Speaker 1: Anybody ever played basketball. The ball is in your court.
We might even have a little special guest popping in today.
Y'all know what I'm talking about, A little special guest.
You believe in that? Do you think it's real?
Speaker 2: Do you believe?
Speaker 1: Do you have faith in special guests? Or is it
all fake and gay? Am I ripping you all off?
You're gonna have to stay around and find out. I
forgot to put the link for the call in. Yeah,
if you want to call in, you call in right here.
Let me add it to the show description. I thought,
regular ish streaming from two around two to five? Would
that be a good time. That seems to be when
the hottest traffic is happen and on YouTube and x
But I'm not one humbercent positive that We'll have to
see what's best for live streams. Thought maybe if we
did a regular schedule, people would be more regular in
their appearances. But we'll have to wait and see. So
the question is what is on your mind today? Let's
go to K forty one first? What's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Dog?
Speaker 1: Are you there? Philip? What's up? Philip? You want I'm you?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 5: Sorry?
Speaker 6: So I had a question.
Speaker 7: About the transcendent argument. I really loved the transcendent argument personally.
I've been running it by a few of my friends.
But one thing that has been giving me pause is
even though it's an argument that works great in a
debate setting, you know, obviously, if you don't presuppose metaphysical categories,
you know, logic, metaphysics and whatnot, you can't really argue.
But isn't it still possible that we do live in
this sort of nihilist materialist well, even though we wouldn't
be able to you know, argue for it or even
know it.
Speaker 1: Fully well, I mean, if that was the case, you
couldn't know that that's the case. So, in other words,
it's still a defeater for knowledge. It's not just a
defeater for arguing and debate. It's a defeater for there
being no knowledge. And if there is no knowledge, that's justifiable.
You couldn't know that nihilism is true because there's no
truth category.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's I understand that.
Speaker 7: But isn't it still possible that we do live in
a world where knowledge really isn't possible, even though again,
like we wouldn't be able to know it in any way.
Speaker 1: Again, if that was the case, then it would be
self refuting and self defeating. So no, it's not the case. Okay,
any position that ends up being self refuting. I mean,
if you're going to say that there's no knowledge and
I don't know that, I mean, at that point, you
won the debate, like there's nothing else. It's such an
absurd position that you won. And really all your job
is in apologetics is to get a person to get
to that point. If they're willing to be at that point,
then they don't have any argument against our paradigm. And
that's really you've done your job as an apologist to
force them into that kind of position, because remember, ultimately
we're not intellectually trying to save the person. The person
has to come to the end of themselves intellectually and
realize that their defenses that they've set up intellectually are
also a dead end. And then there will to say,
wait a minute, I'm at the end of myself. Maybe
there's more than just me, myself and my mind that's
the determiner of reality. Maybe my mind isn't God. But
that's exactly where you want to get them. James, what's up, James?
You want to I'm you, Amen.
Speaker 8: I just want to say, first of all, thank you
for your work.
Speaker 4: You've opened my eyes do a lot of things.
Speaker 8: I grew up in a dispensationalist church and a Baptist and.
Speaker 1: It's just.
Speaker 8: It's been awesome to see Orthodoxy through.
Speaker 3: Through this.
Speaker 8: But I wanted to ask because I grew up in
kind of like a hyperdispensationalist church that says, like, basically,
the only thing that applies to us is Paul's writings
because to the Gentiles, so like anything Peter wrote, anything
James wrote, doesn't.
Speaker 5: Apply to us doctrinally.
Speaker 1: Well, Peter's epistles are called the Catholic epistles because they're
written to all the churches. So just from the outset
that's retarded, but continue.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So like, for instance, they'd say James is written
to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, so like that's written
to the Jews.
Speaker 1: Now, the twelve tribes scattered abroad is the church, Jesus says.
The apostles are the people who would judge, They would
sit on twelve fronts judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
That's the church.
Speaker 5: Yeah, they obviously don't see it.
Speaker 1: That way.
Speaker 4: And so if you if.
Speaker 8: You say, if you say the church is Israel, right,
then they say, oh, well, then you have to accept.
Speaker 4: That you are blind per Romans eleven.
Speaker 8: So when Paul says in Romans eleven that blindness and
part happened to Israel, right, So I think what's going
on there is like a word concept fallacy, like they
can't understand that the word Israel can.
Speaker 3: Refer to two different concepts.
Speaker 1: Correct, Yes, not just I mean, did you did you
say the lot of things we did this week?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I've been following some of that. And then
I heard that guy call in.
Speaker 8: I have been last week now where he was talking
about these people that believe in the King James, like
being eternal, like in heaven.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 8: There was actually, I don't know if you're aware of it,
but there's this museum.
Speaker 3: The sixteen sixteen eleven Bible.
Speaker 8: Museum in Arizona, now where this guy is saying that
language was are that English is the language spoken in
the Garden of Eden and and they're but they're actually
the thing that's a little more consistent about their position
is there they're saying the apocrypha is canon and it
is scripture, but they're accepting it on the authority of
King James.
Speaker 1: Okay, why would a monarchy have any authority to a
bunch of fundamentalists, independent Baptist type people. Yeah, I appreciate
your call. That's good topics. You know, again, we ran
through so many texts, and by the way, we didn't
do all the texts. There's so many texts. And you'll
notice here that the Apostles aren't just sitting on the
throne judging only Jews. That's how stupid this position would be.
Oh the you know the Apostles when it says that
they judge Israel, that's because Israel isn't the Church. Oh well,
then why are we called the foundation stone of the
new Jerusalem? Why are we called the bricks in that structure?
Peter says in First Peter two, you are a holy priesthood,
a chosen people. All the statements to the Gentiles, I mean,
excuse me, to the Jews, according to First Peter two,
are applied to the entire church. So that means that
Matthew nineteen twenty eight is about the entire church. It's
not hard. The Kingdom of God will be taken from
you and given to a nation producing the freest roup.
Matthew twenty one. You and remember John and Peter's epistles
are called the Catholic epistles, not because of Roman Catholicism,
but because they're written to all of the Church. You
are a chosen generational royal priests or holy nation. You
were once not a people of God, but now you've
obtained mercy. So that right there, refuse the idea that
Peter is writing only to Jewish Christians or to Jewish believers.
Now he's saying you were not a people, you were gentiles.
Now you're chosen. Now you're Israel, clear as day. Now
we only did a selection, Okay, I could have done
that podcast for seven hours going through all of the
texts that discussed the notion that the Church is Israel,
the true Israel, the only real Israel. Israel of the
Jews is a type, it was a type. What is
a Jewish Christian. I'm talking about the people who converted
in the first century. For example, when Paul wrote to
the Church at Rome, right, he was writing to Jewish
and Gentile believers in one church, and they were arguing, well,
who's got priority and supremacy the Gentiles were saying, we
are because you're grafted out, You've been rejected. Jews are
saying where the root, where the lump, where the true
priority people? You Gentiles are below us. And Paul said,
you're both equal in Christ in terms of your genetic lineage.
Although there were some promises and some blessings given to
the Jews because of their for other, Abraham to them
was given the Covenant, the law of the circumcision, the promises,
as Paul says in Romans, all of these things are true.
And what every heretic does, every dumb heresy, is that
they pick this or that verse, and every other verse
has to squeeze into their pet verse. Every exegy has
to do canonical interpretation. That means you have to reconcile
all of the texts or else you're a heretic orris schismatic.
That's why you have to know the whole texts, and
not just the text, but also the fronema or the
mindset of the church. All of those things are necessary.
And here's the thing that protests don't understand. The Bible
is not primarily your private devotional book. There is a
time when it's okay to have the Bible as a
devotional text when you're doing your prayers or whatever. But
that's not it's primary setting. Its primary setting is in
the liturgy. The Bible is a liturgical book, and that
blows the minds of Protestants because they believe in solo scripture.
They think that the Bible is meant for me, like
a rabbinic school, to sit around and study with my
Torah point here all day. So they act like Muslims,
just like that guy I just mentioned. There's now apparently
KJV sects that think that there's an eternal King James
version in heaven with Allah. I'm not kidding, and it's
not surprising. Why wouldn't they think that when they don't
realize that the logos, the Word of God is a person,
not a book. They're so rapidly worshiping their book like
the Jews and the Muslims, they actually think the book
is God Jr. What's up? You start the scriptures because
you think that it's in them that you have eternal life.
One of this day that bear witness of me, Daniel,
you can call in or you can get the heck
out of here. Nobody cares about your insane, pet heresy,
whatever it is. So you can yap in the chat
for no longer. Otherwise you can call in John, what's up,
I'm you.
Speaker 3: Yes. The modern idea of.
Speaker 9: Protestantism in a you know, a Bible by the way,
that Bible museum, it's in like a it's in like
a uh, what do you call a strip mall.
Speaker 3: That's like a Old West type thing, and.
Speaker 9: That has a deeper connection to America, like American Protestantism,
because a lot of the things like manifest destiny, destiny
and the Puritans coming over or escaping England are all
connected to an interpretation of them being Israel. They've decided
that we are Israel in exodus from Egypt. So the
Puritans thought of themselves as that when they came over
here from England. And then later on there is even
a connection where in World War One, a lot of
the progressive Christianity starts tying all of that into like crusades.
So it became this quest for democracy, and it wasn't
only to protect America the you know, shining Jewel or
the City on the Hill.
Speaker 3: From the evil Germans who were the devil.
Speaker 9: You had to tie it into a biblical thing to
where the only like they had a lot of trouble
selling people on war were one, especially some religious folks.
And one of the ways that they did it was
they used the crucifixion and said, oh, this is America
crucifying itself on the world stage as Christ did, and
we need to do this in order for the resurrection
of a new world.
Speaker 1: After the fact, That's exactly what Zionists did and Jews
do about the nation state of Israel and their genetic lineage.
They think the suffering servant in many of their interpretations
is actually the nation itself suffering to save themselves.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I've been reading a book called A War for
Righteousness and talking about this whole thing.
Speaker 9: With Protestants during the lead up to World War One,
and I would definitely recommend that to people to read
because that's kind of.
Speaker 3: What it goes over.
Speaker 9: It goes over the shift in theology and the shift
in like Protestant worldview as like I think I mentioned
this before, but one of the guys they were taking
cues from particularly was H. G.
Speaker 3: Wells.
Speaker 9: They looked at Wells as like a prophet. They read
they read his books and thought that he was somewhat
of a prophet, being able to predict.
Speaker 3: All this stuff, not that he was sitting in on
meetings about.
Speaker 9: How the world was going to be formed after the war.
They saw him as being prophetic in.
Speaker 3: His writings, so he was even more prophetic.
Speaker 9: Like there's a passage in this book where it's talking
about how some clergy even thought him to be more
prophetic than people within the church.
Speaker 1: That's crazy, Yeah, not realizing that it's because they're planning
the future, not because he has a crystal ball.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 9: It's it's like when it's like when you read a
more modern book like Future Shock and all of the
accolades were.
Speaker 3: Toppler on the back of it, are Wow.
Speaker 9: He's so amazing, and it's like, no, he just sat
in on a bunch of meetings exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, well said yeah. Protestantism has this salvafic social idea,
and that's one of the big problems with Christian nationalism
for people like Doug Wilson, is the general idea is
and the problem. The problem is that there's no Protestant
Christian nationalism. Look at the history of the Protestant churches
after the Reformation and the nation states that went to war.
Look at the Thirty Years War, Look at the Royalists
and the cavaliers fighting. Look at the you know, Lutherans
drowning those Winglians over infant baptism. The idea that you're
going to have some Christian nation state with all these
thousands of retard sects is utterly preposterous. What's up, man, Tendall.
It's easy to be a prophet when you're sitting in
on the global planning committees exactly. That's exactly John's point.
What's up, Tendall? I'mute, Hey, what's up?
Speaker 10: J just wanted to say thanks for doing your live
and I'm not here to debate. You're just saying thank
you man, and keep going, stay strawn, Thank you Jesus Peace.
Speaker 1: Appreciate that, tend I much appreciated. They're cool. Yeah, it's
nice to get people calling in with positive vibes. Appreciate that.
Speaker 3: Can I say, sure what you just did? Yeah? Tagging
onto what you just said.
Speaker 9: There is once you get into after World War two
and especially the Rocketpeller Foundation, the Federal Council Churches, National
Council Churches.
Speaker 3: What what you.
Speaker 9: What you just said about how it would be hard
to build a country on a bunch of different little
sex Yeah, well, the goal was to create a giant
mish mash of a bunch of different sects that all
kind of believe the same thing.
Speaker 1: And that's where so it's a humanist It basically ends
up being a political, geopolitical, a humanist project.
Speaker 9: Absolutely absolutely, because you see so much and I mean
going back over this information that you know, we looked
at like ten years ago or whatever, I didn't even
realize it that there were all these little sex But
after a certain point in America, just particularly, they all start.
Speaker 3: To like like give in to.
Speaker 9: Like homogenization, like they give up their old ideas, and
there becomes a more homogenized.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the real religion is Americanism.
Speaker 9: Exactly, and it becomes more homogenized in the sense like
you can kind of get like perfect example, there there
were like evangelical Presbyterians and evangelical Lutherans, so they all
just kind of fall under the umbrella of evangelical and
then charismatic is another umbrella term that starts to take over.
And so these umbrella terms are are perfect for ecumenism
and blurring the lines between all the different sects that
were problematic for people like the Rockefellers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why not only do the Rockefellers, you know,
essentially establish and fund the nascent, a humanist movement with
a lot of their money on record if you look
out the whim Hoff book, this really confirmed David Wimhoff's book.
John Courtney Murray, this really confirmed a lot of stuff
that I'd written and thought was the case, and he
did the hardcore research to really, i think prove it
demonstrably from you know, declassified documents. I think twenty thirteen
declassified the Doctrinal Warfare program because I'd written articles years
ago saying that, you know, it looks like actually, acumenism
is a geopolitical tool more than it is anything to
do with like some just liberal idea of religion and
so forth, or academics that just happen to be liberals.
That's just a function. The real goal is to turn
America in or excuse me, to turn the churches into
soft power engines. And if you don't know what solid
power is, you need to go listen to the talks
that we did on Joseph NY's classic sexs on soft power.
This is turning the churches and other countries into means
of pushing Americanism, especially during the Cold War. Right evangelical
churches were huge as engines and tools of the Pentagon
and soft power, the CIA and soft power during the
Cold War. Now that's on record and tons and tons
of books. And that doesn't make me a socialist to
say that, And that doesn't mean I like socialism. What
it means is that this is why we have such
a problem in America with the churches. It's not liberalism
in some generic sense. It's more than that. It's money
and power use and want to use religion as a
tool of empire, as a tool of packs Americana. So
not only do we know the documents in terms of
being declassified, it's either twenty thirteen or twenty seventeen that
the doction warfare program was declassified and John Corney Murray
was a big part of that. The famous Jesuit.
Speaker 3: There was a good line in this book where it was.
Speaker 9: An actual quote from one of the progressive clergy of
the time, and it said that we want to merge.
Speaker 3: The city of Man in the city of God in
the state.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 9: And this is another interesting thing, was the progressive clergy
and the pre millennialists and the millennialists at the time
because I don't dispensational stuff isn't really like big at
the turn of the century.
Speaker 3: But Rockefellers funding both both of those.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so he just.
Speaker 9: He's looking for whatever the dominant thing is going to be, Like,
he doesn't care which one. But the progressives and the
millennialists don't like each other, but essentially they come to
the same conclusion that war and the state and those
type of things are.
Speaker 3: Going to be the driving engine of what the church
is going to be in the future.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why the for Protestants, the church, because they've
lost the church ends up being America and American history.
The founding fathers become their church fathers. The Constitution and
the Declaration of Independence and the magic, the wig powder
powder wig magic that's uh, you know, sprinkled onto the
documents makes them also quasi divine for the evangelical Protestant world.
And again that's because this is confirmed in a lot
of the academic literature beyond the text that we talked about.
We recently did within the last year a breakdown and
an analysis of the academic text Aaron into the Wilderness
Religion and the history of the CIA, and it's about
the CIA's usage of religion during the Cold War. And
Graziano admits in his text multiple times over and it
actually surprised me how clear he was because he's not
I don't think he's any kind of a religious person.
He might be, but he's just looking at it from
a PhD. University. Is published actually by University of Chicago,
which is Rockfiller University, but it's a he's just studying
religion at University of Florida. So he writes this history
of the CIA's use of religion, and he comes to
the conclusion that a humanism is really a project of
the CIA because they needed during the Cold War, especially
now it's not it doesn't actually begin. That actually begins
a oss era when they were finding against the access Powers.
They wanted to unify all the religions in the West
against the Axis powers. And then after the defeat of
the Axis, when it turns into the Cold War because
they were explicitly atheists, whereas the Nazis were not explicitly atheist,
it turns into more of a overt usage of religious
warfare and that's why Billy Graham is such a crucial
Cold War figure. People don't even understand this. They don't
conceive of this that the CIA Time magazine invested tremendous
amounts of money and support behind Billy Graham and his
crusades precisely as part of Cold War operations. Lord go ahead,
John Eui system.
Speaker 9: Oh last thing was just like the earlier version of
Billy Graham was Henry Emerson Bostic and he was a
Baptist preacher.
Speaker 1: Is he the one that the Rockefellers used.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I was going to get. That's what
I was going to get. As he was this Baptist preacher,
but he was all on board with World War One and.
Speaker 9: Promoting acumenism all that, and then they made him the
head of the Riverside Church.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's it. That's what's in that chapter of the
Rockfiller's authoris biography, and and uh Riverside Church is the
church that has statue to Darwin's statue, to Hegel's statue
to Moses, statue to Mohammed.
Speaker 9: So it's the ultimate most I mean, I went, I
went there before and I saw it. Yeah, I stood
in front of it. And even back when I didn't
at least know some stuff that was like back in
the nineties or something, I was like, what the heck
have a statue Thomas Jeffard.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's kind of Chris my mystery on ten dollars.
Thank you for everything, Jay Well, thank you. Welcome to
all the new members and subscribers that we just got
Petro's five dollars a day, No dumb questions, just take
my money, all right, We appreciate that.
Speaker 3: Dog.
Speaker 1: Now stay tuned. Because I was thinking about doing two
different streams, but then I was like, why don't we
just trans in the stream into the guest. We might
have a special musical guest ladies and gentlemen in studio,
which is not really a studio, it's just my house library.
Who would have ever guessed that? You imagine trying to
explain the future to people in the nineties and be like,
what's the future? Like, well, everyone's a podcaster and they
have studios in their bedrooms. You're like, what are you
even talking about? What does that mean? Nicholas French twenty dollars.
I'm struggling to explain the Orthodox views to low IQ people.
Orthodox is not just for high IQ theologians, but people
try to overintalize, actual, over intellectualize and oftentimes beyond their
own capabilities. How do you navigate curious people that are
low IQ but are genuine and sincere seekers. Well, easy,
You just invite them to the church and you you know, esthetics,
the beauty of the church, the liturgy, the icons, et cetera.
That has a much more powerful impact on the sensibilities
of a lot of people, especially they're end of the
arts over you know, oh, do you understand Maximus's doctrine
the logi? Correctly? They're ninety nine percent of people are
not going to understand or care about Maximus's Logi doctrine,
but they will enjoy the community at the church, especially
if it's the ladies. Guys, stop trying to spit Logi game.
There's no Saint Maximus game. You're gonna spit up the girls.
They don't care. But if you take them to church
and they realize that, oh there's other actually sane, wholesome,
right minded individuals at church, including ladies, I can find community.
That's your answer. RS. Can you explain five dollars the
theology philosophy behind praying people out of hades, like the
story of the importrasion. Well, I mean, that's an exceptional story.
I'm not saying it's not true. It's definitely possible because
God does hear the prayers of the righteous, the prayer
of a righteous men of Ales Muttz James says.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: We don't know exactly how that works and exactly how
the resurrection is going to work. But remember the Angel
says all things are possible with God. So until the
last day, we don't have to think that there's no hope,
even for people that we think might be without hope.
And to me, that's a positive thing because you know,
John and I have a person, a friend of ours
that had struggles with mental issues. He was a great guy,
but he had an episode and he ended up ending
his life. And I'm not saying that to be macab
or gruesome, but I'm saying, you know, in the Orthodox perspective,
we don't have these really weird legalistic ideas because if
he had issues, then he's not fully culpable for that action.
So as an Orthodox person, I can hope that somebody
like that. There's still hope even for people in those situations.
Speaker 3: By the way, him and you.
Speaker 9: Were the ones very you know, very much responsible for
giving me back into the path to Christianity. So I
both so even though he was he had some problems,
he definitely was a lover of Christ.
Speaker 1: Yeah, John was a great I mean, excuse me, Chris
was a great dude. And you know that's why an
Orthodox church. You know, a similar situation with my best
friend that just passed away, right, Uh. You know, Tommy
was beginning to read the scriptures for the first time ever.
He was beginning to talk to and disc us the
reality of Christ. And I'd known him since high school
and he never did that until the last few years.
So I think that was God's grace. That was providential
that he was moving in that direction. And he did
ask me questions here and there about Orthodox stuff. He'd
begun to wear a cross, so I think he was
beginning to be convinced. And you know, I pray for
him even now that he's passed on, and I can hope,
you know, in this perspective that you know, there's possibilities
for all of us even if we didn't have it
all figured out. You know, at the moment of our
passing crutter, what's up, He says, let's go nerds, sleepy
neo of five dollars. What's your opinion on globalists and
moving beyond Zionism and leading to the Jews returning to
the church and accepting Jesus. What's your opinion on the
globalist moving beyond Zionism? Oh, I think that's what we're saying.
You're saying, like, is there a possibility that like the
beast casts off the whore, which would be apostate Israel
according to the Book of Revelation, and would that possibly
lead to the future conversion? I mean, I don't know
when or how that'll happen, but that's certainly a possibility.
I just think we have to not hyper fixate on
how we think the end Times is going to go right,
because every evangelical goofball, every person who picks up the
Book of Revelation thinks that suddenly they've got it all
figured out and they know all the end Times works
and all this kind of stuff, and people can just
get obsessed over this stuff. I do this too when
I was nineteen. It's a kind of an immature move
because you're excited by the sensationalism of the End Times,
and you know the apocalyptic you know, Armageddon and Bill
Pullman's going to be the president when the asteroid hits us,
and Morgan Freeman's gonna narrate how that we get out.
I'm just thinking this, you know, stupid nineties Deep Impact
and Armageddon and all all those goofy apocalyptic nineties movies.
So anyway, I don't know how that will come about.
We just believe that there will be a few signs
of the end of the end, right, the end end
of the world. Remember, Jesus brought the last days of
the First admin. This is something all the evangelical disposition
dispensations get totally wrong. And that's why ultimately their position
is totally ineffectual to actually demonstrate Jesus the Messiah. That's
why I keep playing that clip. I keep playing that
clip of John Hagy saying in my new book In
Defense of Israel, I will explain how Jesus just nothing Messiah.
Speaker 11: Jesus not come to the to the convert the Jewish people.
Speaker 9: Go ahead, No, I was gonna say, us, being Americans,
we're kind of bread into an idea of apocalypse like.
Speaker 1: Is in our exactly exactly and go back to the Puritans,
like you said, yeah, very much so.
Speaker 9: And with every new war and every new conflict, that
is always the carrot that they're dangling out. Yes, there,
it's it's like, oh, it's the end times, It's the
end of the world. Is this So that's been done
so many times and even even like if you take
the American Revolution of itself is kind of apocalyptic for
the time period. So we're a culture that's born out
of this idea of apocalyptic and end time scenarios. But
it's not, you know, it's it's always kind of like
at least twentieth century forward. It's always shrouded and dispensational,
left behind how Lindsay.
Speaker 1: Type stuff exactly. Let's see what's this. I found This
is like an old evangelical documentary version of.
Speaker 3: Ballance of eight hundred thousand hydrogen bombs.
Speaker 2: Oh I know that.
Speaker 1: Wow? Yeah, okay, so yeah, it'd be fine to find.
We should find the part where it talks about Yeah,
here we go cold war stuff. Let's see they talk
about GoGG and makeup because, as we pointed out, a
lot of stuff was engineered cold war see how you
propaganda because they wanted to Okay, let's to the micro workaround,
because every time we get about an hour and the
mic messes up. Test tests, test tests, Can you guys
hear is it better? Oh wait, hold on, I wasn't
hit the right button. Test tests, and there is that better?
Hopefully that a lot of times that fixed the crackling. Yeah,
if you if you have you have to toggle the
monitor off and monitor on button for whatever reason. That
temporarily fixes the crackling. But yeah, let's listen to see
if this talks about that.
Speaker 9: We were already well into the next escalation.
Speaker 1: For me is that it's always Gog and Magog, China
and Russia. That attack is real, right, and that's the
the end times to see propaganda.
Speaker 9: At the time and at present, our nation in the
United States is making three hydrogen warheads per day.
Speaker 1: We're all an escalator.
Speaker 12: I don't know how as long as the Russians are
pursuing a build up and greater military might to get
all that escalator.
Speaker 1: And I'm very say, here you go, here's all these
boomer evangelical congressmen and senators. Russians are building up all
of their nukes, and I just don't know how if
we don't give all of our money to Israel. We're
gonna get nuked. You're gonna get naked if you don't.
Speaker 13: E Elizabeth Skuber to present my latest book, in Defense
of Israel. This book will expose the sins of the
fathers and the vicious abuse of the Jewish people, and
defensi of Israel will shape Christian theology. It scripturally proves
that the Jewish people as a whole did not project
Jesus as Messiah. It will also prove that Jesus did
not come to earth to be the Messiah. It will
prove that there was a Calvary conspiracy between Rome, the
High Priest, and Herod to execute Jesus as an insurrectionist
too dangerous to live.
Speaker 1: So Jesus did not come as the Messiah. He is
not a Messiah, and that was God's plan. B. And
here's John Hagey himself, the probably the most prominent dispensationalist
of the day.
Speaker 9: Right by the way, if you ever, if John Hagey
passes away, you might have a job of being the
voice of John Hagey in the future.
Speaker 1: How do you know that I am not the voice
of John Hagy in the present. John could be true, it's.
Speaker 3: Kind of like Paul. Remember his son took over and
he sounded exactly like him.
Speaker 1: Paul Crouches son, No.
Speaker 3: Shoot, that radio, he was on the radio. Never mind it.
I can't think of his name off the top of
my head.
Speaker 1: Well, Franklin Graham. Franklin Graham took over for Billy Graham,
and it's pretty much the same stuff.
Speaker 9: Yeah, he yeah, he kind of said he he has
like the same voice. That's gosh, what was that guy's name.
I'll think of it.
Speaker 1: So anyway, I hope you guys understand that there should
be obvious you know, even though we covered this ad nauseum.
In fact, the very first one of the very first
live streams I did was John right here and I
covering how Lindsey dispensationalism and how this was used in
Cold War sye ops. Paul Harvey, Oh he was the dismensationals.
Speaker 9: No he he he died and then his son took over.
Speaker 3: But his son sounded.
Speaker 1: Exactly like him.
Speaker 3: Nobody even knew, like there were people who didn't even
know that he died.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, okay.
Speaker 3: Anyways, sorry, Lucas.
Speaker 1: Potmanitas three dollars fifty seven did you see Bogonia, Will
you do an analysis?
Speaker 3: Bro?
Speaker 1: I literally covered it last night or two nights ago.
I'm sorry, I'm confused, like, because i know you guys
followed the chant. I'm wondering if nobody's getting any notifications
because the numbers, and this is not just me, everybody's
YouTube numbers significantly dropped about three months ago, and hundreds
and hundred tons of people were making videos about it.
It's not just me. I don't think suddenly I just
became shitty and boring, although I suppose that's possible. But
sometime around I think three months ago, people were saying
that the numbers dropped so like we were getting you know,
even back here to the Kurt Matsker interview that got
all the way up to seventy five thousand views, we
were getting thirty five thousand, twenty five thousand, and then
around this time, suddenly, and this often happens on YouTube,
suddenly we drop brought back down to ten to fifteen
on the average open stream except for these Charlie Kirk
event streams, we started going back down to fifteen twenty
on average. That one got up to thirty. But you'll notice,
like it's pretty much now ten to twenty or fifteen
to twenty. But I did trot Aries, Blackfrone, Begonia and
Eden right there. That was two days ago. Bro, So guys, remember,
I don't know if maybe there's a mass turning off
of notifications or a lot of times. I know in
my because I have my own notifications for my stuff
turned on, it goes into the spam folder or in
the you know, promotional folder on Gmail. So I think
maybe just people don't see any of the notifications of
the live streams. I get a lot of comments people
saying I never knew you were doing live streams.
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 1: Well, you have to turn on the notifications first of all,
so they have to be clicked. It's not going to
automatically always tell you. But anyway, yes, I covered Butagonia
right here, Lean.
Speaker 2: What's up? Lean with it?
Speaker 4: Roight with it?
Speaker 1: Lane with it? What's up?
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 14: I just want to say that as a Dutch European,
these times for streams are like perfect because you started
at like eights or something in the evening. So I
think it's the overlaps. Maybe that's why the numbers are higher.
On X and stuff. So so I just wanted to.
Speaker 1: Say that, well, the numbers were good three months ago.
Uh and then and other people, a lot of people
were saying, what happened to the algorithm? It's like everybody's
numbers changed, So it's not just about that.
Speaker 14: That's that's like a different story. I wasn't talking about
that specifically. But the thing is, I also think you
talked about GMAL, but we don't really look at GM.
I think for notifications is just what YouTube sinds as an.
Speaker 4: EPP, I don't know.
Speaker 5: It's like, I don't know YouTube is tweaking out.
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, it could be.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean I'm saying like you got to turn on
the notifications also on your phone so that you see
them too, right, father of Ohio State football player, what's up?
What's on your mind?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 1: I'm you.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I wanted to Did you give your thoughts yet
on the I'm sure you saw at the Catholic Church
confirming that ABC at Geko.
Speaker 1: I did not mention it, although I did plan to
talk about that today. I just forgot to mention it.
But I mean I already know that like right away,
the Roman Catholic is just gonna say, oh, it doesn't
count because it's just some random but it's like, no,
it counts because they're doing the thing that Francis is
in cyclical uh kind of prepared the way for right.
So Francis said, no, now you can bless aberrant couples.
So it's not marriage. But they're just going to where
they want to go. I mean, but I just I mean,
at this point, it's like, I don't like, what, why
is this even surprising anybody. It's like, I've been talking
about gay priests and the Roman Catholic Church and how
massively gay they are for over ten years.
Speaker 16: I think this just puts it more on the national
stage now because you have an actual ABC like anchor,
and it's all over the place, and as I can
see it, you know, really causing issues with mainstream Catholics.
Speaker 15: Maybe I don't know, we'll see, but.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's see what this guber says.
Speaker 17: The Magisterium now saying do if you have the Magisterium
in the past saying don't do this, and then the
Magisterium now saying do do this, or the opposite, right,
the Magisterium saying in the past, do this. Now, it's
saying don't do this, which one do you?
Speaker 3: Look?
Speaker 17: You know, there's some documents like Mortalium Animals from Pious
the eleventh less than one hundred years ago, where the
Pope is saying, you can't have ecumenical prayer meeting.
Speaker 1: Oh really, thank you for admitting what we've been arguing
for the last decade, loft Dog.
Speaker 17: And anyone who does that has departed from the faith
and doesn't part the Catholic faith. And now, I mean
we have in the post concilular period these acumenical prayer
meetings all the time, and it's not seen as departing
from the faith or.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it's a contradiction, and because you're coping, and
because you're lying and dishonest with yourself. So as I've
been saying for ten years, and you've come at me
and attacked me in every possible way the last ten
years for making the very point that Michael Lofton just made.
Now I'm sure he's got a thousand copes as to
how it doesn't count and this and that, But I mean,
this shit is just so faking gay. I don't even
know what to say anymore. It's like, if you haven't
fgured it out By this point, Man, I don't know
what to tell you. I'm trying to find that uh
CBS gay Catholic thing. I guess you're right. The reason
this one matters is because it will presumably reach more
people because of it being I didn't even realize that
this was this who these people were when I saw
this pull it off.
Speaker 15: You got people. People are mad on on social media
about it. I haven't been able to get married. I've
I've committed my life to this church, and now you're
telling me that they're confirming in ABC hosts a gay
couple ABC, ABC.
Speaker 4: Hosts Now when I've committed my life and they.
Speaker 15: Tell me that I have to, you know, abstain from
all these things. But they're gonna, they're gonna contradict themselves.
It's causing a lot of outage. All Right, I appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Man, No, I'm glad.
Speaker 1: I'm actually glad you're reminded me of it because I
forgot to mention it because I'm just like, how is
this any different than a thousand other gay things in
the Romancalloy Church. Like it's a scandal. I mean, why
aren't why weren't you making an uproar over the fact
that Francis Is in cyclical said you could bless.
Speaker 3: This.
Speaker 1: I mean you didn't so you could bloss a marriage. Yeah,
but it's opening the door for this duh, Like what
do you mean? Oh no, no, we have like Kazustri
and Kazustri could save those agent nothing. What's up?
Speaker 4: Hey, I saw a Gio Polympics in the in the topic.
I just wanted to make a comment.
Speaker 18: I know you beat in the past for covering the
global elite text. People think they're conspiracy texts.
Speaker 4: Whatever.
Speaker 18: Well, if that's the case, why is my international relations
professor covering Clash of Civilizations which you cover actually vindicates
the covering of these topics.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I mean I appreciate that agent, And that's
a great testament to the fact that what we talked
about isn't crazy. Literally, most of the texts that I
cover that are not specifically identified as you know, critical
conspiratorial minded texts, and I usually identify when those are.
If I'm reading John Coleman, that's a conspiracy book. But
if I'm reading the Brazenski, if we're talking about Kissinger text,
Jack at Lee text, Samuel Hunting and text Those are
not conspiracy books. You know, when we talked about changing
Images of Man, that's a high level systems analysis, sociology,
international relations textbook. It's not a conspiracy book. Carol Quigley
is not a conspiracy book. So it's really weird and disingenuous.
And I don't know if it's just people being trolls
or being retarded, or being envious and angry that most
of the texts that we cover are real, real establishment books,
and we cover establishment books not because we agree with
him retards, but because we want to see what they
believe in, what they admit, and what they say. But
that's I guess, just too high tier and too high
minded and high brow for people who think that. When
I quote Carol Quigley, it's because I default agree with
and accept everything Carol Quigley says, and I think he's
a great man. This is so retarded. Judy Stroyer, please
pray for my brother in law. He was in an accident. Well,
I'm sorry to hear that, Judy. Lord have mercy. Marcos,
what is your opinion on Warren McGrew. He's an idol killer,
He is not orthodox, but he defends orthodoxy. I'll be
honest with you, man, I have no idea who it is.
So I get asked all the time, what do you
think about this guy? You think about that guy? What
are you going to beate this guy? When tobit that guy?
And I would say eight out of ten times, I
don't know who these people are. But I mean, guys,
any of the people that you want me to like,
all they could all they have to do is call in, right,
any of these people just they want to come chat,
they have an issue, they're walcome to come call in.
Just remember all the people by the way who get mad,
they're like huge. All you do is blue boot and
mute people and mock them.
Speaker 2: All you do is screaming cluss of people.
Speaker 1: Totally not true. Okay. Formal debates are for people that
I decide are worth having a formal debate with right,
top Muslims, top atheist, whoever. Trent Horne, Okay, you with
three hundred followers, I don't owe you a public debate.
I don't owe you anything. So you get the option
of calling in on a next space. And you are
not calling in as the debate equal because you have
not established yourself as a person known for publicly debating.
So I don't owe you these things. And if you
call in with a bunch of retarded stuff, yeah, I'm
gonna interrupt you. I'm gonna say that's a fallacy. Hold yourself.
Hold your horses there, buddy. And I think everybody can
see from seven years now of open spaces and people
calling in. Most people that call in can't coherently argue,
can't form formulate their statements and their ideas in a coagent,
precise clear way. They ramble, they fumble, they engage in fallacies,
they get emotional. That's why this is an educational exercise.
Part of what we do is we're learning to formulate
our ideas coherently, coagingly, concisely, clearly, to the point, we're
learning debate. You're not here to teach me how to debate.
I'm going to teach you how to debate. That's the
attitude of this.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: If you don't like that, bye bye, nobody's making you
be here. You don't have to call in. But if
you do want to call in, and you just keep
to those rules, we can have an absolutely civil, excellent conversation,
and in fact, most of the time that people who
are open minded call in. We have great conversations even
when they disagree. We have civil conversations with Protestants, with
Roman Catholics, sometimes with atheists, and even sometimes Muslims, although
that's pretty rare. Ex Communicado, what's up? Okay, he complained
and then he's not come home? Man, go ahead? Ex
Communicado where yet?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Do you have your mic permissions turned one? It doesn't
let you come up? Timmy g what's up, Doug? Have
we ever had a civil civil black keeper Israelite? One time?
There was one that was kind of so Tim, I'm mute, man,
what's up?
Speaker 3: You're up?
Speaker 19: Hey, j Uh, I just got suggested your space about
I don't know, only like three or four days ago,
and I'm going through a plantthora of just great stuff.
Speaker 5: So I started.
Speaker 19: I got sick of all these complicated debates, and I
just started doing a space called Zionist are Racist and
or Retards? Changed my mind and it was just keeping
it super simple and I'm just love your stuff. That's
all I just wanted to say. I would love to
invite you to one of my spaces. One time it's
ever invited up for joining and it's just simple debates
where I give the person before they could even start,
give me what is the definition of being Jewish? What
is the definition of being Zionists? And it needs to
be a one sentence definition that you can put in
Webster's dictionary. And people lose their shit when you just
need a simple explanation and it shows their true colors.
Speaker 3: So I just watching your stuff.
Speaker 19: And I'm kind of like studying now, So I just
wanted to thank you for that.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, I appreciate that. I'll consider that, and
I'm not disagreeing with how you want to approach your
livestreams and your space. You can do whatever you want.
I don't like the not so erudite approach though, of
I want one sentence definition that is what's in Webster's
because a lot of times words and terms have a
long history and they have different meanings in different contexts.
And even the word zion right, I mean, that could
be the Hill of David, right, the city of David,
that could be you know, something spiritual. You know, Zionism
can be a political movement. So in the same way
as when you know, I debated not so erudite, and
she tried to poison the well by saying, if you
can't give me a simple definition of what you think
feminism is, then we can't have a debate. And I'm like, well,
first of all, you're here to defend feminism. Why are
you asking me what the word means when? And I
said not, you know, feminism can't be divorced from the
movement historically of feminism. But what she wanted to do
was to have such a broad definition that anything that
quote helped women was so if God says that women
have certain rights in the Torah or in the Old
Testament or whatever, oh, that's feminism. See. And that's why
I said, well, I mean, conceivably goddess worship could elevate
the status of women. Does that make goddess worship true
and good because that's quote feminist? Well, obviously not. So
I'm not disagreeing with the rhetorical optics value of what
you're doing. But also I think to have a high
tier debate on the topic of Zionism, it's very difficult
not to get into the nuance of history, because if
you end up debating a studied apologist for Zionism or
somebody like a Ben Shapiro or something like that. You
know they're going to call out that sort of not
so aerridite approach. Edward, what's up? Yeah, that's a great point, Bubba,
Like that there was that Orthodox or a showing me
that Protestant business pastor the IKEA pastor who was attacking
Orthodoxy because it didn't state its doctrine of salvation in
one sentence. And it's like, that's a very kind of
low tier, you know, goober approach. I mean that'll that
might influence. I'm not saying that you're bad for what
you did. I'm just saying that I think that it
really depends on who you're interacting with. Edward, what's up? Also,
too like to say prouve Zionism isn't racism. It's like, well,
is it wrong to be racist? And if you think
that it is, explain that right? So you got to
you gotta give sort of the way it's framed kind
of assumes a bunch of things that might be questionable. Edward,
what's up?
Speaker 20: Hey, I know this is off a topic, but no
one can give me an answer to this question. And
this happens to be with the New Kingdom that Paul
or that Peter talks about in uh first Peter three ten.
Speaker 4: But this is with Revelations.
Speaker 3: Chapter twenty one.
Speaker 4: Now correct if I'm wrong.
Speaker 20: Okay, after the millenium was over with Satan and all
the unbelievers.
Speaker 1: Well you're all over the place. You went from Peter
to Revelation. What are you talking about?
Speaker 4: Well, because it's all talking about the same.
Speaker 3: Thing, you know, the new heaven.
Speaker 1: What are you talking about one Peter three?
Speaker 4: What first Peter three ten? We look for new heavens
and new earth.
Speaker 1: That's not one Peter three ten.
Speaker 4: What are you sure?
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm looking at it right now.
Speaker 20: Well, it's the one you remember that as the days
of Noa were, and then after the days and zero
and the earth is reserved unto fire.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's here four or five. But go ahead.
Speaker 4: Okay, sorry, it's O the Bible on my phone. But
my question is with.
Speaker 20: Revelations chapter twenty one, look at.
Speaker 4: Twenty twenty four through the last verse, because see here
here's the thing.
Speaker 3: What is that?
Speaker 4: Correct?
Speaker 20: With verse twenty at the very end, there after Jesus
destroys the God, the destroys everything.
Speaker 3: That when Satan was loose, and then.
Speaker 4: God and Christ judges.
Speaker 20: That's the end of the money or right, and then
Christ reigns forever because we see the new heaven.
Speaker 1: Of newer Christ reigns now he began his reign when
he ascend.
Speaker 20: I know he does, but I'm talking about over the
ree of the world. Remember, Satan's the prince of the
air right now, he's got controling through.
Speaker 4: Christ comes back.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, man, I can't even I can't even understanderstand
what you're saying. You're just all over the place and
none of this makes any sense. It's not even coherent.
I'm sorry. What's up, man?
Speaker 5: Hell?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 21: I have some questions about like getting into Orthodoxy with
certain churches that I see. I don't it's all one churches,
different jurisdictions like Greek or like different places like I
see like a Western right church. I mean, because I
heard you talk about different schismatic groups or like acumened
kind of the cumunist groups. What would you what would
you say about like getting into the church, Like would
you say.
Speaker 1: Well, any church that's a canonical Orthodox church, which is
pretty easy to tell you can you know, usually it's
on the website or you can ask the people at
that group, and they'll usually tell you, honestly, it's fine,
but I mean Russian Orthodox Churches, Serbian Orthodox Churches, Antiochian
Orthodox Churches, they tend to be better. Romanian Orthodox Church,
et cetera. La Poul, what's up? But thank you for
that question. If you have a specific, you know, argument
that you want to make, this is exactly what I
was saying a minute ago. Right, it's fine if you
want to call into debate, but you've got to make
your point clear and state your argument precisely, concisely and coherently.
Like I have no idea what that guy was saying.
It was all over the place. I so don't jump
from twenty different verses and you know, tell me start
with a basic argument and then explain what your argument is. Lapoul,
what's up?
Speaker 4: You am?
Speaker 22: Yeah?
Speaker 3: How are you doing that?
Speaker 5: Your hello from friends? So I must thank you.
Speaker 22: For all of your previous work has helped me a lot. Finally,
go to Lucie. Know it has been a few years
and I remember by a few years ago you talked
about out writing a book with a father, doctor Dickon
and anaeas On posh positionalism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I got busy and I haven't had time to
do that. So thank you for that. William. What's up, William?
What's up, dog? I'm mute, man, William, I'm mute faith
from facts. What's up, man? I'm you? Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3: Okay, awesome.
Speaker 4: So I'm talking.
Speaker 23: I'm a personal I'm talking with one of my Orthodox friends.
Speaker 3: And one thing that he really seems.
Speaker 5: To come back around to is they have the eucharists
and we as Protestants don't. And I really do not
understand this perspective, and I was hoping you could explain
it to me.
Speaker 1: Well, you can have the Eucharus without having the people
that have the authority to do the eucharistic offering. If
you read the Canons of Nicea, they're so precise in
the Canons of Nicea that deacons can't even just do
whatever they want to touch or to offer the Eucharist.
Only the presbyter with the authority and the permission of
the priests or the episcopate, can offer the Eucharus. So
the Eucharus isn't something that you just make there in
your basement from crackers and grape juice. It has to
come from those who have the authority of the apostles,
that the apostles laid hands on as Timothy as pulses
to Timothy.
Speaker 5: Okay, awesome, thank you.
Speaker 3: Is that Nicea one or two?
Speaker 1: By the way, the Canons of Nicea one go into
great detail about the importance and the sanctity of the
Eucharist and how this is intimately tied to the bishop.
But thank you for that question. That's a great question.
Will what's up?
Speaker 2: Man? Guys?
Speaker 1: Would it like and share and remember a lot of
your questions, which you're fine to call in and ask them,
But we have a vast archive here on my channel,
so be sure and subscribe and make use of the archive.
What's up man?
Speaker 4: Hey Ja, how you doing?
Speaker 24: I wanted to call and see if you have ever
looked into ken Ham and the answers in Genesis focus
on the family crowd.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know of them, but I don't know
what you mean by looking into them, like, are they
sus or something?
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 5: I mean it.
Speaker 24: Is a little bit sus My ken Ham has got
this big arc encounter thing up in Kentucky. It's like
a theme park for uh evangelical of their family.
Speaker 25: Well, uh, I grew up with parents that were very
very uh front or forward on always having the answers
in Genesis materials in front of myself and my siblings,
and they went up, My parents went up and actually
got to finally go.
Speaker 5: To the Ark Encounter, and.
Speaker 24: The one thing that they said was like that gave
them a question mark. And they're they're full on Southern Baptists,
But one thing that really surprised them to see at
the ARC Encounter was a display on aliens, and they
kind of sort of had an explanation.
Speaker 3: There for aliens.
Speaker 24: Which you know, that struck me whenever I heard that,
because I've actually seen Kim Hamm live and grew up
listening to him and reading all this stuff.
Speaker 1: What was the explanation of aliens?
Speaker 3: From what I.
Speaker 5: Remember my mom telling me.
Speaker 24: It it you know, I can't really remember specifics, but
it definitely wasn't anywhere close to what father Sarah from
Rose would say about aliens, you.
Speaker 1: Know, so like it wasn't demonic, like it was like
they think that there might be alien life or something, or.
Speaker 24: I distinctly remember her telling me that their explanation was
not one that concluded in demons.
Speaker 1: Okay, interesting, that isn't Yeah, I didn't know that. I
appreciate that. I mean, I think with a lot of
these evangelical groups, even if they have some good but
I have a few books from from them and from
other creationists evangelical groups. You know, they might get some
good things right in terms of critiquing evolution, but I
mean they're not going to have anything else, Like, I mean,
the rest of the stuff is just going to be
total goofball nonsense. So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if
they don't come to goofy conclusions. John, did you want
to say something, Yeah.
Speaker 3: Because he's the Institute for Creation Research. Guy, Right, I
think and a lot a lot of the I think,
what's up?
Speaker 1: Hold on, Eric, just a second, go ahead, John, No,
I was gonna say.
Speaker 9: A lot of the problems that they do is they're
trying to engage like the scientific world.
Speaker 3: On a level. Yes, like they already give evolution.
Speaker 9: Of putting the stand on to come to the debate,
whereas it's a total insane, made up myth.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: So I think that's one of the problems is because
in California there was an Institute of Creation Research, and
then you could go there and they got dinosaur bones,
and it's like, oh, look, man walked with dinosaurs, and
it just goes into the It gives credence to the evolutionary.
Speaker 9: Myth, and but we're going to debate it on the
level of you know, Protestant theology.
Speaker 3: It's it's very weird.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: By the way, if you're interested in what some people
in the chatter saying, what does Jay think about aliens?
I think largely the alien phenomena is a psyop. It's
born out of ink, ultra cia, deep state, all that stuff.
It's a smoke screen for black operations, for mind control.
But I do think there are demonic entities and so
that's an element of it too. So I think it's
all those things. It's not just one of those things. Eric,
what's up, hey, Jay?
Speaker 23: So we're going to be visitedual debates with Professor Malpass
and not professor And it has become like almost so
evident to me that atheists refuse to justify transitut categories.
Speaker 5: So I've got a question about that.
Speaker 23: My question is do you think in like a possible
world where there are brute facts, debate is necessarily impossible?
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know how would we we would
even try to figure out what is or is it
necessary in a possible world where there's quote brute facts.
I mean, I just don't even know what that means.
And how would we then start deriving necessity and non
necessity in a possible world of brute I don't even
know what that means. Like, what does that mean the
possible world whether where there's quote brute facts.
Speaker 3: I guess, Like.
Speaker 5: I guess if there is a.
Speaker 23: World where there are I guess objects with no precondition,
that that means they can't be accounted for. It can't
be justified by the akia world view where they're just
trying to like say, well, just squaant me the law,
but I didn't, sy just grant me beautiful to the
self cost time like it, Like, I can't see a
logical contradiction in that worldview being the case, even though
you obviously wouldn't have knowledge of it.
Speaker 5: That's the world that he is the living.
Speaker 1: Well then if it's I mean, what use does that
have for argumentation in this world? If you can theoretically
come up with a world where supposedly there's no contradictions,
I mean, well, what are the laws of logic in
a world where if you're saying there's no contradictions, that
requires laws of logic. So what good is a hypothetical
world where there's quote brewte facts, but there's laws of logic?
So how do we know that the laws of law
are the are the laws of logic in that world?
Also brute facts?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay, how do we know that those are the things
that are the brute facts? So other words, we could
just ask the question of criterion and say, okay, what
are all the things that are the brewe facts? So
it basically it just sounds like just the atheist worldview.
So we're just gonna list all the things that the
atheist worldview has.
Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely, I agree.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to have a So basically it's I'm
gonna have it's a great question. I'm going to have
a hypothetical world where everything works and it's the atheist worldview.
Where's the problem? Well, that's just deflecting from the question
of justification, and that's exactly what you're asking is So
you're basically just constructing. I mean, that's really that's not
like the purpose of possible worlds is really just to
show logical and logical impossibilities. Right, But atheists actually tend
to think of these things as like metaphysical proofs, right, Like,
if I can construct the world that makes sense, then
why is that not the way that we can understand
this world? Well, it's assuming the thing in question, that
you can construct the world that makes sense without giving
an account for the necessity of preconditions to make sense. Right,
So it's just assuming the thing in question, deflecting away
from it and saying, let's just construct a world where
athe It's like saying, well, what about a world where
atheism's true? What's the contradiction in a hypothetical world where
atheism is true? Kyle? What's up? Well, then I can
just if you can bring that to a debate, then
I can just bring the same thing to the debate
and say, what's the problem with a hypothetical world where
God exists and God and so therefore God is true.
It's just like avoiding the debate by constructing hypothetical worlds.
What's up? Kyle?
Speaker 3: Hey?
Speaker 26: Jay, So I actually had two questions. So the first
one I was watching your debate with Redeemed Zuomer, and
he was questioning you about if someone theoretically never sinned,
then would they still need salvation?
Speaker 5: And you said that no one could ever.
Speaker 26: Be sinless because as if are proclivity to sin. But
as far as I know and Orthodox theology, Mary is sinless.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I address this that I didn't want to go
into the issue of distinguishing actual sin from original sin
because it would have turned the whole debate into a
debate about Mary, and that's not what we were there
to debate. So, yes, Mary is without the actual sin,
but she is under the effects of original sin, and
that's why she died. So to be precise, you have
this plane. There's a difference between being quote in a
state of sin, which is a deprivation of grace, and
an actual sin, which is a specific sin against God's commandments. Right,
So sometimes Paul his epistles talks about people being under
the law of sin or under sin or in Adam. Right,
that's not guilt. You're not guilty for what Adam did.
You're deprived of grace through the effects of Adam sin.
But sin, according to James, is when you consent by
your will to something against God's law or against the
ten commandments. So sin is not actually technically a state
of being. It's an action of the will against the good.
That's why specific sins are specific actions. So really there's
not there's no such thing as a state of sin.
And that's why Calvinists end up being Manicheans because they
think that nature is guilty. There's no such thing as
a guilty nature. God creates natures, therefore God can't create
something inherently evil. But Calvinism and Lutheranism, and luther was
actually Manichean on this point. They actually make natures evil.
So does that help reconcile the point? It's not. It's
not even a question of could there be a person
who didn't sin committing actual sin, because we would say
that grace preserved Mary from committing an actual sin. But
she's still a daughter of Adam. And that's why in
the Orthodox streatory have the feast of dor mission. Because
she died, she still experienced the effects of Adam sin.
Speaker 26: Okay, so in her case, her salvation is.
Speaker 3: Not from her sin, but from the fact that she
inherited the.
Speaker 26: Effects of Adam sin, and so that was.
Speaker 1: She's still saved by grace. It's just that she didn't
commit actual sins and she was prevented from that by
divine grace as well. Okay, So the problem is that
the problem is that Protestants don't conceive of salvation first
and foremost as a metaphysical, ontological reality and participation in
divine energy. They conceive of it as a legal status,
and so they believe anybody in Adam is in a
legal status of being unrighteous. If Mary is a daughter
of Adam, then she's by default naturally guilty because she's
in Adam. And that's not the Orthodox perspective, and that's
why we don't believe in the Western Augustinian conception of
original sin.
Speaker 5: Okay, all right, so I had.
Speaker 1: But I didn't go into that in that debate, not
because I couldn't answer him. I just didn't want the
whole debate to turn into debate about Mary.
Speaker 26: Right, And I could kind of see where he was
going with it, like why wouldn't Mary, you know, how
would she needs salvation? But I can kind of understand what.
Speaker 1: You have to distinguish, right, You have to distinguish the
effects of original sin and actual sin. And even the
Roman Catholic Church has done that. So the only people
that don't do that would be you know, Lutherans and Calvinists,
pretty much everybody else believes the same thing. Even the
Roman Catholics no longer have the you know, infant damnation mass.
Speaker 27: I'm not a doctrine, okay, And so I just had
one more question, and I just want to hear your
general opinion on Michael Heiser's work.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think there is a divine council
that contributes to the idea of the Community of Saints. Man.
He was a long time subscrip river to my website,
paid paid member. What's up? Salads are? Salads are?
Speaker 3: Was up?
Speaker 13: Let me.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 28: I wanted to ask you a question about the Trinity.
Speaker 5: I understand that.
Speaker 28: The needs of unity and diversity in the relationship between both.
And then the question would be, and I'm not sure
if as to this correctly, why that would be the
Holy Spirit Christ in God and not anything else.
Speaker 1: Why that would be what the Holy Spirit? What the Christ?
Speaker 28: Why it would be our trinity, the Christian Trinity? And
if the answer is that you pausit as a tag
is made in opposition to any other argument, what what
what would you say to someone that would.
Speaker 1: Can you resay your question I don't understand your question.
Can you say it? Are you asking about the problem
to won them any of the trinity?
Speaker 28: Yeah, exactly all the trinity could as justifying the Christian
view to someone else?
Speaker 1: Would the question of the Why would the.
Speaker 28: Question of trinity be the Christian trinity? Why would the
relationship between God, the Son, the Knower, and the Known
and the relationship between them be Christ's God and the
Holy spirits? Why could it not be anything else some
other combination?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean if you look at other options like
Platonism and Neoplatonism, and they have such fundamental problems that
break down the epistemology that you could never even know
that triad or that monad. I mean, Plato's monad is
nothing like what we positive about the Father and his
relationship to the Son and the Spirit. So, for example,
Plato's monad is not personal and there's no intentionality in
terms of the emanations from the one. That's very different
from a world that's created out of nothing, that has purpose,
intentionality and a kind of an ethical norm via the
tank commandment. So just in terms of ethics and metaphysics,
like the Christian paradigm is light years ahead of anything
that Platonism would offer. Okay, so I'm not and I'm
not even aware of any other I mean maybe a
Hindu triad, but I mean Hinduism also has the same
very fundamental metaphysical problems of course.
Speaker 28: So the answer would be you have to give an
alternative tag works and oppositions, So you would ask for
that person's alternative to that, as in nothing except for
the Christian.
Speaker 5: View as possible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because remember it's not just an argument for an
abstract idea of reconciling the one in the many. It's
also all of the other categories that make yeah, like
you have to give an account for history, you have
to get give an account for the external world, you
have to give an account for ethics, for knowledge, for universals,
et cetera. All those things make up aspects of the
worldview that make knowledge possible. And if your worldview fails
at a very basic metaphysical level, something like maya, you know,
Hindu maya or something less a defeater for the possibility
of knowledge. So you're not going to get all these
other categories in that worldview, sol jah, what's up?
Speaker 3: You would have a problem defeating the poop betas.
Speaker 1: Though that's true. I mean, yeah, I'm aware that there's
a kind of triad or trinity in Hinduism, but it
doesn't matter if there's a fundament like you can. I
could say I believe in the Christian trinity, but I
think reality is an illusion. Well that defeats knowledge, So
it doesn't matter that you believe in a trinity. So
people like to go through and do like a you know,
Zeitgei style. Oh look, here's a similarity of a hinder trinity,
and here's a Christian trinity in a neo platonic trinity.
Therefore they all believe in the trinity. This is the
same mistake, you guys, that the Rumman Catholics make that.
Speaker 2: Muslims believe in one God. Jews believe in one God.
Good Catholics believing one God. We all believe in one God.
Speaker 1: It's the same God. It's a very basic, simple, stupid mistake.
And I'm not trying to be mean to you guys,
but like, because I see people in the chat and
they're like.
Speaker 2: Well, Hinduism has the trudity? Was it different?
Speaker 1: Guys? You got to get past the same words. Okay,
just because there's a trial, like Platonism is full of triads.
Does that mean that that's the same triad that Gregory
Palamos talks about. No, They're very different. So the same
word can refer to very different things in different systems,
in different context. And by the way I meant, I
was thinking, actually, do this whole stream just about worldviews
and systems approaches, because reflecting upon all the Roman Catholic
inabilities in terms of getting why dogmatic contradictions will be
a defeater for the worldview. And going back to, you know,
thinking about the Ybara debate and these different debates with
the Tomas over the years and this and that, I'm
more and more I recognize that ultimately is not an
intellectual issue. It's obviously spiritual, but in the intellectual domain
they don't understand. And it was a guy, great guy
that called in actually a few weeks ago and made
this point. He was like, the trad cuts don't understand
system level thinking. They think that you can just keep
piling up like other arguments or other evidences and if
there's a contradiction, well then you can reconcile it with
a bunch of counterweighted evidences. Over here on this side.
And remember the end the debate, Ibarra said something like that.
He was like, look, if I can pile up a
lot of papal evidences in history, isn't that possibly a
proof or a case for the papacy and Vatican one?
And it's like, even if you could do that, Eric,
it wouldn't matter if there's a system level defeater. And
I think at one point in the debate he says
something like.
Speaker 2: If you could show a contradiction in the door was good,
dog would be a defeater.
Speaker 1: Well, why did we just hear Loft Dog say a
minute ago that Cleaves share the very thing we're talking about, right,
often basically saying, yeah, the the.
Speaker 2: Mergist, the mergist, don't do this, yo, the mergisterium dog,
if they was saying don't do this and now they
say do do this?
Speaker 1: Oh, so like the very argument that I made ever
since I was a set of a contest mortalium animals.
So let's hear this again.
Speaker 17: If you have the Magisterium in the past saying don't
do this, and then the Magisterium now saying do do this,
or the opposite, right, the Magisterium saying in the past
do this. Now it's saying don't do this. Which one
do you go with? You know, there's some documents like
Mortalium Animals from Pious the eleventh less than one hundred
years ago, where the pope is saying, you can't have
ecumenical prayer meetings and if you do that, anyone who
does that has departed from the faith and doesn't believe
the Catholic faith. And now, I mean we have in
the post Conciliar period these ecumenical prayer meetings all the time.
Speaker 1: Oh well, then I guess I could logically conclude that
the papacy has magisterily departed.
Speaker 2: From the faith. Ain't that true?
Speaker 29: Dog?
Speaker 2: Ain't that true?
Speaker 1: Loft dog? Well, guess what that would be. That would
be a system level defeater. If the magistarium contradicts, then
the system contradicts. And I think this is the point
that many of these people do not understand. If there's
a systemic level contradiction, that's not the same thing as
this bishop was a sinner, this priest over here was gay,
this priest was a pdf. That's not a system level
defeater because they're not thinking of their religion as a
system even though it is there's systematic theol Protestants, Orthodox
Roman Catholics all have systematic theologies, that is, a system
level presentation of our beliefs. Divine revelation in the Roman
Catholic position is all things contained in the tradition of
the Church, whether declared by extraordinary magisterium or taught forever
in her universal ordinary magisterial teaching. That is divine revelation.
To the Roman Catholics according to Vatican One, that means
that nothing in that body of doctrines, that body of
magisterial teaching can contradict. So what's one of the patent
response to the Roman Catholics. Oh well, there's only a
couple execa theater things that you actually have to believe
totally not true, totally made up, total bullcrap position. They
just say that because that broadens or excuse me, that narrows,
actually the possibility of contradicting statements. So then, when, as
Lofton points out Mortalium Animals in nineteen twenty eight, says
that to have ecumenical prayer meetings with other quote Christians,
we're not even talking about false religions. We're with Christian
groups constitutes apostasy from the faith. Well, a couple decades later,
thirty years later, we get Vatican two, the very opposite.
Now the magistrum says we must do this. It's the
work of the Holy Spirit. So you understand that they're
admitting that the Holy Spirit is what inspired the magisterial
teaching of Mortellian animos. Now the Holy Spirit changed his mind.
You could do the opposite post Vatican two in ostritt
and a cz meetings, et cetera. But how does it
not contradict? Oh well, I've narrowed what the dogmatic system
actually is to a couple ex cathedra things. No, I'm sorry,
that's not true. That's why Denzinger is called Sources of
Catholic Dogma, and it's seven hundred and fifty pages, even
up to Pious to twelve. It doesn't even include Vatican two.
And guess what. Denzinger isn't the full extent of papal
dogma because it doesn't includ Vatican two. And Vatican two
is binding on all Catholics everywhere. You don't when you
go to a Roman Calolic church, a Novasorto church, they
don't say, here's the catechism. You don't have to believe
all the Vatican two parts. That's optional.
Speaker 2: It's total lies.
Speaker 1: It's just total coping, insanity, bullshit. When all the Roman
Catholics who start to get into the documents say, well,
I don't have to believe Vatican two. It's optional. It's
a pastoral council. There's nothing about the word pastoral council
that says it's not dogmatic. Oh but Paul the sixth
said he wasn't declaring new dogmas. That doesn't mean it's
not dogma. It just means he's not declaring new dogmas.
It's bound for the entire church, with full apostock authority
from the Papal See. In every one of the documents,
all sixteen Vatican two documents have the same authority behind them.
It's in your catechism, sighted many times over. So where
did you come up with this made up position that
you don't have to accept it? In fact, so many
post Vatican two popes have reaffirmed that you have to
accept Vatican Two. Francis said the magisterial reforms a Vatican two.
The worst part of it with the nova sorto missay,
he says, is absolutely binding an unchangeable magistarium. So now
you're gonna have to reject Francis to make the system work.
So even though you try all you want to narrow
the scope to make the system work, you're going to
be where Lofton's at admitting, Okay, magisterium is contradicting itself.
You can either have these prayer meetings or you can't.
And how can they be apostasy in nineteen twenty eight,
but the work of the Holy Spirit in nineteen seventy.
Speaker 2: But you got you got a bad patriarch.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but a bad patriarch. It's not a system level
defeat or your dummies. How many times do we have
to tell you this. If I thought Bartholomew was a hope,
if I thought he had the same position as Vatican one,
that might be a good argument. But it's our position
that says all the patriarchs can be heretics, and every
one of them, as I think, at some point in history,
had a schism or heresy, all of them, the ep Rome, Antioch, Alexandria,
they've all had schisms and heresies. There's no magical promise
to the one in Rome, especially given the fact that
the Epistle to the Romans warned the Roman Church about
being grafted out.
Speaker 2: Oh that's all we talking to the individuals, is not
talking to the bushop of Rome.
Speaker 1: Dude, what more do you need to see than your
church is having like skittles butt stuff ceremonies.
Speaker 2: Well, you had a patriarch who went to a gay thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's not a system level defeeder. And I'm
not even saying that the gay thing is a system
level defeater because the morals. The only way it's a
system level defeat is the fact that in Francis is encyclical.
He says you can bless the gay couples, not marriage
the couples.
Speaker 2: But he says a note that duk of gay marriage.
Speaker 1: So what, I'm not arguing that it's about gay marriage.
It's opening the door for gay marriage. Just like the
study that they're going to do. The Roman bishops in
Italy have said, let's do a study on deaconess's and
everybody the Orthodox Church knows that the push for deaconess's
is the preparatory stage for female priests. We know, we
know this story, we know where it goes. Applis, what's up, hey,
Jamie could you have me a coffee espresso, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 30: Hey, So you know, we've been seeing the rise of
political figures, for example, like Nick Flints, And what I
was going to ask was, do you think people like
Nick Fuentes are being pushed on purpose to serve the
purpose of potentially dividing and concrete as you often talk about,
particularly like inciting white young men to become extremists In some.
Speaker 1: Sense, I think time will tell, you know people's ultimate
motives and where they're coming from, and who's pushing them
or behind them. I don't have any inside knowledge or
proof that he's propped up or handle or whatever. It's
always possible with anybody, but I think time will tell,
and I think that regardless of Nick's unmotivations or what's
actually going on, there's definitely a push to create radical disintegration.
So that why there are left groups Democrats that will
support him push that, not because they support Nick or
not because it even means that he's like a democratic operative,
but they want to from their perspective, you know, kind
of split MAGA. But Trump himself is causing a huge
split in MAGA because he's doing all kinds of stupid
things so the criticisms are justified. I would probably agree
with most of Nick's criticisms of Trump, maybe not all
of them. I don't agree with, Like, I don't even
know if they were they trolling when he was talking
about Newsome and all that stuff, Like, I think that's crazy.
But whether somebody is a bad actor or not, you
can never know for sure, other than unless there's some
evidence that comes out of there. Bad actors or time
will tell. So for example, let's take Matt Frat. I
warned you guys forever and or ever that Matt Frad
was not a good actor. And all I heard for
all these years was how bad I was, how mean
I was, how oh he's Jay Dyer is the worst.
He's so mean, he's so mean. But what did I
told you that that guy is only there for either
the money or for attention. And what does he do?
He sells out to the Daily Wire, the Israeli Wire.
I told you guys this, like it was so obvious
if you knew and saw the way he handled stuff,
in the way that he treated me and the way
he treated ubi who he would and wouldn't have on
I mean, it's just like pretty obvious. But like people
just don't have any discernment. And I mean Matt fred
would do all the most contradictory and authentic things like
wearing Orthodox t shirts of Orthodox saints when his own system,
if he's faithful to it, believes those people are schismatic
and died outside the church. But I guess post Vatican
Two you can go back and revise that and all
the schismatic Orthodox that died out of counuey with Rome
can now be saints and can now be saved. So
it's a perfect system I think for people to craft
a grift within. It's people pop apologists. And I know
Nick Quent, this is more of a political guy. Obviously
he's not super theologically focused. But the same principle I
think applies for any of the face lords and the
people out here talking. Whether it's Candae, whether it's loft Dog,
whether it's Matt Frad, whether it's Trent Horn. Time will
tell where these people are actually coming from, what their
commitments really are, whether they actually committed it was true.
So that's my answer to that question. Time will tell.
And look at the case of Trump, right, So in
the case of Trump, people thought, well, well wait, is
he a good guy?
Speaker 2: He's a bad gun?
Speaker 1: What do you think of Trump? I mean I've probably
been asked that question fifteen thousand times in the last
ten years, and I always give the same answers. Time
will tell, and I said stuff like you'll probably do
some good things and it's a bad things. Remember for
many years, what do.
Speaker 2: You think of Putin? It's Putin based where is you
a globalist?
Speaker 1: And it's like time all time. It's like it's the
most and I'm not faulting you, it's just the most lazy,
boring ant a question on People say, well, you remember,
remember like two years ago, what do you think of Youlon?
Speaker 2: You think of you? What do you think of Trump?
We think.
Speaker 1: It's like, can we talk about anything other than the
motivations of fake of face lords. By the way, remember
that dude that called in, The Hispanic dude that called
in said I was a communist because I didn't think
that we would have a monarchy in the next century.
So that makes me communists because like your arguments.
Speaker 11: That communist, bro, you're just like a freaking communist because
you've got to like you, you can't do nothing, but
you just sort of sit around speculate like where's your
where's the thing's going to go in like one hundred years?
So it's basically word it is bro Well, how would that?
How would that make me disingenuous? This doesn't even make
any sense a non secuator. The fact that I think
that my positions won't happen in a few hundred years,
that make the position wrong?
Speaker 1: Or how does that make my motives bad? Right? Very
low tier people. Again, I'm not calling you load t
heer because you asked me questions. It's it's fine to
ask the questions, and I said, any topic. But have
you noticed that people always want to debate people, They
want to debate their motives, and very few people always
actually want to debate the issues. When I start talking
about stuff on Twitter, I talk about this or that,
say papal document what happens in the comments and the
replies underneath Roman Cavolk's pile in talking about how much
of a piece of shit I am and how bad
I am, not actually addressing the thing said. So dumb
people want to debate and talk about people. Intelligent people
want to talk about and debate the actual issues, and
cunning face lords know that and can manipulate and get
people bait. Debating and arguing about people, There's nothing more
effeminate than coming on streams and trying to debate motives,
because you can never prove it, prove a person's motive
unless you have, like some screenshot of them actually saying
I work for the FEDS and I will dupe all
the right wingers. That is my motive, right, And how
often does that happen? Very rarely, So it is a worthless,
futile debate to debate people's motives rather than looking at
the actual actions, the actual positions, the actual platforms, and
what they're doing, and what they argued for, and what
have they argued for ten years? Have they been consistent
in what they've been arguing for? Have they Here's another
example in some of the case of say, okay, there
was a guy who here's a great example of a
FED phony. The guy that ran was his name Horsch Mohler,
the bother Meinhoff group. Here's a great example of a
FED I think his name is Husht Mahler or was
it Meinhoff. Maybe it's Utererck Meinhoff. I think that's what
I'm thinking of. Okay, so you had this like radical
leftist group, right, and uh no, here he is. He's
one of the founders. Husht Mahler. This guy here exactly,
That's where I'm going with this. So wait a minute,
husht Mahler. One of the founders of the Red Army
faction Bottle of Mininehoff was a neo n big age
denier and then wha, what do you know? Suddenly he
becomes a radical communist leftist organizer. And I think it's
pretty obvious that that guy was some kind of asset
or fed or glowy, right, And why so unstable people
or people who I'm not saying that if you just
change your position, I've changed my positions. I think most
human beings at some point they're love change their position.
Hoorst Mahler. I didn't say hurst, I said Huste Mahler. Like,
when you get these sort of vocal figures in these
radical movements like that guy, that's a great example of
you know, obvious fed activity or fed fed sploitation. I'm
going to create a new genre of fed sploitation. Who
are you saying should call in? Who is the same person?
Thank you, welcome, all the Jeordlandians shout out to you, guys. Soldier,
sister soldier, what's up? Did we already go to you?
I don't remember. No, not yet. Okay, how are you
doing good?
Speaker 3: Are you?
Speaker 1: I'm doing well.
Speaker 31: So I'm relatively new to the faith, and you know,
through based Instagram edits, I've been introduced to John Chris
Austin and I learned recently, you know, his inspiration on
divine energy. But then he says things like smiting the
the blasphemers. Now, how was that reconciled?
Speaker 1: Uh, well, I need to know the contexts specifically where
you're talking aout quote smiting the blasphemers. But I mean,
there's no contradiction between Christianity and having laws against things
like blasphemy in the state. And you know, Chris Austin
was at a time period when the Roman Empire was
becoming Christianized and you were getting Christian emperors. So you
get Theodosias and you get uh, Saint Justinian, and if
you read the Justinian, the Code of Justinian, it's actually
enacting a lot of Biblical principles and Christian principles into
the state law. Uh. So there's there's nothing antithetical to that,
but we might need to know the context as to
win it's appropriate. In other words, blasphemy might need to
be put down by you know, the state, and not
necessarily a doubt. I doubt Chris Slawson is telling you to,
you know, go out and punch anybody that says, you know,
a bad word, right, yeah.
Speaker 31: I mean, you know, to say specifically he's talking about
in public thoroughfare or in the midst of form, go
up to him and rebuke him. And shouldn't be necessary
in flig blows spear not to do so. Smite him
on the face, strike his mouth, sanctify your hand with
the with the blow.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, there might be you know, there might be
context of that, because again, in a situation where Christianity
has the dominance in a society, that might be not
be tolerated. But if you're in the minority and you're
not in a Byzantine empire situation, then no, that's probably
not wise to do. And you're not. There's there's appropriate
time and context for everything, even in scripture, right, there's
a time for war, a time for peace. And don't
get your theology from instagram. Edits. You need to go
actually read these people and not follow what you see
in instagram reels because all that could easily be taken
out of context. Siout, what's up? Siout? What's up? I'mute?
Speaker 32: Oh here can.
Speaker 5: I understand?
Speaker 33: This question is not very well directed? But recently I
was listening to your talk with doctor David Patrick Harry
and you know, basically discussing dans humanism and the entire
globalist matadim and how it might be derived from gnarscissism.
But what I don't understand is how these old Canaanite
religious elements play into the sound of that coalesce in
to this and if you can just refer me to
something that's that would also be fine.
Speaker 1: How did old Canaanite religion play into transhumanism like.
Speaker 33: All these yeah, the yeah, these these you know, or
symbol like metou.
Speaker 1: Well, bappha met is a more well I mean, I mean,
symbolism is very complex and very nuanced. I mean, I
don't recall anybody arguing that the symbol of Baphomet is Canaanite,
although I'm sure there were, uh, you know, Jamie's done
talks on some academic literature that she's read that covers
the fact that ancient Canaanite religious practices Mesopotamian religious practices
included TI A and Z stuff and Bapha met The
modern modern thing drawn by ELPs Levi isn't supposed to
it's supposed to encapsulate and image this idea of on
binary t R, A and Z stuff. So I mean
probably you know, go watch Jamie's streams that you did
on that about the gala where we get gala events
that actually comes from the ancient practice of the gala,
which was what you could imagine tir A and Z
people running around doing crazy stuff. Ahren, what's up man.
Speaker 4: Hija?
Speaker 5: Can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 19: I would like to ask a couple of questions about
race realism.
Speaker 1: No, we're not covering that, Zabby. Today we're on YouTube,
and that's the one topic that you can't cover on YouTube. Hey, Jamie,
when our special guest arrives, could you let me know
and then I will do it to the commercials and
we'll prepare for our special guests to be here. Jungle,
what's up? By the way, to answer the question easily,
I do believe races exist, and ultimately you could say
they're ETHNOI or nose, but beyond that, that's a trap
question for YouTube. What's up man, Jungle, I'm mute, Jungle,
I'm mute. Okay, don't I'm mute. You just sat there
for nothing. Good job, Jordan. What's up, Michael Jordan? What's up?
Due your boy? Michael Jordan? Yes, we're supposed to have
a special guest arrived today and he's gonna join me
on stream, and uh, actually it'd be fun to have
him in here for Q and A two, so if
he if he comes, we will just allow him to
join us. It is not further Deacon and ill. It
is a special guest. None of you are going to
ever guess. What's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 31: Hey Joe, how are you doing?
Speaker 1: I'm doing great. What's on your mind?
Speaker 14: No that I just wanted to said you were going
to do animate critiques.
Speaker 5: I wanted to give you some suggestions if that was
all right.
Speaker 1: I mean I wrote down about six of them, so.
Speaker 22: I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I have time for the fifteen more.
Speaker 2: Okay, what do you got?
Speaker 1: What do I need to say? I got Akira Blue
Extissist becsella full metal alchemist Neon Evangelia, ghosts in Michelle.
Is there more?
Speaker 23: I was gonna say, attack on Titan and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure.
Speaker 5: And also one piece if you don't mind.
Speaker 3: The show's still.
Speaker 5: Ongoing, but I'd definitely like to hear your critiques.
Speaker 1: Okay, all, I appreciate that. Man, Thank you, Jordan. I'll
take a look at those. Hopefully we can find some time. Jason,
what's up man? What's on your one?
Speaker 4: Hey?
Speaker 3: J can you hear me?
Speaker 4: I want to ask you a question? My friends. She's
an atheist. She studies for SINI, and.
Speaker 23: I was thinking of what's the best argument that I
could convince uff?
Speaker 4: Oh God?
Speaker 5: Like, what's the best way to call him?
Speaker 1: That the transcendental argument for God? So you can find
go watch my debate with Matt dole Hunty as an example. Samuel,
what's up, Samuel? You want to I'm you. Welcome everybody.
We've got a nice crowd of eleven hundred. Welcome all
the Jeorde Lan Indians from Jim Bob's stream. Samuel, what's up?
Speaker 3: Name?
Speaker 10: Hey?
Speaker 18: Jay?
Speaker 4: Second time calling in?
Speaker 5: Just a quick question.
Speaker 34: Yep, I've been contemplating orpholoxy for like an year and
off and I agree mostly, but the less things are
ikens and.
Speaker 4: Mary fneration.
Speaker 34: And I'm a reluctant Protestant right now, and they just
don't know what to do.
Speaker 4: Should I just take the faith for no?
Speaker 1: I mean, well, no, I think you should. I mean
you're always gonna have questions, like you're never going to
get to the point where there's no question. But if
you're interested in the biblical case for Mary's position and
the typology around Mary, go to my video right here,
what is the basis for the veneration of Saint Mary?
I have that talk there. And when it comes to icons,
I actually have many, many talks, many many If you
just type in Jyder icons you will get a lot
on that.
Speaker 2: You'll get.
Speaker 1: This twenty minute video responding to Gavin Ortlund. You'll get
fifteen minute video here, you'll get oh, it's the longer talk.
Here we go. This is the longer talk right here,
hour and forty five minutes. There's another one that's a
two hour talk that of course never comes up about icons.
That is this is it right here, icon incarnation, the
reality of symbolism. So those are there's three talks and
some small videos, but also everybody. You gotta watch Lewis's
documentary documentary Orthodox Shahada. Everybody watched this, all inquirers, all Catechumans, Protestants,
Messianic Jews, of Jewish Christian worship in the Old Testament.
This ultimately is the basis for liturgical worship and icons.
You must watch Lewis's documentary. Everybody go watch it. And
I'm not saying that to be rude or mean.
Speaker 2: I get it.
Speaker 1: Everybody deals with mary, relics, icons. We all have that
stumbling point. Also, Yes, the interview we did with Pago
five years ago, four or five years ago, that's a
good one too. But everybody needs to understand, especially Protestants,
the biblical case for liturgy, and then iconography will just
automatically be part of that. It's a package deal. It
goes along with it. There's not going to be like
a liturgical church that's iconoclass that doesn't exist anymore. Maybe
at one time that existed, maybe amongst the historians or something,
or maybe the iconic class of the Seventh Council, but
there's no church in history that ended up continuing on
after the Seventh Council and after the eight to forty
three Triumph of Orthodoxy Council or a statement and the
Sonoticon like it's gone. So unless you want to say
the Church died and be a Calvinist because it went
into full idolatry for what a thousand years, almost eight
hundred years, then you can need to read Orthodox Worship
by WILLIAMS and Ainstall, Living Continuity with the Synagogue, Temple
in the Church, Eucharistic Theology by Louis Bouller. It's a
classic Catholic liturgist. He's either Catholic or angl can of Forget,
but Dom Gregory Dix also Catholic shape of the Liturgy,
Saint Germical Constantinople on the Divine litter. You can watch
the Orthodox ro cored documentary Fountain of Immortality. And then
there's also what is it called Hugh Weybru's book The
Byzantine Liturgy. Those are all great books, very easily, very accessible,
very readable books that you begin to understand, Oh, it's
not really an issue of just can we have an
icon or not? Is that an idol? Is that an image?
Once you understand that God established liturgical worship full of imagery,
then that's like almost the entire case of the Protestants,
that its idolatry falls apart. Then it's not a question
of where is the second century Patristic witness to icons?
I don't see it anywhere. Well, what if there's a
liturgy that's it? Right there? Coco? What's up?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: I didn't know. By the way, ralp stake twenty dollars
appreciate that Neon evangelion is filled with Gnostic Cobbo kabalistic influences.
I am aware of that, and I'm sure that I
will bring that up should it come up, or should
we get to it. It would be hilarious if you
also watched all eleven and forty episodes of One Piece.
I doubt I have the time for that. Let's see, Coco,
you want to mute? Or what's up?
Speaker 8: Hey?
Speaker 30: How's it going, Jack?
Speaker 3: Good?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 4: Hey?
Speaker 12: I've been listening through your writings of the Elite Lectures
and reading through Tragedy and Hope and stuff, and one
thing I'm trying to figure out is, especially with all
the AI stuff going on lately, and everyone like rage
Base and talking about how there's gonna be millions and
millions of jobs replaced.
Speaker 3: No one's gonna work anymore.
Speaker 35: I don't understand the motivations of like the Tectovie for
removing all these jobs if there's nobody making money to
like buy the things that they're producing.
Speaker 1: Because their overall plan. And go watch the talk that
I did on Bill Joy's discussion of why the future
doesn't need us because the overall plan is to be
posthuman and to get rid of humans. So it's not
about money, it's about transhumanism, posthumanism. Let's see. Oh, here
you go, right, why the future doesn't need Us essay
analysis Bill Joyce, Sun Microsystems tech Elite explaining right, it's
time for us to focus on a new brand Meta.
Just that's a pretty good Zuckerberger, I must say, if
I must say so, Messa Ice, what's up Ice sized Baby?
And by the way, it's not just that book. I
mean there's Jacques Attali's books uh also described. We've covered
two of his books. The The end goal isn't making money,
Predicting the Global Predicting the Future of the Global EAE
books Millennium by Jaquette Elite right here and Brief History
of the Future right here. The plan is transhumanism, post humanism, Ice,
what's up?
Speaker 5: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: By the way, that's not antithetical to Zionism, right, so
people you talk about transhumanists, you won't talk about that.
Speaker 2: He's a Jew Jew.
Speaker 1: Guess what. Jacques atteles Transhumanism Books, says that the global
brain of transhumanism, when everbody's into the global hive mind,
he says, it's the gollum. It's the same plan. It's
not a different thing. It's the same thing. Ice, what's up?
Speaker 23: Yeah?
Speaker 36: I was just wondering if you had ever done a
stream on up. I don't want to, like, I want.
Speaker 4: To make sure I.
Speaker 36: Don't get your channel flag for this or anything on
a fake new went test on that one day in January.
I was just wondering if you'd ever done a research
stream into that.
Speaker 1: I have not. No, I haven't discussed that, but I'm
aware of it. I know you know Tucker's brought that
up and stuff, But I mean what, I don't know? What?
Speaker 4: What?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Here we go, here's Sam. What's up? Sam? Not Sam? Hi?
By the way, what's up, Sam?
Speaker 4: Hey? Jay, I've been watching.
Speaker 5: Reviews for a while.
Speaker 1: Let me say this. One reason I don't like to
go into the like speculating about they're a FED because
of this. And I'm not saying you can't raise the questions.
I understand people want to raise, but being a you know, well,
let's be honest here, being a B C list alternative
media commentator, which is not talking about my A list
ediva status. We all know that when it comes to
like being a sexy ediva, like I'm a list, but
when it comes to like media commentary or whatever you
could say, cee B list person, like, I already know
what it's like to everyone weaves narratives because you talk, Oh,
he talked to Dugan till you interviewed Dugan ten years ago.
He's a FED, he's an FSB, he works for Prutin.
I've been invited to Russia twice, okay, two conferences, Orthodox
conferences and Russian geopolitical conferences. In both cases I said,
I don't think I appreciate the invitation, but I think
I don't think I'm gonna do it because first of all,
I presume that when I return, I'm immediately going to
be interviewed by that BI. They're gonna ask you qunch.
I just don't want to go through that. Okay, so
it's two tense a political climate when there's a proxy
war with Russia in my to fly to Russia and
try to you know, talk to Kirol or whoever, interview
people or whatever I do. I mean, if we were
in a better climate, it sounds fun, it would be awesome,
but I chose to not go because I didn't think
it would be wise given the charged climate. But it
doesn't really even matter ultimately, because I know Alex has
been invited to Russia many times and he's he wants
to go, but he's never gone. But immediately like it's
it just provides this sort of narrative for retards to like,
oh see, well there we go. He went to Russia.
He's obviously a Russian spy. I'm trying to think of
the other situation. So, oh well, just being hosting the
Fourth Hour, obviously I'm a controlled you know, co Intel
pro because the only people who would be on Alex
Jones would be co Intel pro, right, so I have
to be co intel pro for that, for hosting the
Fourth Hour. I'm trying to think of what else makes
me co intel pro see A, And it really just
depends on who you're talking to, right, because if you
talk to one person, well, he's obviously a massad because
he hasn't talked about Israel incessantly for every you Know
podcast for the last ten years. Well what about all
the places where he did talk about Oh well, but
it wasn't enough. So we're going to purity spiral over that.
Remember when Tucker went and interviewed old Tucker's got to
be a Russian agent because he interviewed Putin. Well, but
now he's CIA because the interviews wuint this, even though
Alex is the one that set that up for them
to have that discussion. So people love to jump to
the conclusions, and that's really annoying when you're on the
butt end of everybody spinning the narrative of that. I mean,
it's when you don't have an audience and you speculate
about everybody being a fed. It's a lot of fun.
And then but when you're the butt of the joke
and you're the fed, it gets old, right, And I've
been called a FED and a Russian agent for ten
years and it just gets annoying. And so that's another
reason why I chose that, like, I don't know it
just did. It makes it plus beyond all that. I
don't want to fly in an airplane for thirty hours.
If I get invited to Australia, I'm just gonna say
no because I don't want to fly for thirty hours.
I might float there like Eli and Gonzalez. I'm just joking.
Was that the Gonzales brothers or that floated to California
or whatever. Alex Jones is not Jewish, so I don't
know what you're talking about. See, people just say this
stuff in the chat. Oh, Alex is Jewish. We know that. No,
he's not. Like you're just wasting your time talking just
total this is what I'm talking about. This people just
say retarded shit, nonsensically, and yeah, I'll come out and
say it. I Dugan bought me off. I get paid
in fedcoin. It's not fedcoin though, it's dougan coin and
it's backed by Soviet crypto. So that's what this is
all really about. By the way, we like, who's that
boomer that the worst boomer financial analyst right putin created bitcoin?
What's that guy's name, that boomer scammer man that pushes
help me out? You guys, No, no, No, he's a
Jim Kramer. No, the other one. He wears like librarian
Santa Claus t shirts. Damn Pegna that's him. Oh man,
he's the worst dude. The screaming, he's the boomer that
I mean. He is rich, he's like hundreds of millions
of dollars, but he charges you like thousands of dollars
to come to his money making courses and then he
just cusses you out. It's like Wes Watson. You remember
at Wes Watson like screaming and cussing his students out right.
This is this guy is the worst right here, this
guy Dan pennya uh here it is. Wait till you
find out who created a bitcoin, you're gonna shit yourself.
Speaker 37: Antonio Reels twenty three. I'll pass the Texas. My question
is as far as because I know you mentioned with
cryptocurrency bitcoin pretty much, if we found out who had
started it was behind it, it would drop to zero the
next day. Do you think banks will ever finance deals
anytime soon? If so, win No, No, I don't know,
but I.
Speaker 38: Call the top of the bitcoin market in December two thousand.
Speaker 1: So he's full of shit right there, because banks are
just right now opening up to an adopting bitcoin. I
think one of the first banks today actually just did it.
So Dan Penna was tolly wrong.
Speaker 2: Seventeen nobody listened to me.
Speaker 38: I had somebody at the seminar the penultimate second, the
last seminar gave at the castle. They lost one point
eight billion and bitcoins. The two brothers.
Speaker 2: One they.
Speaker 4: Have twelve million left.
Speaker 38: Of their bitcoin fortune.
Speaker 1: I said, so, yeah, when the market goes down, yeah,
you're gonna lose money. But I guarantee that Winkleball Swims
are like mega billionaires or not.
Speaker 38: Not gonna sell sell half, keep half. Remember for those
of you that not one motherfucker on the planet listens.
Speaker 4: To me.
Speaker 1: Because you're crazy, retarded memory, you a screaming cust somebody.
Speaker 38: When you find out who's behind it, you will ship yourselves.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So he says Putin created bigcoin to destroy, to
destroy the dollar. That's that's what he's famous for. And
he's been saying this for like eight years now, like
here's a big cooin's about to go to zero. Here
you go.
Speaker 38: But one of the great calls I made is a
year ago when bitfuck with that nineteen six dollars.
Speaker 2: I said it's over.
Speaker 1: Here you go screaming boomer bitfuck is done. It's going
to zero. Oh really you sure about that?
Speaker 16: Dan?
Speaker 38: Five years ago, Mark money sell half keyp half. My
mantees lost binions because nobody listened to me.
Speaker 1: We got some bitfucks.
Speaker 2: And I can tell too bad.
Speaker 1: This guy is the worst you could not find. Oh
he's ten times words of Peter Scheft. This guy is
the archetype of the most arrogant boomer ever. Dude's he's
just the worst. But yeah, this whole thing that putin
created bitcoin to destroy the dollar. What's up, man, I'm you.
I'm sorry, Sam, did you have more? I got all
the sidetracked.
Speaker 24: You're good?
Speaker 39: You good?
Speaker 15: Uh, yeah, I've been I saw that process on the
on topic list, and I come from that kind of background.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry for you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we getting there.
Speaker 5: I mean I've been watching this stuff.
Speaker 4: I had like two quick questions for you now that like.
Speaker 40: I got this book The Story of christianitybody, who's still
that as I don't know if that's a book you're
familiar with, but I'm just trying to learn more about
Christian history.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I would not recommend that. That's a very
low tier Protestant book. We used to when I was
at Baptist Bible College. I would not recommend Who's still
Gonzales's book? Yeah, it's terrible. I would say, get Yaroslav
Pelican's book, Emergence of the of the Catholic Tradition, Volume
one and start there. Jason, what's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Hello, Hello, Yeah, I wanted to ask you, Okay.
Speaker 3: I wanted to Yeah, I wanted to.
Speaker 26: Ask him, how could you cool yourself a church when
in communion was the Apostolic?
Speaker 3: See?
Speaker 1: Are you being serious?
Speaker 3: Yeah, because you guys accepted.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is the guy who calls in with the
This is the guy who calls it. You call in
with the same stuff, all right, So you can't do it. Yeah,
this has already been all right, so you won't shut up.
This has already been addressed by UBI. It's already been
addressed by UBI. Yeah, I think you understand that your
papacy calls us Apostolic churches even still. Okay, does the
papacy call us Apostolic churches still to this day?
Speaker 30: Because does it?
Speaker 1: It's already been addressed in Ubi's talk. This is the
guy who calls in. He called in like a week ago.
We did this whole cycle of the same stuff with
Pope Agatho. It's it's still just the lowest tier twenty
year old guys that just learned this stuff like a
few months ago, and they think that that's a gotcha.
Ubi's already dressed this right here, the Labella's of hermisdas
and the failure of policy. You can read that right there.
But the iron is that even if I granted that
it was accepted, the papacy to this day calls Orthodox
churches true Orthodox churches, even though they're not in commune
with Rome. So the e humanist turn of the papacy
invalidates the papacy. But they again perfect example of not
understanding system level argumentation. Because even if I grant that, okay,
you're right, but let's say we're all supposed to be papists,
how do we deal with the fact that the papacy
has contradicted itself. But you see, he won't actually stop
and have a conversation. He just wants to stutter with
his Asperger syndrome and his retard mouth. What's up, Hello, yep.
Speaker 8: Oh, I just had a question about conspiracy texts.
Speaker 19: So I noticed, like I've sent from one of.
Speaker 40: Your Twitter lists, there had like fifty conspiracy textbooks.
Speaker 1: To that do was like Daffy Duck, He's like a
Roman calolic. Daffy Duck apologizes, go ahead, what yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 18: So I was just wondering if you ever read William
Cooper like All the Pale Horse.
Speaker 1: No, it's retarded, dumb shit. I wouldn't recommend that book
anything dealing with like alien crad No, I don't. I
don't like conspiracy books. That's why we stick to most
of the time. I would say eighty percent of the
time we stick to texta are from the establishment, admitting
their positions. I hope Saint Daffy that's like the third
profile he's created, by the way, because I always boot him,
and then Saint Daffy Duck creates another profile and then
he like quacks back in spitting all over his Could
you imagine the spit That's like like he's got to
get some kind of spit guard for his computer or
else his MAC with short circuit uh fuffing, what's up?
I mean, that's what we've been reduced to in the
Roman Catholic apologetic world is basically fat wingers like Michael
Lofton sellouts going to the Israeli wire, Matt Fraud, I
mean Matt Frad. And now we've got saying Daffy Duck
over here, spitting all over, spew and everywhere, all over
the keyboard, smoke.
Speaker 5: You must we've a kind of guy who gives whole
candy barnes Man Halloween.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yummy, we got Daffy Duck apologetics over here? What's
up man?
Speaker 3: Hello?
Speaker 1: Yep?
Speaker 41: Hey has a going JPIG fan. I got some of
your book recommendations, and reading through him, I realized that,
you know, I'm not actually picking up necessarily on the references.
So I've been having a lot of time spending in
the First Millennium and the Fathers.
Speaker 5: Is there sort of maybe a way to go about it?
Speaker 1: Well, you've been reading my recommendations and you're not picking
up the references. What do you mean?
Speaker 28: Oh?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 41: So sometimes I'm just very new to it. So when
I'm reading the books, I'm realizing I'm beyond my depth.
So I'm wondering if maybe there's a nice way to
go about reading about the first millenniums and understanding the true.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I wouldn't start with reading the Church fathers themselves necessarily,
unless you want to begin with an easy text like
on the Incarnation by Saint Anthonasius, five Theological Orations by
Saint Gregor nazian Zeus, on the Holy Spirit by Saint Basil.
Those are very readable, accessible introductory patristic texts. I would
actually start with a pretty normative seminary text that's used
by Protestants Orthodox Catholics. They are a slav Pelicons, volume
one of the Christian tradition. It's Emergence of the Caliti tradition,
volume one. So I would say start with that because
you need to get an overall introduction to the terminology
and who this person is, et cetera, before trying to
go deep into like I'm gonna read Saint Maximus on
the LOGI like, you're gonna be lost. Sons of Jared.
What's up? Man? We got a daffy dut profile actually
in the chat. That's weird. I hope it's that guy again.
I'm mute man.
Speaker 32: First of all, I get into a lot of beefs
on Twitter, and what I do is I tag your
stream for them to come to.
Speaker 3: So I get into.
Speaker 32: Uh yeah, yeah, so I would tag. I would tag
your stream, so I invite a lot of people. Then
this at the end of the day never show up
to debate.
Speaker 4: So I want.
Speaker 1: None of this. By the way, none of the Zionists,
Christian Zionists that we act and uh messaged and smack
talked for two weeks, not one of them would show up.
None of the pastors, none of the evangelical wine moms,
none of them would come.
Speaker 4: Yep, And I was going in that direction.
Speaker 32: But since father digging this year, I was wondering if
I can push a bit on tag. First, I watched
your videos about especially with Muslims, and are you aware
of kigging classification?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 32: So kigg in class five classification is the ability of
abstracting from abstraction to discuss your worldview, and apparently only
five percent can do it.
Speaker 1: Oh wait a minute, that sounds very relevant.
Speaker 2: What's it called.
Speaker 5: Classification?
Speaker 36: E g.
Speaker 32: A n AS in North Robert Keighan order of consciousness?
This is psychology, a bit of pseudoscience, but there is
some I mean, there's also PHGA classification, which also saws
abstracting from abstraction is about ten percent, So consider me
of the ninety percent who don't get it, okay, so
that I'm not trying to show off of saying better
than others. So the problem was attacked that I'm encountering,
and I had an atheist phase and a lot of
time I get into this with atheism, and you talked
about this, So I just want to push back a
bit on it because you're more coherent than me.
Speaker 4: So at some point.
Speaker 32: There is an abandonment of knowledge for utility if I'm understanding,
and for example, I would tell you why do I
have to justify logic and reason if you cannot argue
against them without using them?
Speaker 5: So why do they justification?
Speaker 9: What can be? Yes?
Speaker 3: What's pragmatic? Why don't you to justify logic? So that's
the first push back.
Speaker 18: On deck.
Speaker 4: How would you answer this?
Speaker 1: Well, if you don't have to justify your use of
a thing, then why do I have to justify my
belief in God? Right? So it's just sort of like
the same problem that we presented with Matt della Hunty
when he was like, well, presuppositions or assumptions just by
definition can never be justified and I was like, well,
but Matt, you said never believe in something that you
can empirically verify, so that would be a contradiction. But
Father Deacon at Nias, are you there? Are you available?
Do we have it? Why should I have to justify logic?
Isn't it just a thing that just is? Just as what? Yeah? Right?
Speaker 39: So you're claiming a person's claiming that logic is a
whole bunch of things, a couple of which that it's
normative that we ought to hold to these logical rules.
And then somebody just turns around says, I don't have
to justify that. Number two, that logic used properly is juspraitory.
Speaker 5: So if it just is, well that doesn't answer why
is it justpratory? Why are those there using that the.
Speaker 4: Correct way to get to a true belief?
Speaker 39: So it's just a hand wave, And if that's true,
you can just say it just is, then we can
just say anything is. I don't I don't have to
just it just is. That's just the way things are.
And a third, it's not like I said, it's not
even a complete sentence. I mean, the persons obviously are
either retarded or having a stroke. Is what is it
matter bouncing around? Is it are arbitrary rules? Is it
just axioms and all that's going to imply a whole
bunch of hosts of other things too. So it's just
it's a really stupid load tier. Like just even incomplete sentence,
I agree with what you're saying.
Speaker 32: The other thing comes into mind is that they would
say that. And this is one eighties that Jay debated,
and the guy keeps saying that he's a monkey.
Speaker 3: And his probability.
Speaker 32: The issue is if you have everything is a probabilistic belief,
which is, you know, this is as close as you
can get to mathematical science, and then mathematics and probability.
Probability probabilistic believe would not allow you to have knowledge,
to have a pew of one. And then if you
don't have knowledge, so you cannot say you can only
have you can only say or have truth or knowledge
if you say something that's logical, mathematically, mathematically correct, or
a definition. But you cannot say something that.
Speaker 3: The sun is going to shine tomorrow.
Speaker 32: You also cannot say something that you and I are
talking right now, So this would become very obviously dumb.
But you cannot have this conversation because they'll tell you
that we cannot say that you and I are having
this discussion right now, and this is hard to tell
them that it's so stupid because if you don't believe
that you are talking, then why are we having this
debate right So there's a skins in between then refusing
to acknowledge that there's truths or knowledge now other than
more relativity, which is they cannot justify morality. I'm trying
to bring out how this is a bit incoherent that
you cannot get to the truth you only assign a probability.
Speaker 3: Did you see what I'm trying to say?
Speaker 5: Jay and Father?
Speaker 3: You can where the problem.
Speaker 1: Is FDA you anders, Sorry I missed you know.
Speaker 39: My problem is I'm writing an argument or I'm listening
to an argument.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, the answer to that question is just if
the that's the atheist basically saying the only things that
are real are the things that I determine our quote facts,
and those are the only things that I determine our
mathematical or are material objects, and so if you talk
about anything else by definition, they're not real. Well, that's
just them sort of poisoning the well and sort of
setting that they're they're staying from the outset. I'm not
going to allow anything that isn't within the parameters of
my worldview to be even considered. So they're saying the thing,
they're just stating what's in question, Yeah, exactly. Like, like
I'm father dea. Can imagine what would you say if
let's say you're talking to me and I'm an atheist,
and I say, well, look, the only things that exist
are facts, and those are only things like physical objects
and mathematical proofs. Anything else you talk about, by definition,
doesn't exist, and you can't even make sentences about those things.
They're not real. So sorry, let's hear about God, which
by definition doesn't exist.
Speaker 18: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I just isn't that convenient?
Speaker 39: Yeah right, I just arbitrarily define what's facts and exclude
things that would.
Speaker 1: Refute my argument exactly.
Speaker 5: So if you can do that, then I do that.
Speaker 39: It's like, well, I define facts is everything that's the
opposite of what you're saying.
Speaker 1: Well, you're only doing that to come up with your
fictional deity. That's the only way you can defend your
theism is to to state the opposite of what we
all know is a fact.
Speaker 39: And what's and it does push it pushes it obviously
back to that, well, how do you know it's a fact? Second,
these people don't even know what facts are. If you
ask them what a fact? The point is something empirical.
But like when we're covering in philosophy of science, facts
are not out there. It's not like the dog out
in the yard took a fact on the lawn and
I stepped in it.
Speaker 5: Right, Facts are proposes are properties of propositions about the world.
So they don't even know what they're talking about with
regards to that. And then that opens up a whole thing.
Speaker 39: Well, how do my propositions how are they derived from
the empirical world?
Speaker 5: And that's a problem they.
Speaker 39: Can't can't ever answer, because think about this, you have
an incommensurateness between the propositions, the thoughts, the logic, and
the world wide All of those are dose tactic, which
is like from the Greek word doaks of beliefs? Their
logical conceptual their beliefs is logic out.
Speaker 5: There in the world? Is it in the empirical matter?
Speaker 39: So how can what's non non conceptual, non logical, and
non propositional not non beliefs nondok taxic be a justification
for the opposite category.
Speaker 1: Do you see a brit La yeah album, Yeah, no,
that's great.
Speaker 39: You're just locked in your head just making up arbitrary.
They're either just trivial, but they're non substantial. They have
no way of bridging the gap.
Speaker 1: Let's talk God ten dollars. The guy who just called
in the Daffi Duck Apologist was supposedly Orthodox for a
year and he was always running around arguing with Catholics.
Then he said he read Calcidon and that converted into Romansolicism.
Then after a few days he talked to you he
got baked on honoreas well. Yeah, I mean that's obviously
somebody who's clearly a spurg. I mean, I'm not t
be mean, but like you could tell that the guys
like this is what happens with sort of twenty year
old guys that you know are determining the religions on
the basis of the latest thing that they read on
on Twitter or on the latest YouTube video that they saw,
the latest article they read. Is like they're going to
be something else in a few months. And I don't
mean that in a mean way. But it's like, I mean,
the guy was just doing the exact opposite to the
Roman Catholics not too long ago. So then he'll move
on to atheism when he when he finds what he
thinks is a simple problem in Rome. I mean, I
can't imagine going from Orthodoxy to Rome without having mental problems.
Nathaniel Castro of five dollars. To justify that words have meaning,
you have to use words and to justify the claim
words have meaning. Is it necessarily then a circle? Is
it like this with logic? Yeah, I think when you're
asking fundamental level questions about things like how do we
know that logic is logical? How do we know that
words have meaning? Well, you're inescapably going to have to
use words to describe it, or you're going to have
to infer or assume or utilize meaning to discuss words
and meanings. So correct, that's the point that we make about,
Like Father Degan says, at a certain point arguments become
recursive or self referencing. That's not the same thing as
the fallacy of circularity. It's rather a different order of questioning,
which I like that guy that called in made this
point that I didn't realize there was some sort of
psychologists I guess who had come up with this levels
of like basically, this is just kind of like levels
of abstract abstract thinking basically. And that's not to say
that all of Orthodox her religion is summed up in
your ability to be an abstract thinker. I mean that
was the case, then you know Gurdell and all these
mathematicians would all be Orthodox. No, it's just the mental
capabilities and IQ levels that people do or don't have
to be able to abstract and then abstract even further.
And as we've seen, and I don't mean that to
be mean, this is just a fact when and it
backs up what the claim is that very very few people,
only a small percentage, allegedly have the ability to abstract
from an abstraction. It's a very small amount of people.
And I think the challenge that we did, you know,
we had the six hours of Muslims and we asked
the six hours of Muslim audience people, can you just
simply restate what the argument is? And not one of
them could except for that one girl who was I
think a PhD. And then she started kind of realizing
where she would have to go if she admitted what
the argument was. So, in other words, to be able
to restate someone else's argument and to understand it requires
some degree of abstraction, and apparently a lot of people
can't do that, and then even fewer people are able
to abstract from an abstraction, and that's I think a
big challenge. And as I said for a long time,
I mean, the hardest part of it, of the transcendental
argument is really just it kind of requires a lot
of IQ and that's a negative when it comes to,
you know, explaining using the tag argument on a mass
scale unless you're talking about something kind of accessible like ethics, right,
Like is a Dossievsky that says something like if God
doesn't exist, everything's permitted. That's just a really super super
basic version right of tag applied to ethics.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Without God's existence, there's no justification for ethical norms and
right and wrong. So yeah, FDA would there's the thing
you want to say about that, like, what's the relationship
between you know, being able to think abstractly and an argumentation?
And this also fits into what I was saying earlier
with the Roman Catholics. And that's not to say that
the Roman Catholics will have low IQ because many of
them are very, very intelligent, very high IQ, especially a
lot of the Tomists. But if you don't think systemically,
and if you don't think about problems that have, if
you don't think about system level problems, right, then you're
not going to think about well, if the papacy contradicts,
then that's a defeater for the papacy.
Speaker 18: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I think it's a general problem too. So it's not
just thinking abstractly, but interest using introspection.
Speaker 36: Where we're.
Speaker 39: That's abstract to look at our system like, well, what
would why is this true?
Speaker 5: What would be a defeatter for it?
Speaker 39: I mean, every you know, and philosophy can help train
you in kind of thinking. But you know, when I
make an argument or a statement, I introspect it is that.
Speaker 4: Is that good?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 19: Is that?
Speaker 5: What would be a counter example to that?
Speaker 39: And there's this sort of intellectual odosity that well, maybe
I didn't get it right.
Speaker 5: I need to think about it some more. If you're
in a cult, they do what they.
Speaker 4: Encourage you to.
Speaker 1: Pretty good friends with him recently, so we're gonna be
talking to him when he gets here, having a fun
laid back interview, and I think it'd be fun too
for you guys. Also, we'll keep the stream going. You
guys can call in and ask your questions, not just
to me, but also to our special guest, who will
be here in a moment. H raid Uh excuse me, Rado,
what's up?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 1: Rado? What's up yet?
Speaker 2: I mute?
Speaker 3: Hey man, time of listener.
Speaker 5: How's it going you?
Speaker 3: I had a quick question.
Speaker 29: I'm well, yeah, a lot of people, I guess I.
Speaker 3: Have to synthesize. I guess I'm Costa Rican.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 29: Costa Rica, just if you don't know, is one of
the last like officially quote unquote Catholic nations.
Speaker 1: I did not know that.
Speaker 29: No, Yeah, that's because ship like it doesn't really.
Speaker 4: Have that much of an impact problem right right today.
Speaker 29: But man, one of the things that has been interesting
is that, I think, like two years ago or a
year ago, it was kind of officially.
Speaker 3: Now not officially, I mean, out.
Speaker 29: Of like surveys and whatnot, most of the country now
has become evangelical. The reason why that has happened, at
least for our understanding, seems to be a lot of
foreign influence, mostly out of like weirdly, I guess American organizations.
Speaker 1: Oh, I don't think that's weird at all. I think
that makes perfect sense in terms of what we've been
talking about today with American and soft power using evangelicalism
especially totally man.
Speaker 2: And you know, a lot of it has to.
Speaker 29: Do with the rise of liberation theology in a lot
of Catholic nations. Right, So I understand that this has
been kind of response against that, I guess through time,
But I didn't know I've heard you talk about like
influence of the Catholic or sorry, yeah, foreign influence.
Speaker 3: On the Catholic Church.
Speaker 29: But I wonder if you have any material more on
this kind of like evangelical self power kind of grab
through America.
Speaker 1: Oh uh, there's a book called I Will Be Done
that is about the Rockefeller use of evangelicals. It's a
very long book, but it's it's very extensive and covering
that subject. The wem Off book, even though it's not
primarily about evangelicals, is also relevant for that. John Courtney Murray, Time,
Lefe Magazine, and the American Proposition by David Wimhoff also
lost Hedgemon by f Wayam Ingdahl. Even though that's not
about Latin South America. Like you'll notice, like the idea
is the same, right, he's talking about evangelicals. He's about
evangelical use, use of campus crusade and all that, and
in other places like Africa. The Cony twelve so that
was all evangelical campus crusade, Pentagon alliance stuff. But other
than that, I will be done. I'm not sure if
this specific book that deals with Latin South American evangelicalism,
but you know, you know what, I'm really thinking about
writing my next book on this topic of church soft
power because the wind My book is great, but it
basically just focuses on the Roman Church, and we, you know,
we really need to kind of think about how all
of these churches are used. It's not just Rome. So
maybe I'll write a book on that. I don't know.
Speaker 3: That's it, Thanks man, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Yes, and I have not read the totality this book
because it's really long, but I have read the chapters
that deal with like the Rockefellers and evangelical stuff. Let
me pull it up here. Yeah, this is it. I
will be done. The Conquest of Amazon, Nelson, Rockville and
the Rockfeller family right here. Evangelism in the Age of
Oil deals with Latin South America and several chapters. But
all right, so I think our special guest is here,
So we're going to take a brief pause. Don't go anywhere.
We're still going to We're going to be back with
our special guests, and I will take calls and we
will take Q and A when he gets situated up
here with me, and until then we will play a
couple ads from our beloved sponsors over here. On it
is not marky Mark, and it's not Mark Morrison, and it.
Speaker 9: Is not I.
Speaker 1: No, you don't.
Speaker 42: I'm going to put you on something crazy real quick.
Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling, synthetic
dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even
know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do
not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or
Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences.
Speaker 1: There's a new.
Speaker 42: Certified Sigma male pre workout powder for sigmas only. It
is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers,
fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village.
Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners,
and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which
are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and
effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode. Colored
with organic blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic
maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab.
Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract
which will get your mind going and pump you up
to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with
all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind.
Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single
pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming
nasty fake sucralose. Each dose of chad Mode contains the
kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering
a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids,
and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire
your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode
will make you more dominant in your daily life, so
proceed with caution. It's as simple as mixing one or
two scoops of our fine powder into water or juice,
providing you with a delicious, energizing beverage featuring a burst
of sweet organic fruit flavor. Chad Mode will give you
the extra edge you desperately crave. Don't miss out. Secure
your supply of chad Mode on TikTok shop with a
limited time, massive discount. Elevate your workouts and supercharge your days.
Chad Mode not for your average jimbrozoomer who consumes synthetic
blue dyes on the daily.
Speaker 11: Buy on the.
Speaker 42: TikTok shop now with a massive discount provided by TikTok
for a very limited time. Buy now while this is
still available, or go to chalk dot com and use
code in caption. Chad Mode has been flying off the
shelves because it's the first of its kind, certified for
Alpha males only. Do not buy if you are a beta,
we will refund your money. I'm gonna put you on
something crazy real quick. Most of these Zoomer Jimbros are
consuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily.
They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great
about that. Do not listen any further unless you are
an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there
could be consequences.
Speaker 1: There's a new.
Speaker 42: Certified Sigma male pre workout powder for sigmas only. It
is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co w
fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village.
Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners,
and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors, which
are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and
effective formula experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored
with organic blue Spirolina extract organic.
Speaker 1: I want to show off something that we're all proud of.
Speaker 43: I've got a browser here. This is Jay Dyers, much vaunted,
much sought after philosophy one oh one. Now he just
got this page up. We are just testing it out.
You guys are some of the first people in the
world to see it. I want to say, for my part,
it's not philosophy one oh one. I think this is
as mistitling. I really think is as like philosophy unleashed
because a philosophy want on one course, they give you
kind of some useless information that you can't make sense of.
Jay actually lays out, over twelve weeks, dozens and of
hours put into just the presentation of this let alone,
the hundreds and thousands of hours of research that it
takes to have a coherent evolution and history of the
origins of philosophy, the uses of philosophy, the different ways
to look at it over time, and how that has
been brought about to what we have today, which is
almost an absence of philosophy on the