in Western religion.
Speaker 4: Is it trying? No, It's not the God of the Bible.
Speaker 5: According to you, I said, the Bible God is the Trinity. No, yes,
Speaker 5: you did. Well, of course you don't think. I think
Speaker 5: the Bible God is the Trinity.
Speaker 3: Then the Muslims don't worship the same God because of
Speaker 3: the quantifier shift fallacy.
Speaker 4: The Muslims don't worship the same God. Doesn't say the
Speaker 4: same God as US books says.
Speaker 3: They do, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 4: They don't worship the same.
Speaker 6: God, Muslim, Are you serious?
Speaker 4: What's going on? Heresion?
Speaker 3: They worship God who is living and subsisting in the
Speaker 3: same marciful Almighty Creator.
Speaker 4: No, you said the same God as USU US. It
Speaker 4: doesn't say us.
Speaker 6: Also, it doesn't say us. Are you serious, dude?
Speaker 4: Muslims worship how many? How many gods do Muslims worship?
Speaker 4: Say jay dire? How many gods do Muslims worship?
Speaker 6: Worship?
Speaker 4: How many do they worship?
Speaker 3: By the way, one or two or three? I don't
Speaker 3: believe in generic monotheism. That's a that's a word that.
Speaker 1: It's the distinction.
Speaker 4: I also don't agree.
Speaker 3: I believe it's the quantifiership fallacy.
Speaker 4: One thing you tell me you don't believe that they
Speaker 4: believe they worship one.
Speaker 5: God doesn't matter because the statement is that you said
Speaker 5: you understood the sense right the god worship. They do
Speaker 5: worship one true God, tim But what you're equippling over
Speaker 5: failing is whether or not you're melting the verb and
Speaker 5: the direct object there are in agreement. You don't need
Speaker 5: a grammar lesson literally, you do need a grammar less
Speaker 5: logic professor.
Speaker 6: You couldn't do the quantifiership fellaws.
Speaker 4: This guy doesn't know that Islam claims to worship one.
Speaker 4: It doesn't say they just claim it. It says they do it.
Speaker 4: Says they worship God, not they the Church, the Roman
Speaker 4: Catholic Church, which has always acknowledged this is the Romance,
Speaker 4: but since the tenth since two different medieval popes that
Speaker 4: Muslims want to worship some in some sense the same God,
Speaker 4: different reference. Grammatically, grammatically, this is very straightforward. They worship God,
Speaker 4: not a God. They worship God and even the One
Speaker 4: True God. The Church, they worship God, who is one,
Speaker 4: living and subsistence.
Speaker 5: I'm not.
Speaker 4: Orthodox. I'm just saying what the Church is always taught.
Speaker 4: That is the That is them saying, couldn't worship our God?
Speaker 6: Have you address the argument? Then argument would.
Speaker 4: Said on Islam, Tim you would be right to God arguments.
Speaker 5: What I can read you from the personal piet Advice
Speaker 5: the Ten Catechism that he says the One True God.
Speaker 1: Doesn't represent okay, guys, guys.
Speaker 4: And it doesn't represent okay. Where it doesn't represent.
Speaker 1: Okay, guys, guys. The conversation is not advancing, and one
Speaker 1: questions years it's I think it's actually been pretty pretty
Speaker 1: pretty good.
Speaker 2: Actually, what what I interpret from that is that they
Speaker 2: were trying to say there is one true God, and
Speaker 2: even in that regard, they're saying other religions are seeing
Speaker 2: it improperly and doing it wrong, like looking like the
Speaker 2: argument is you look through a key hole.
Speaker 1: I think that's what it's saying.
Speaker 2: It's saying that Muslims are looking through a hole and
Speaker 2: they're seeing something tiny and they're not doing it right.
Speaker 1: Hindus are looking through a different hole.
Speaker 2: So I I think the argument of the of the
Speaker 2: of Vetiicanto is there is only one true God.
Speaker 1: Everyone else is looking at it wrong.
Speaker 4: Written by Jesuits liberal, So now their church created the
Speaker 4: Jesuits bad again, that was on that So from the
Speaker 4: orthodox person, yes, the Jesuits are from the flesh. From
Speaker 4: the complained about them and said they're too liberal. Yes,
Speaker 4: that's that's a well known Catholic. Catholics can Catholics can
Speaker 4: be too liberal and it's prodience Episcopal the Yeah, they
Speaker 4: have an ecclesiology. Stay we also have.
Speaker 1: I got a question.
Speaker 4: Trendsliberal. It doesn't mean that they're Protestants. Well, you also
Speaker 4: expelled them because they were liberals.
Speaker 2: It's the one thing that an agree on is that
Speaker 2: the Episcopal Church is the inferior church.
Speaker 4: The Episcopal Church sucks.
Speaker 1: Do you all agree?
Speaker 6: Yeah? Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3: Sure, so I want to I want to highlight too
Speaker 3: that I think Tim will have to admit this that
Speaker 3: post Vatican Two, we can see the actions of the Papa,
Speaker 3: see how they interpret this document, because they in many
Speaker 3: cases literally will go pray in mosque towards Mecca. The
Speaker 3: sixteenth did it. Also, John Paul the second did it. Uh,
Speaker 3: excuse me? A saint and Francis both did this where
Speaker 3: they went to the moss. They reverently prayed towards Mecca.
Speaker 3: That's an outward expression of the interior disposition in Roman
Speaker 3: Catholic moral theology of their faith.
Speaker 4: The way that they're not dogmatic.
Speaker 6: That's Vatican is not dogmatic.
Speaker 5: No, No, Vatican two is dogmatic. The Pope's going in
Speaker 5: and praise stupid expresses. It expresses their faith.
Speaker 4: That's of Constantinople.
Speaker 3: I think I think he's heretic. I don't have a
Speaker 3: problem saying his heretic. Okay, but you can't say that.
Speaker 3: You can't say the pope's a heretic.
Speaker 5: Uh, Francis Francis was a material heretic. We don't know
Speaker 5: yet if he's a formal.
Speaker 3: No one judges the first sea, do you.
Speaker 4: No one has judged the first Sea. Yet who cares
Speaker 4: you're judging it now?
Speaker 3: Cardinals in seven fifty says that lady does not have
Speaker 3: the right to judge the bishops and the sea.
Speaker 4: Not judging him.
Speaker 6: That means you just said.
Speaker 4: A material heretics a formal judging.
Speaker 6: I know what it means.
Speaker 3: Of course you don't have authority, but it also means
Speaker 3: that you don't have It says that you have to
Speaker 3: submit with docility to the to the rulings of the
Speaker 3: ordinary teaching.
Speaker 4: Of course that's not it.
Speaker 3: You don't get to action, then you don't get in
Speaker 3: conformity with the liberal view, with the liberal misinterpretation.
Speaker 4: You can't just talk over it.
Speaker 5: Did the council judgement the intentional liberal misinterpretation of those
Speaker 5: passages you read which I'm interpret Wait wait, tim interpreted
Speaker 5: correctly so he can by popes and and I'll admiss.
Speaker 2: I'll just say this, Uh, that which I read is
Speaker 2: more convincing to me.
Speaker 1: Of the Catholics.
Speaker 4: Well, I would agree, if not for the fact that
Speaker 4: it says Muslims worship the same God. It doesn't say
Speaker 4: same God. Yes, the word saying literally the one God.
Speaker 4: It does rammatically making up who's the creator?
Speaker 6: To wait, who's the creator?
Speaker 4: Does it say same? The creator says they worship God.
Speaker 4: People out there this passage is the creator.
Speaker 2: The microphone if no one else, if people keep talking, Uh,
Speaker 2: I think it's correct.
Speaker 1: Okay, but I think I think Muslims do worship God.
Speaker 4: They don't.
Speaker 6: They don't, but our God.
Speaker 2: So he already admitted and so that says capital G God.
Speaker 2: That's why this is convincing to me. And you guys
Speaker 2: aren't being convincing.
Speaker 4: Again God, if it said a God, I agree with you,
Speaker 4: but it's because I I think believe there's a God
Speaker 4: besides God.
Speaker 1: I think there is.
Speaker 5: That's the sense reference dichotomy right there. So you believe
Speaker 5: there's another god besides God. So the popes pray in
Speaker 5: You just said you believe they worship You're what I
Speaker 5: said God?
Speaker 4: I said. If if it said they worship a god,
Speaker 4: as is important, they believe they're worshiping a God who
Speaker 4: is similar.
Speaker 5: No, no, no, not, they believe they really do. Remember that's them.
Speaker 5: Wait wait, wait is an argument?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 4: Your text?
Speaker 6: It's your text?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 5: You literally, I know it's I know it's my text.
Speaker 5: You literally what would make all the difference is if
Speaker 5: they said that the Muslims worship a God rather than
Speaker 5: a God. You're making reference to the sense reference ecotomy
Speaker 5: by saying a no.
Speaker 6: That's why you can answer.
Speaker 4: You're not understanding what I said, or you're not understanding
Speaker 4: I'm not deliberately misrepresenting anything I'm saying, and you don't
Speaker 4: understand what I said.
Speaker 5: This sense reference dichotomy literally covers whether God or.
Speaker 4: Sense referenced dichotomy. This is grammar.
Speaker 1: Do you know what it is? Yes?
Speaker 3: Okay, guys, this is grammar. It's a grammatical tandation. Tim
Speaker 3: understands it's the same God.
Speaker 2: He okay, he is not not say it does worship
Speaker 2: God appital g God.
Speaker 5: I'm going to quote my friend Jay Dyer who says
Speaker 5: that this passage says same God, not one God.
Speaker 4: Who's the creator?
Speaker 3: Tim, same God would be Tim, who's the creator.
Speaker 4: The same God would be inxical.
Speaker 3: So why are you being dishonesed? You're being dishonest?
Speaker 4: Tim, literally, come on, man, come the thea he can't answer,
Speaker 4: I understand, understand the philosophy and.
Speaker 3: Melting down and coping because he can't answer create at all.
Speaker 4: You made heretic twenty minutes ago, and I agree with Muslims.
Speaker 5: Worship the same God as us would be buying. Indexical
Speaker 5: means that it says if he used the word same.
Speaker 6: It would you want the attributes.
Speaker 4: It would be heresy.
Speaker 5: And that's why I said it wasn't natural theology. But
Speaker 5: it says that they worship one God, then it would
Speaker 5: be correct. It says they do worship one God.
Speaker 3: They worship God who is one, living and subsisting in himself, merciful,
Speaker 3: arm Almarighty and the Creator.
Speaker 4: Sure I'm breaking the Muslim view. I don't know. Again,
Speaker 4: you know what if he said just a God, they'd
Speaker 4: beading the Muslim viea.
Speaker 3: But they say lumin Gentium sixteen says they adore the
Speaker 3: one God. That's a term of worship, the one God.
Speaker 3: They adore the one God, and said this in his
Speaker 3: personal catechism.
Speaker 4: And too medieval.
Speaker 5: You could take issue with the Roman Catholic position. As
Speaker 5: an Orthodox, that's what you should do, but you can't
Speaker 5: say Church has change them. The document that's contradicting is
Speaker 5: the argument.
Speaker 6: We don't care about.
Speaker 5: The document doesn't contradict Catholicism. It might contradict Jay Dyer
Speaker 5: or no the.
Speaker 6: Document itself contradicts what you said earlier.
Speaker 4: Does Catholicism hold that Islam is the same as Christianity?
Speaker 4: Do you know what a precept is? What a logical
Speaker 4: axiom is.
Speaker 5: Logical axioms are pre scriptural, so literally the sense referenced
Speaker 5: dichotomy or the concept of proportional cause.
Speaker 4: These are things which are which.
Speaker 3: Pre so sophiety to explain something you don't understand. No,
Speaker 3: you didn't know that. You didn't understand this. Five fallacies
Speaker 3: in a row. You said the same. That would be
Speaker 3: they text, because that's what the argument of the text is.
Speaker 3: They adore the one God in Lumit genty of sixteen.
Speaker 4: In order argument to be cool, they have to not
Speaker 4: be a proper Now.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to We're gonna have to want everybody
Speaker 1: know they don't.
Speaker 2: I believe that is a is a PI that testing
Speaker 2: it is he muting everybody. I don't, okay, I don't
Speaker 2: know what y'all are arguing at this point.
Speaker 1: I just I just hear noise is here yelling.
Speaker 2: Well the moment, the moment anyone talks someone else, everyone
Speaker 2: else's talking. And then when I was asking a question,
Speaker 2: you guys started having a different debate at the same
Speaker 2: that's fair.
Speaker 4: That's a fair point. Can I say what I perceive
Speaker 4: the argument to me is somebody who's kind of outside
Speaker 4: of it.
Speaker 1: Let's just let them let him say it.
Speaker 4: And then what I'm hearing from Jay is that that
Speaker 4: passage reads that Muslims, by what the passage says, not literally,
Speaker 4: Muslims worship the same God that we do. Because it
Speaker 4: says they worship God capital G proper noun. And then
Speaker 4: that is followed up with a description of the Christian God.
Speaker 4: You are saying that this is correct because they do
Speaker 4: believe they worship the same God as us. Therefore it's
Speaker 4: not incorrect. I would argue if it said they worship
Speaker 4: a God, you would be correct. Drammatically, it says they
Speaker 4: worship does God exist outside of it? Doesn't matter. They
Speaker 4: are worshiping something you're not talking about. I'm talking about reference.
Speaker 3: There's another quote that answer, So yeah, read that next quote.
Speaker 1: Please don't interrupt, Luminingentians. I have a thought on this.
Speaker 3: So there's another statement beyond Nosratate three, which is lumin
Speaker 3: Gentium sixteen. It says the plan of salvation includes those
Speaker 3: that acknowledge the Creator. First among whom are the Muslims.
Speaker 3: They profess the faith of Abraham, and together with us
Speaker 3: Catholics they adore.
Speaker 6: The One True God that refute.
Speaker 4: You anyway.
Speaker 3: With us topics, together with us for future entire argument,
Speaker 3: the last twenty Together with US Catholics.
Speaker 2: Okay, afterwards, Okay, together with us who are they referring.
Speaker 4: To muslim and Catholics? Okays and Christians Catholics.
Speaker 3: So the Catholic with us, this is this together with.
Speaker 6: US Catholics. What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Okay, So I'm I'm gonna tell you.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna say this right now, guys, to Orthodox and
Speaker 2: Anglican Catholic. Everything you're saying is convincing me more and
Speaker 2: more of the Catholic argument because the position that this
Speaker 2: is taking. Imagine it like this. There's a rock concert
Speaker 2: an arena, stadium, and Catholics are all let's let's just say,
Speaker 2: from from the from the argument fromend of this book.
Speaker 2: Catholics are all looking directly at the stage, and Muslims
Speaker 2: are in the back behind it, hearing a different, basic,
Speaker 2: garbled version of it. They're cheering for Freddie Mercury, but
Speaker 2: they're hearing some weird version of the song exactly.
Speaker 1: When I hear that is.
Speaker 2: What it's saying is that they're that all of these
Speaker 2: different religions are looking at they're doing things the wrong
Speaker 2: way towards the right God, and it's and it's because
Speaker 2: there is only one God.
Speaker 5: This is precisely the Catholic interpretation since Vatican Two. Now,
Speaker 5: I admit, but very outset that it's written by liberals,
Speaker 5: so it squints towards more conciliation, which is bad. But
Speaker 5: we have to say that lumin gensium. Yeah, but after
Speaker 5: I'm done lumine gensium and the other two sacred constitutions
Speaker 5: as Vatican too.
Speaker 1: Okay, you're using.
Speaker 4: I'd be all four.
Speaker 5: I'd be all four by the way, muting while other
Speaker 5: guys are talking, because that that's a really effective way
Speaker 5: of It's.
Speaker 1: Still just yelling, though, you know what I mean.
Speaker 4: But yeah, but I could sit here and be quiet.
Speaker 4: I'm just saying it is the Catholic.
Speaker 1: You know, Trump shouldn't have been muted either.
Speaker 5: Yeah, agreed, No, as the as the Catholic that there
Speaker 5: has to be a distinction between monotheism and polytheism on
Speaker 5: the basis of natural religion. Everyone knows everyone out there
Speaker 5: who's listening to this knows, okay, there're three Abrahamic religions,
Speaker 5: which was posited by Lumingensium.
Speaker 4: There's Judaism, Islam, Christianity.
Speaker 5: That this is you know, community college intro to religions
Speaker 5: one oh one. There are polytheisms. There are only three
Speaker 5: monotheisms in the history of the world. Now there's only
Speaker 5: one correct monotheism, which is posits a triune God. They
Speaker 5: say that they get this wrong. This is repeated throughout
Speaker 5: the Sacred Constitutions of Vatican Two that Jews and Muslims,
Speaker 5: even though they're monotheists, they get it wrong. They don't
Speaker 5: worship a triun God. This has said countless times in
Speaker 5: the documents. But that's why we don't have the index.
Speaker 5: They believe, or they falsely think that that language is
Speaker 5: reserved in the Vatican two documents for the polytheisms. So
Speaker 5: all they're doing there and it's written by Jesuit liberals,
Speaker 5: we're squinting toward, squinting toward a bad interpretation. They say correctly,
Speaker 5: they worship the One True God. Pis the Tenth says
Speaker 5: this in his personal catechism. He's a tad favorite. Two
Speaker 5: other medieval popes say the exact same thing, whether Jay
Speaker 5: Dyer or lor Lodge likes it, this is the Catholic
Speaker 5: this is the Catholic view.
Speaker 1: Well, but he's branding enough.
Speaker 4: I'm trying to help you brand. But with regard this
Speaker 4: is the last name.
Speaker 6: Look.
Speaker 5: With regard to the polytheists, that's why they always say
Speaker 5: they falsely claim that they falsely believe, that they falsely
Speaker 5: search for they seek for.
Speaker 4: Okay, So the distinction is monotheist.
Speaker 3: This is correct. And everything Tim said there we would
Speaker 3: agree with, except that from the Orthox perspective we reject
Speaker 3: the whole idea that there are Abrahamic monotheistic faiths. So
Speaker 3: even though Muslims might see themselves as that, when we
Speaker 3: look at the Old Testament revelation, we believe that it
Speaker 3: is the Trinity explicitly revealing itself in the Old Testament.
Speaker 3: They don't know the name per se of the word Trinity,
Speaker 3: but it's Yahweh, his angel, messenger and his Spirit are revealed.
Speaker 3: And in John five through nine, when Jesus debates with
Speaker 3: the Pharisees, who were the monotheists, he consistently says, you
Speaker 3: don't get the right God. You don't get the right picture.
Speaker 3: Abraham worshiped me, Jesus says in on it, he says
Speaker 3: Moses wrote about him, meaning that Abraham and Moses had
Speaker 3: faith in Christ. This is a key point to undo
Speaker 3: the natural theology argument that the Old Testament posited a
Speaker 3: generic theism of just a one monotheistic God. If Abraham
Speaker 3: believe in the Trinity, then the whole Abrahamic religion thing
Speaker 3: falls apart. And Jesus says that to have faith in
Speaker 3: Him makes you a child of Abraham. Galatians three pulse
Speaker 3: is exact same thing. So when Vatican two acknowledges that
Speaker 3: they have the faith of Abraham together with us, we
Speaker 3: believe that as a denial of jesus teaching in John
Speaker 3: eight that you can be a child of Abraham without faith.
Speaker 4: I guess that's the art. That's fair.
Speaker 6: That's fair.
Speaker 2: Grot real quick, just as just my response is kind
Speaker 2: of like, let's say we discover like we can make
Speaker 2: intercontinental ballistic missiles and very powerful ICBMs. The modern American
Speaker 2: ICBM is one two hundred and fifty times stronger than
Speaker 2: the bombs dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki. It is also possible
Speaker 2: that there is also true that Indian Pakistan have nuclear
Speaker 2: weapons that are substantially weaker because they have not yet
Speaker 2: discovered the means and the capability by which to build
Speaker 2: a powerful bomb.
Speaker 1: So I think it.
Speaker 2: Could be said that you may have discovered hidden truths
Speaker 2: and the true path towards God and religion, and Muslims
Speaker 2: are effectively using a one killtun bomb when you got
Speaker 2: a megadun bomb.
Speaker 4: That's why I think the argument would be that Muslims
Speaker 4: are openly rejecting.
Speaker 3: So the point is that, like, there are fundamentals that
Speaker 3: are absolutely essential to have access to God or to Christianity.
Speaker 3: So to deny, for example, the trendy or the incarnation
Speaker 3: puts us one outside of the bounds of Christianity at all.
Speaker 1: But I agree that, like, look at it this way.
Speaker 2: There's a bouncer at a club and he says, if
Speaker 2: you follow the rules, you can.
Speaker 1: Come into the club.
Speaker 2: And half the people follow the rules and get let in.
Speaker 2: The other half says that guy's telling us to go
Speaker 2: bash the windows out, and they get thrown out. They
Speaker 2: thought that's what the guy wanted. It's the same guy,
Speaker 2: but they're doing it wrong.
Speaker 4: Well, getting we throw we do throw people out right.
Speaker 2: My point is when when Vatican two says they worship God,
Speaker 2: it's like the bouncer.
Speaker 1: Being like, yo, I never told those people to throw
Speaker 1: bricks at the building. What are they doing?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 3: The problem is not just worship, but Vatican two uses
Speaker 3: the term of adoration, which in Klac theology is more
Speaker 3: specific than just a generic idea of natural theology. Adoration
Speaker 3: is something that's a specific term for like adoring the
Speaker 3: Eucharist in Calaic theology. And I would also point out
Speaker 3: that when my opening statement I mentioned the fact that
Speaker 3: the Council of v n which is a medieval romancalact theology,
Speaker 3: which was involved in the crusades.
Speaker 6: That attitude today.
Speaker 3: That you see here is completely different than the attitude
Speaker 3: then in the Middle Ages, where it was the abominable
Speaker 3: sect of Muhammet. In the council they call crusades against
Speaker 3: the Muslims to protect the Holy Land.
Speaker 4: Sure attitudes change, dogma, no, no, how can.
Speaker 6: You be the abominable sect of Muhammad?
Speaker 3: But now, but now together with us, they adore the
Speaker 3: once through God.
Speaker 6: That's the contradiction to.
Speaker 4: M They could be the abominable sect of Muhammad and
Speaker 4: still worship point.
Speaker 3: Oh, they don't even though my references with us Tim.
Speaker 4: Jake, can I are these both these are both dogmatic
Speaker 4: councils from Vatican two. Okay, then dogma contradicts.
Speaker 6: Okay, what's the argument.
Speaker 5: Dog Okay, guys, guys, guys, that's I got simply and straightforward.
Speaker 4: Least. It was also untrue when you said we don't
Speaker 4: have ordination, but that apparently doesn't matter today.
Speaker 3: Well, well, let's aboridation.
Speaker 1: Let's go there, let's go there.
Speaker 4: It goes back to august How many how many?
Speaker 1: How many? How many years was the how many years
Speaker 1: was the g Hud?
Speaker 4: Augustin's goes back to Peter?
Speaker 1: Is that? How that?
Speaker 2: So the gihot goes from a No, we're we're having
Speaker 2: a separate debate again. Oh, because I asked a question
Speaker 2: about how many years was the gi Hud?
Speaker 6: You mean from the rise of Islam the literal.
Speaker 1: Like Gi had conquests across North Africa, the Middle.
Speaker 4: East, I argue, I mean moving westward, it was from
Speaker 4: it was basically one hundred years, six thirty two to
Speaker 4: seven thirty two. On the eastern side, it's not quite
Speaker 4: as linear because there's the immediate Arab move into the north,
Speaker 4: and then the Turks convert and they come back down south.
Speaker 1: Six seven fifty and eighteen years was when.
Speaker 4: Battle of tour Is seven thirty two. That's kind of
Speaker 4: the reversal.
Speaker 2: And then there were additional Jihads the eleventh and thirteenth century,
Speaker 2: two hundred years and so I'm looking at the birth
Speaker 2: rate for Muslims, which is three point one, as well
Speaker 2: as the hundreds of years of militaristic conquest under the
Speaker 2: banner of Islam, And like, how many battles of the
Speaker 2: Crusades were there? There were a lot, like nowhere near
Speaker 2: as many as the Islamic she Hod.
Speaker 4: I don't think that's true. I think there were a
Speaker 4: lot more battle It really depends on Howmad fought in
Speaker 4: seventy eight battles seventy eight alone, there weren't that many
Speaker 4: in the Crusades as compared to the full total of
Speaker 4: Islamic she had. There were not as many battles during
Speaker 4: the Crusades.
Speaker 2: Let's see nine battles in the Crusades over two hundred years.
Speaker 4: I would argue against that. Maybe nine major battles. Yeah,
Speaker 4: and how really defining battles, I don't know.
Speaker 2: There were eighty to one hundred military expeditions in the
Speaker 2: first Islam a jihad. Yeah, so in terms of birth
Speaker 2: rate and expansion, I mean Islam's doing way better.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying I'm the missage Spirit.
Speaker 4: So I will say Islam. The ability of Islam to
Speaker 4: move after seven thirty two was largely due to the
Speaker 4: Turks coming in at a time that could not have
Speaker 4: been less ideal for Christians. These two were well, thankfully,
Speaker 4: we were the same at the sign were in conflict.
Speaker 4: There was a schism that had happened about twenty years earlier.
Speaker 4: Then you get the Battle of Nansukurt in ten seventy one,
Speaker 4: and the Byzantine Empire collapses in on itself because everybody
Speaker 4: wants to be emperor, and ironically, the Church wasn't strong
Speaker 4: enough to enforce one single emperor in the West. The
Speaker 4: Church wasn't strong enough to convince people, hey, we need
Speaker 4: to go drive the Turks out, and had to use
Speaker 4: Jerusalem as a little bit of a carrot on a stick.
Speaker 4: So the Muslims came in at a time when Christians
Speaker 4: were more divided than they had ever been, and we
Speaker 4: were unable to resist the tide until ten ninety five
Speaker 4: when we were able to assemble an army large enough
Speaker 4: to go and infight it. But at that point the
Speaker 4: Franks didn't want to stay over there. The Saracens became
Speaker 4: too numerous, too powerful. It was a long period of
Speaker 4: strife that was largely caused by Christianity's inability to come together.
Speaker 2: There was an argument a few years ago, maybe like
Speaker 2: seven years ago, where a lot of people, including myself,
Speaker 2: made the argument that the US would become a Muslim nation. No,
Speaker 2: because Muslims have a substantially higher fertility rate than basically
Speaker 2: every other group, including Christians, and that combined with mass migration,
Speaker 2: you see the emergency of places like Dearborn, Michigan. However,
Speaker 2: with the recent trend towards Christianity among the gen Z,
Speaker 2: and it's not just that Conservatives and Christians had more kids,
Speaker 2: we're actually seeing an ideological shift. And I think a
Speaker 2: large portion of why we're seeing young gen Z be
Speaker 2: more Christian is just because of their parents. But I
Speaker 2: think about half we are actually seeing an ideological conversion.
Speaker 2: One of which is there was this really interesting shift
Speaker 2: from like two thousand, i'm sorry, twenty twenty to like
Speaker 2: twenty three or whatever where gen Z support for same
Speaker 2: sis marriage collapsed, like literally the same people pulled at
Speaker 2: like twenty years old then at twenty four had an
Speaker 2: inverse opinion on gay marriage. So that if combined with
Speaker 2: a reversal of the fertility rate decline, which may happen,
Speaker 2: we're as seeing a lot of people start to have
Speaker 2: kids again, then I think the US is on track
Speaker 2: to become a conservative Christian nation probably.
Speaker 3: In fact, one of the global elite books that I
Speaker 3: lectured through was Jacques at the Leed's book Brievious Read
Speaker 3: the Future in two thousand and six. He warned that
Speaker 3: for the technocratic elite, one of the things they had
Speaker 3: to be concerned with was the possibility of a rising
Speaker 3: traditional Christian ethos in the West and in the US.
Speaker 3: So they actually wargamed that out. And a few years
Speaker 3: ago the Saudis were noted for I think putting sixty
Speaker 3: something billion into funding mosques in the US and Islamic education,
Speaker 3: So I.
Speaker 6: Think they were really pushing for that.
Speaker 3: But Islam has been has had a rough go on
Speaker 3: the internet, especially the last couple of years. They're losing
Speaker 3: bad and then a lot of younger people are turning
Speaker 3: towards Christianity.
Speaker 2: So I have a question for you guys, just for
Speaker 2: all Christians I believe, is it Is it one of
Speaker 2: the core tenants to go and spread the religion.
Speaker 1: Do you guys view yourselves as as doing that?
Speaker 4: I would say yes in this current present moment right now,
Speaker 4: I think in just general.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, I'll talk about that general on large
Speaker 2: platforms to large groups of people.
Speaker 6: Yeah, certainly.
Speaker 5: And evangelization sounds different than the in turn of scene
Speaker 5: squabbling between ethics in Orthodox certainly.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 5: I think, I'm sure all of us try to do
Speaker 5: that in a different form for in platforms.
Speaker 4: I certainly do.
Speaker 3: Also, Yeah, I mean, like I said, like Islam is
Speaker 3: having a hard time because they had a really strong
Speaker 3: push in the twenty tens online and a lot of
Speaker 3: people are getting into into Islam. But now a lot
Speaker 3: of Christians are doing pretty intense hardcore apologetics. Like we
Speaker 3: had that debate with Daniel Kikachu and e Jaws together
Speaker 3: at Me and Sam Chamoun on Fresh and Fit. I
Speaker 3: got millions of views and it was like ninety percent
Speaker 3: just dominated.
Speaker 1: I mean Russell Brand. Yeah, you know, so I in
Speaker 1: the skateboard.
Speaker 2: Community, it's degenerate garbage. Mostly these pro skateboarders have always
Speaker 2: been scuzzy, drug abusing, Now that there's a bunch of
Speaker 2: them that are getting baptized. Yeah, I'm not going to
Speaker 2: single any anybody out, but I was surprised.
Speaker 3: To find didn't skating get like the corporations try to
Speaker 3: take it over, like make it woke, and then people
Speaker 3: are reacting to that now.
Speaker 2: Well, so with skateboarding, what happened was the industry completely
Speaker 2: collapsed because there's no young people anymore, and the stewards
Speaker 2: of the industry failed to cultivate a new generation of skateboarders.
Speaker 2: So what happens then is, as of today, more than
Speaker 2: half of all professional like all all skateboards active skateboarder,
Speaker 2: I don't say professional, are over thirty. What happens when
Speaker 2: the water goes down, it exposes the scum in the reef.
Speaker 2: And so now some of the most prominent voices in
Speaker 2: the industry are degenerate, yeah, cringey.
Speaker 1: Rage bait.
Speaker 2: And so what happens is these companies try to figure
Speaker 2: out how to sell to whoever they can, and you
Speaker 2: end up with advertisements or there may be an inverse
Speaker 2: correlation here that when the company started promoting you know,
Speaker 2: like men penny be women doing weird fetish poses, and
Speaker 2: they are it's not a joke. Young guys say, I
Speaker 2: don't have anything to do with this because scooting doesn't
Speaker 2: do that. Scooting doesn't and that's growing massively in popularity.
Speaker 2: All the skills are now in terms of action sports
Speaker 2: are going in that direction in BMX, and this is
Speaker 2: what happens when you know what I think it is
Speaker 2: to relate this to the conversation, abject degeneracy freaks the
Speaker 2: average person out, no matter what, no matter who they are,
Speaker 2: where they're from. It is a shock to the system.
Speaker 2: So skateboarding started promoting there's like there's one individual whos
Speaker 2: a morbidly obese man who's trans and does fetish like
Speaker 2: weird sexualized fetish poses. But it's like it's like a
Speaker 2: big fat guy, and a lot of a lot of
Speaker 2: young men are.
Speaker 1: Like I I don't want to have anything to do with that.
Speaker 2: I think now we're seeing a lot of young men
Speaker 2: shift towards Christianity.
Speaker 1: That's in the polls.
Speaker 2: That may be a good explanation as to why skateboarding
Speaker 2: is struggling to market itself to your generation, because all
Speaker 2: the big magazines are basically being like, you know, here's
Speaker 2: a trends in the queer stuff.
Speaker 5: And it's not internal to one culture or another subculture.
Speaker 5: This is what's at large in the general popular culture
Speaker 5: is a great reawakening essentially secular humanism.
Speaker 4: I'm not the first one to say it.
Speaker 5: It's reasonably obvious of ten years into it. Secularly humanism
Speaker 5: has consumed itself and people are looking for what's perennial
Speaker 5: and what's true. And it turns out that a lot
Speaker 5: of young kids are are finding Jesus based and so
Speaker 5: when they're returning to Christianity, they're looking for what they
Speaker 5: take to be a based version of it, which is
Speaker 5: why they're leaving Protestantism in droves and going to.
Speaker 4: Greater struct Sure, more and more structure is all I'm saying.
Speaker 5: So they're going to Orthodox or twenty twenty four was
Speaker 5: Roman Catholicism's I think greatest year of re embrace of
Speaker 5: the church? Pod how many people leave in the Catholicism
Speaker 5: for every person who joins it, You tell me, I
Speaker 5: believe it's something I'm not going to tell you.
Speaker 4: There's something like six to eight. Yeah, Well, one.
Speaker 5: Last year was the best year in the New evangelization,
Speaker 5: which is what what Jumpaul the second set out to
Speaker 5: do using media using the self Malaysia.
Speaker 2: Well, I googled it and it I'm sorry, I checked
Speaker 2: GPT did it and it says that Protestants are converting
Speaker 2: to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: We are.
Speaker 4: It should be clear that you dispute a lot. So
Speaker 4: I did not dispute that. I think you did.
Speaker 2: I did not see one hundred and fifty five per
Speaker 2: parish in from twenty two to twenty three, I said, leaving,
Speaker 2: that's that's not a good metric.
Speaker 1: There's no real good metric.
Speaker 2: They say seventy eight percent surge and Orthodox conversions, but
Speaker 2: again we don't know how the actual hard numbers. Orthodoxy
Speaker 2: is seeing one hundred and fifty five converts converts per church,
Speaker 2: of which sixty five are from Protestant backgrounds.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think Protestantism has a major issue right now
Speaker 4: with first of all, with how divided we are. I
Speaker 4: don't think that's a good thing. I think that the
Speaker 4: Episcopal Church, many of the Presbyterian churches have totally lost
Speaker 4: their way. Oh yeah, and that I mean, that's why
Speaker 4: Thenking Catholic Church exists. I think Protestants need to really
Speaker 4: look in the mirror and ask ourselves what the hell
Speaker 4: we're doing.
Speaker 1: Let me let me say this.
Speaker 2: When I, when I was looking up different denominations, chet
Speaker 2: Gptier volunteered unto.
Speaker 1: Me that the Episcopal Church was was shrinking.
Speaker 4: It's bad.
Speaker 2: Like when I when I said, like, list lists of
Speaker 2: the churches by a fertility rate, it was like, you know,
Speaker 2: as a possable is shrinking.
Speaker 3: All the wolde churches are basically adopting sterility, so they
Speaker 3: sterilize themselves with their policies, and then they don't have
Speaker 3: future generations and they die out.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the conservative the Conservative Protestant churches aren't as good
Speaker 4: at marketing. We are not nearly as good at telling
Speaker 4: people we exist. The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches
Speaker 4: are both very visible. I think that's why you see
Speaker 4: so many Protestants converting right now. I think if more
Speaker 4: Protestants were aware of churches like the Anglican Catholics, there
Speaker 4: would be higher numbers of people converting to the Conservative
Speaker 4: Protestant churches as well. But we suffer from that problem
Speaker 4: of being at schism with ourselves. In so many cases, there.
Speaker 2: Are a lot of churches that fly the Pride flags,
Speaker 2: even Catholic churches.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're popping up. They tend to be in liberal areas.
Speaker 2: And I view that largely as the church is looking
Speaker 2: at the political views of the community around them, and
Speaker 2: they're probably saying to themselves, in one year, this church
Speaker 2: will be a coffee shop unless we get more parishioners.
Speaker 1: What do we have to do? Market whatever they want
Speaker 1: to get?
Speaker 3: Woe churches die, It doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it doesn't. But you know I'll say this too.
Speaker 4: He die and the faith dies with them.
Speaker 1: And many people have.
Speaker 2: Said get what, go broke, But I do believe while
Speaker 2: that's largely true, there's an inverse of go broke, get woke,
Speaker 2: in that a lot of companies try to adopt. They
Speaker 2: try to adopt wokeness is a marketing tactic to try
Speaker 2: and get but they don't Understan hippies don't have money.
Speaker 5: Now it's well, it's a boomer marketing appeal that that
Speaker 5: was really I'll speak to the Catholic position. It was
Speaker 5: really popular during an a round Vatican two, and they
Speaker 5: thought that kids wanted the monkeys music and and long
Speaker 5: hair and masks and tambourines and.
Speaker 4: Ship and they simply didn't.
Speaker 5: What they wanted was what's perennial and true and that
Speaker 5: that's that's really what's Let.
Speaker 1: Me let me say this. There's this uh oft quoted study.
Speaker 2: You have to look it up where they they told people,
Speaker 2: come in, it's a it's a study. You're gonna you're
Speaker 2: gonna ask answer some questions, and then afterwards you get
Speaker 2: a free T shirt. People came in the first group
Speaker 2: answer the questions and as they were leaving they were
Speaker 2: given a free T shirt. They were then on the
Speaker 2: way out asked how do they feel about their experience.
Speaker 2: The next group came in answer the questions, were then
Speaker 2: given a choice between one of three T shirts blue, green,
Speaker 2: or red.
Speaker 1: They then made a choice. They were then on the
Speaker 1: way out asked how they felt.
Speaker 2: The people who were given the choice felt worse soft,
Speaker 2: They felt regret they picked the wrong color. The people
Speaker 2: who aren't given a choice went wow, free T shirt,
Speaker 2: but when they had to choose between the colors, it
Speaker 2: actually made them feel worse. And this is often cited
Speaker 2: as a in many insins not all choice actually stresses
Speaker 2: people out and makes them feel anxiety.
Speaker 1: They don't like it.
Speaker 2: And so a lot of people, not everybody, but a
Speaker 2: lot of people really just want to be told what
Speaker 2: to do. And I've said this before, because there's this
Speaker 2: mentality United States that being a follower is a bad thing.
Speaker 2: You want to be a leader, and I reject that.
Speaker 2: There's a requirement before both leaders and followers. And they
Speaker 2: try to insult you in modern media if you are
Speaker 2: just a follower of someone, because you have to be
Speaker 2: the leader. And I say, when the king is standing
Speaker 2: before all of his men in the fields, ready to
Speaker 2: die for the world that they believe in and the
Speaker 2: things they love, those followers of the king are no
Speaker 2: less dignified simply because they're not the king. In fact,
Speaker 2: without them, there is no king. So being a follower
Speaker 2: isn't a bad thing. And they you know, I think
Speaker 2: modern society tries to tell you.
Speaker 1: Not to not to do that. Absolutely be rogue.
Speaker 2: No, it's perfectly fine. If you want to say, listen,
Speaker 2: I spend my days taking care of my family. You
Speaker 2: take care of the politics I believe in. You do
Speaker 2: the right thing. Don't screw me over. There's nothing wrong
Speaker 2: with it.
Speaker 3: Modernity is enlightenment, right, a Enlightenment effect. So the Enlightenment
Speaker 3: was all about individual atimistic liberties which premised were premised
Speaker 3: on the idea that there's no authority, there's no hierarchy.
Speaker 3: Hence why they were opposed to church and state monarchy.
Speaker 3: Monarchy in church yea.
Speaker 1: And I will say this too.
Speaker 2: One of the debates we have to have in the
Speaker 2: political arena around religion is that there's this romanticized, fake
Speaker 2: liberal view that the Founding Fathers believed in this hyperliberal
Speaker 2: society where anyone could say whatever they wanted.
Speaker 1: They had blasphemy laws back then. Even when the Founding
Speaker 1: father says the right to speech shall not be infringed.
Speaker 2: Of course, no one in this room thinks you can
Speaker 2: go out there and say, you know, and take the
Speaker 2: Lord's name in.
Speaker 1: That would be a crime.
Speaker 2: They meant you could go and have political conversations in
Speaker 2: a pub.
Speaker 1: And so when you look at.
Speaker 2: The context around the Constitution seventeen eighty nine and all that,
Speaker 2: they weren't literally saying anyone can march the street to
Speaker 2: the tombs of thousands of people in block roads. They
Speaker 2: were saying, if you have a meeting in your city
Speaker 2: peacefully to have conversations. The government can't shut you down
Speaker 2: because the crown wanted to shut them down. But these
Speaker 2: people think the Founding Fathers were a bunch of like
Speaker 2: liberal atheis no.
Speaker 1: Blaspheming.
Speaker 6: Eight of the.
Speaker 4: Thirteen states had establishments of Christian religions, and the First
Speaker 4: Amendment to the US Constitution was written assuming that all
Speaker 4: thirteen would. And what the establishment clause means literally was
Speaker 4: that Congress and Congress alone shall not make a law
Speaker 4: respecting a disestablishment of religion. Congress wasn't allowed to.
Speaker 5: Disestablish the state legislature established sex of Christianity. That's literally
Speaker 5: what it means ins And it was a Masonic US
Speaker 5: Supreme Court in nineteen forty seven in the case called
Speaker 5: Everson versus Board of Bed that literally reversed the meaning
Speaker 5: and incorporated the First Amendment.
Speaker 3: Today you know of which like Enlightenment, free Masonic values.
Speaker 3: How do you reconcile Freemasonry with Christianity?
Speaker 4: What about freemasonry is in conflict with Christianity?
Speaker 3: How about Albert Pike's teachings?
Speaker 4: Albert Pike is not recognized as influential by most Masons.
Speaker 4: His teachings are non essential Freemason.
Speaker 3: Yeah, worls and dogmas.
Speaker 4: I'll admit I've had my questions because I have run
Speaker 4: into things.
Speaker 6: Dogmas not used in the Scottish right.
Speaker 4: No, it is used in the southern jurisdiction of the
Speaker 4: Scottish Right in the Southern.
Speaker 3: So so he has a giant statue in DC, but
Speaker 3: he's not influential.
Speaker 4: He was influential for a number of other reasons. Secularly,
Speaker 4: what about Mamneroal He was a accomplished ethnographer.
Speaker 6: Okay, what about Manley P. Hall? It's he also doesn't count.
Speaker 4: Manley P. Hall admitted that he wrote everything that you
Speaker 4: have a problem with before he became a freemason.
Speaker 6: What masons do count?
Speaker 4: Well, it depends a lot of talking about with freemasonry.
Speaker 4: I mean the philo free masonry is the first three degrees,
Speaker 4: that's it, or.
Speaker 3: The philosophy what is not true? There's there's thirty, second,
Speaker 3: thirty third degree.
Speaker 4: There are in the Scottish Right, which is a pellet
Speaker 4: to freemasonry. It's like getting in there at badge.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I don't care about what your terms are
Speaker 3: for these different sexs when these aren't they have a
Speaker 3: naturalistic bent and ethos.
Speaker 6: For example, Pike says.
Speaker 4: That Pike is irrelevant to me.
Speaker 6: He's not.
Speaker 4: He's do you have but not to the history freemaks. No,
Speaker 4: Pike is irrelevant to everything outside of Freemason. Is irrelevant
Speaker 4: to the history of Freemasonry, general Freemason. Here, who's the
Speaker 4: one who knows what he's talking about?
Speaker 6: It's not an appeal to authority.
Speaker 4: No, it's not.
Speaker 3: Yes, it is, I'm trying to You're not yourself. Albert
Speaker 3: Pike is a source. Add No, Albert Pike is a
Speaker 3: source for the Southern the Southern jurisdiction.
Speaker 6: You're telling me that. How about your Themazini? Does he is?
Speaker 4: He p two?
Speaker 3: No, he's in the Grand Orient Lodge.
Speaker 4: Grand Orient, not regular.
Speaker 6: So what counts?
Speaker 4: Uh? The three degrees of the Craft lodges mainly split
Speaker 4: between England and the United States. So the York right
Speaker 4: is that what the York Right, like the Scottish right,
Speaker 4: is a pellet and is not held in union with
Speaker 4: all free Masonic ideals.
Speaker 3: So and the British Empire did what What was the
Speaker 3: function of Freemason in the British Empire?
Speaker 4: In your view, it was a social club?
Speaker 6: Is it a sorry, a speculative Mason?
Speaker 4: All Masons are speculative Masons.
Speaker 6: No, they're not.
Speaker 3: The original Masons were they were, They were stone workers,
Speaker 3: They weren't speculative free Mason.
Speaker 4: And yes, it did originate from operative Masons in the
Speaker 4: late thirteen hundreds as a Catholic organization which very explicitly
Speaker 4: held that you must love the Church with God and
Speaker 4: the Church without.
Speaker 6: You're not speculative freemasonry.
Speaker 4: All right, it was. It was the origin of speculative
Speaker 4: free poem, Catholicist poem.
Speaker 6: Catholic churches condemned you for centuries.
Speaker 5: Seven times, seven different times.
Speaker 4: Why why tell me why I know? Why do you
Speaker 4: do you know? Why?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 3: Because you know why the pope inside eight? Shut up,
Speaker 3: I've read the paper. You've been interrupting me while asking
Speaker 3: because your answers are stupid, Okay.
Speaker 4: Not stupid. You don't know what you're talking about this song?
Speaker 4: And no, do you know why secret?
Speaker 6: Because you're acting as.
Speaker 4: A seventeen thirty eight inhumanium in humanim mo janus. Yeah,
Speaker 4: in that one, what was the reason he gets?
Speaker 2: Sure to watch Tim kastier Raltz and I at eight pm.
Speaker 2: Guys were over time, okay, and if we have more
Speaker 2: time I'd say, let's let's get into Macon.
Speaker 4: I'm happy to come back and do masonry.
Speaker 1: Let's do another one on the freemake.
Speaker 4: Even just from the historical perspective, I think I think
Speaker 4: he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Speaker 3: Well, okay, I think, but you're lying because Albert Pike
Speaker 3: is very influential.
Speaker 4: Albert Pike is not influential outside of the Southern jurisdiction
Speaker 4: at the Scottish Masonry All right, do you do you want
Speaker 4: to shout anything up before we go.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 3: You can find me at my website Jason Alsos dot com.
Speaker 3: You can find me on YouTube. You can find me
Speaker 3: usually the fourth Hower of Alex Jones every Friday.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: You can find me writing Sam Hid Show, and find
Speaker 3: me on Twitter.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Uh, my name is Aden Mattis. I'm the host of
Speaker 4: the lore Lodge History Unhinged and the Weird Bible podcast.
Speaker 4: I do want to quickly say that the Anglican Church
Speaker 4: does not necessarily agree with me about freemasonry before I
Speaker 4: get in trouble for that.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: But yeah, that's that's where I'm leaving this. You can
Speaker 4: find me here on YouTube.
Speaker 5: Timothy Gordon on Twitter. I'm at timothee Ology t I
Speaker 5: M O T H E E O L O G Y,
Speaker 5: and I'm on YouTube as well, Timothy Gordon doing a
Speaker 5: show called Rules for Introgrades.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having us on. This was fun at each other.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the most heated debate we've had.
Speaker 2: Who thought We're gonna be back tonight at eight pm
Speaker 2: for timcast I r L. Don't miss it, Bring your
Speaker 2: friend friends, tell your grandma. Thanks franking out. We'll see
Speaker 2: all then