Speaker 1: The world, and it's so wrong headed to begin with,
because why would the world listen to me when my
own life isn't even right? Does that make sense? I
have my alp and what do you mean? What am
I spinning? I can't swallow this stuff yet, it's too strong.
I'll start pukin if i's swallow it. So there's a
lack of lived experience when it comes to the ideology
of fixing the system by going back to some medieval ideal.
For example, look at what we see with people like Wagner.
Wagner is erecting a thumistic scholastic online cult that has
nothing really to do with Rome, the actual Roman Catholic Church,
because Rome long ago quit caring about Tomism. You think
Pope Leo cares about what Thomas aquina Is says in
the Middle Ages now, And so Wagner might have good motivations.
Maybe he really thinks that medieval scholasticism is the answer,
But much like Redeemed Zumer, it's not really realistic. It's
not the real world. It's not where we are, it's
not where his church hierarchy and leadership is. And so
it's just kind of funny and I guarantee you in
ten years he'll look back at a lot of this
and think how silly it was thinking that you could
restore the Middle Ages or bring back medieval scholasticism when
it's already coming gone. Think about I mean, so, you
see there's different versions of this, Right, there's the left
wing socialist idea, Oh, we're going to institute everybody getting
a universal basic income and it'll all be fair and equal.
Now it's not realistic, and it also does even it
doesn't take into account not just the practical failures of
communism and socialism, but it doesn't even take into account
how socialism has been a tool of wealthy elites. So
it's a very naive, unstudied, and unlived experience. And you'll
notice that typically with a lot of the ideological figures,
the face lords, they attract very young guys who are
very idealistic. Now it's not bad to be young and idealistic.
It's just that you need time to mature. And there's
no bypassing that you can't make that happen with some
kind of special argument or the right book or the
right you know, algorithm, or the right disputation. It just
takes lived experience, and it also takes lived experience of
you making mistakes. So if you're twenty twenty five, you've
not had enough time even to make mistake shit, and
you will make mistakes, You will make moral failures, you
will have huge mistakes in your life that you're going
to regret. I don't care who you are. There's nobody
that gets out of life without some kind of big
mistake or failure or something, and that will teach you
the lesson that you're not better than everybody else. But
twenty year old guys think they've got it all figured out.
They're better than anybody else. Everything's black and white. And
by the time they're thirty and they cheat on their girlfriend,
or they've been cheated on, or they fall into some error,
they'll learn the lessons the hard ways, the hard way.
That this is why God allows us, as the Saints say,
to fall into these sins, is to teach us humility,
and humility is more important than having the right scholastic disputation.
Doesn't make scholastic disputations necessarily wrong. Many of the Orthodox
Saints were very scholastic, like Saint Photios, but it's more
important to be humble than it is to simply be right,
but also understand that humility is not the same thing
as being confident or she me. Humility is not the
same thing as pretending to be soft spoken and have
a skittle's affectation and talking like an NPR person, or
or appearing very pious and praying on the internet praying
on stream.
Speaker 2: Oh Lord, I pray to you that all of the
internet debaters would humble themselves and be more like me. God,
I thank you that I am not like these internet
debater men who are so impious and the three oh
four's on only fans.
Speaker 1: I am so much better.
Speaker 2: But I thank you God that you made me better
than them, and I will pray online.
Speaker 1: For all of you, like scam shawmu for thirty minutes.
I mean, that's worse than the three h four. So
a lot of people mistake that kind of stuff for spirituality.
I think it's a performative stage play or something. I
don't know. That's not what it is. And ultimately, only
God knows our hearts, even though yes, it's true that
you will know them by their fruits. So the first mistake,
big error that I made when I was young was
thinking in an overly idealistic way and not realizing that
life isn't actually I mean, in some areas it's black
and white, but in a lot of things, and in
a lot of areas, it's not that easy in black
and white, and you only learn that with age and mature.
The next thing that awoke me from my dogmatic slumbers
was a couple books. And when I talk about Spengler,
I'm not promoting him as like infallible or that he
got everything right. In fact, I think he made some
pretty significant, kind of basic philosophical blunders. But when I
read a good bit of Decline of the West, I
was impressed with the way that Spangler categorized history kind
of similar to the way that the prophet Daniel categorizes
history right in these kind of life cycles or organic
forms that have a lifespan, a birth, a growth, a nadir,
and a death. And when I read this, I realized, oh, actually,
you don't ever bring back or reinstate a come and
gone historical form. And this really crushed the overly idealistic
attitude that I had that you could recreate, you know,
a medieval Latin templar night kingdom or a Byzantine imperial
you know, superstructure. It doesn't mean there can't be a
return to traditional forms, to monarchy, to you know, out
of homo economicists. All those things are possible. It just
means that you're not going to recreate a come and
gone form. So I also read another text around the
same time from somebody in a similar sort of school,
and he's a controversial figure, and that is Francis Parker
Yaki's Imperium. And both Spangler and Yaki's books were influential,
but they both taught me and showed me that again,
historical forms come and go, and politics and empires come
and go. So if empires come and go, then we
need something beyond an empire that is actually the power
in even an empire, and that of course is Orthodox Christianity.
Orthodox Christianity was the actual power behind Byzantium. And when
Orthodoxy faded, Byzantium became uniate and faded, when other ancient
civilizations in their ideology faded, they didn't come back. There
will be no new revived Chaldean magas society. Like Spangler
talks about Magian society, societies focus around the magis right,
the magician, there will be no new future of Faustian society.
In fact, Spangler predicted that the third world would utilize
the technology that Faustian Western Man created to then subjugate
Western Man. And he seems to have been accurate in
that prediction because, as we know, Wellington House, the predecessor
to Tavistock, studied Spangler's decline to the West to weaponize it.
Spangler was not against the West, he was talking about
where he saw these forms going, these civilizations going, So
studying civilizations and getting into civilizational studies, not just reading
these men, but also reading you know, Carol Quigley, Tragy
and Hope, reading Julius Evela, reading the Perennialists, Reading a
lot of these people over the years throughout my twenties
and thirties showed me that a broader, wiser perspective, I think,
understands that we can only go forward in the future
building on the shoulders of giants, but never reinstating a
coming gone historical form. And if you understand that, it's
not absolute sizing historical process, it's just recognizing the limitations
of historical forms. And so I think Spangler would say
something like you could build on the shoulders of the
giants that came before. You could build on the shoulders
of the previous civilizations, but you will never resurrect Byzantium
or the Holy Roman Empire or whatever your pet Dungeons
and dragons, you know, dungeon lore is, and this is
why it is accurate to understand trad Catism and third
way reich Ism kind of as dungeons and dragons lore.
It's LARPing for sure. Now. And the next thing that
happened as I've talked about my next big mistake that
I was wrong about when I was younger, And we'll
get into some of the theology here in a minute.
I'm not going to spend too much time on steel
Manning Protestantism, because I think everybody kind of knows why
a person would be Protestant or even Roman Catholic. I
will touch on those, but it's not going to be
the focus of what we talk about today. But my
next big mistake was conspiracies. Yes, you heard me right, conspiracies.
What how can conspiracies be a mistake when haven't we
been vindicated and seen that over the last twenty plus
years of let me see how I've been a conspiracy
there since nineteen ninety eight, so twenty seven years of
conspiracy theorists. How could that be quote wrong? How could
that be deboomed? And I think for everybody who gets
into that kind of stuff, going down the rabbit hole
and all that, you know, there's a kind of a process.
You go through a phase of oh, maybe aliens are real,
Maybe there was ancient Atlantis civilizations with high technology. Maybe
there is moon bases with you know, you know, galiens
running around touching who knows, right. You got to go
through the phases. But after a while you start to realize,
actually a lot of this is just complete bull crap,
and the people that push the nonsense are pretty much
kind of con men and goofballs, and you start to
realize after a while, these people are just making up nonsense.
Remember the face on Mars. Remember Richard Hogland. And I'm
just using this as one example of I remember when
I when I first started reading a lot of this
kind of conspiratorial stuff, and I read Hogland's book, Uh,
Dark Dark Mission was that the name of it? And
then it's like, wait a minute, So there's all these
bases on Mars and NASA was some sort of alien
It's just a bunch of nonsense, right, Yeah, that's it,
dark mission and you know, like coast to coast level stuff. Right,
and then you start to realize, Okay, wait a minute,
this is all just distraction science. I find gibberish nonsense, right,
because that stuff is almost a massive distraction from real conspiracies. Now,
I'm not saying that there's no weird phenomena that going.
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm just saying
that a lot of these people you start to realize
are cooks, spooks, and crooks and all of the above. Right,
you could be all three. So one of the things
that shook me out of my dogmatic slumber slumbers in
this regard was a documentary I saw when it came out.
Oh what's the name? I just went blank. What's the
documentary that shows the alien Stuff's a bunch of syops.
It's a really good documentary mirage. Now, I'm not saying
that everything in this documentary is true. I'm saying that
this combined with other critiques that the Collins brothers had
written about the alien phenomena. They had written articles like
alien smoke screen twenty years ago, fifteen twenty years ago,
way before they had collected it together in their excellent
book Invoking the Beyond. I started to think, well, wait
a minute, A lot of this alien stuff doesn't even
make sense. And you start to notice that the alien
narrative also pushes technocracy, it pushes panspermia, Darwinian evolution. A
bunch of the stuff that we think is obvious gibberish
is pushed by the alien loons. So if you've never
seen this, I highly recommend it now. I'm just using
alien stuff as one example. I was never actually really
into aliens. I remember entertaining the possibility of this, maybe
maybe in the year two thousand and three or four,
but for me, aliens always just seem retarded, faking gay.
And then probably well, you say, you know, doctor Joseph Farrell.
I think that doctor Josepharrell is a perfect example of
somebody who had a lot of good theology and then
started pushing a lot of ridiculous nonsense that planets are weapons,
giz a death star. It's just it doesn't make any sense,
it's silly. So no, I don't believe any of that stuff.
That's just silly. Now, there could be catastrophism, there could
be weird stuff, but I just am not convinced by
what comes out of these kinds of gnostic presentations, gnostic
press books, et cetera. Well, way, if you want to
support the stream, you can do so through super chats.
So what was the thing that really turned my attention
away from the wu wu stuff and into the reality realm. Well,
at the same time as I was studying a lot
of those in grad school, I was learning about the
CIA espionage and how geopolitics is really about that kind
of stuff. The real conspiracy world isn't so much aliens
and which is all like perfect vehicles for disinformation. The
real conspiracy world is stuff like Russiagate, the concocting of
stories and narratives and disinformation nonsense in the real political,
geopolitical realm for verifiable purposes. And I started realizing, well,
the alien stuff does the same thing. It furthers a
technocratic agenda. You realize that clause world economic form, all
of those people push the alien stuff, and then the
same thing is going on the realm of conspiracies, much
of which is disinformation. So yeah, I watched abled enemies,
and I watched Loose Change and Alex's documentaries, and those
are all great, but you start to realize, well, well,
who is this deep state? What is this deep state?
What is really going on with this entrenched national security
state domain that seems to be behind a lot of
things like international banking scams, organized crime operation Gladio, paper Clip,
all that stuff seems to keep pointing back to this
kind of stuff, not men in black and all this gay,
retarded alien stuff, but actual operations that you can read
about in the history of the CIA, the history of
the OSS, the history of World War two, espionage, the
Cold War, All of that stuff kept pointing in the
direction of the real conspiracies are bankers and spies, not aliens,
ancient alien technologies and all this bullshit, Not reptilians from
the Zeta Reticulan dimension or whatever, but British Intelligence, the CIA,
the Masade. Those are the books that are the real
conspiracy books, the history of those things. This was a
big turning point in what I found to be real
conspiracies and not all of this sci fi star trek crap.
And I learned that I've started figuring out in my twenties, right,
And again, I think part of the reason I came
to that conclusion was in studying and writing about Hollywood
and studying underneath professors who had researched the history of
CIA operations in Latin South America. That same professor who
was a super lib by the way, that same professor
did a class on Oliver Stone and history. It was
one of my favorite college classes. And what we were
doing in that class was saying, Okay, here's Oliver Stone's presentation,
what is the closest that we could come to in
terms of historical accuracy? And compare that to what Oliver
Stone was putting in his films. And although I don't
agree with everything that Oliver Stone believes, a lot of
what he was putting in the films was more accurate,
for example, than what was the main line news narrative
of that time. And that doesn't mean I support, you know,
Bishop whatever that the James Wood movie, even though it's
a pretty good film. I'm not pro liberation theology or
anything like that. But I think when Oliver Stone was
intending to present these sorts of stories, nobody knew the
degree to which there was Israeli involvement in the GfK event, etc.
I don't think that he was intentionally putting out disinformation.
I think he was working with what he had at
the time. And so if you look at the tendency
in American politics to criticize, for example, Israeli foreign policy
and involvement in America throughout the seventies, eighties, and nineties,
that was largely the left. It didn't start to become
a right wing criticism until the last say ten years now.
Prior to the sixties or the seventies, eighties, and nineties,
criticism of that kind of stuff was. There were right
wing thinkers, father Coughlin, you know, other people who criticized
Israeli or Jewish involvement in American politics back in What
to Use fifties, et cetera. But that got shut down
very quickly by a lot of the World War Two
era propaganda and the films that were coming out from
Hollywood in the nineteen forties, which we've been talking about recently.
A lot of the Humphrey Bogart films, a lot of
the John Ford stuff, a lot of the Joan Crawford films.
They were all kind of targeted pretty obvious Allied propaganda films.
That doesn't mean that I'm saying tiny mustache man is good.
I'm just giving you the real history, which is again
not black and white, it's nuanced. Yeah. I mean, for example,
Oliver Stones Wall Street, right, essentially, Gordon Gecko operates like
a CIA handler, right. In fact, he even tells Bud
Fox that I want you to get dirt on people
and get inside information. That's how you actually, you know,
game the stock market. It's not who has the best
trading practices and who's the smartest. And so Gordon Gecko
is basically a kind of a Wall Street CIA operative.
So I could understand that critique and understand the flaws
of Wall Street and what Oliver Stone is saying, without
at the same time saying, oh, I guess communism and
socialism is good. You see, everybody functions, especially boomers, on
this very narrow either or framework, and all of us,
I think, especially when you're young, you're much more susceptible
to these very simplistic either or dialectics. Right. So thinking
that geopolitics, figuring out that geopolitics and espionage is the
real conspiracy was a big part of waking up out
of my overly conspiratorial slumbers, if that makes sense, because
then you start to realize like, well, actually all of
the world's embassies, everybody has embassies, and everybody knows that
spies are at embassies and this is just acceptable nation
state practice, that people are engaging in espionage. So I
think when you first, you know, learn about this stuff,
you kind of have a schizo paranoia phase where you're like, oh,
there's spies are where, everybody's a spy, everybody's an operative,
everybody in the media works with the CI. It's not
like that there is an understood expectation of nation to
nation power block the power block espionage. Not saying it's good,
I'm saying that that's the real world. That's how the
world works. So understanding more of history, understanding the big picture,
understanding civilizational studies was a level and a step beyond
the very simplistic disinformation that is everywhere in the conspiracy realm.
Does that make sense? So I'm not saying that there's
no conspiracies. I'm saying that the world of conspiracy literature online,
which you could go back to, you know, the JFK
era kind of kicks it off people questioning it, the
CIA demonizing people that question the event, calling them conspiracy theorists.
This eventually, in the eighties and nineties gives birth to
pat con or the Patriot conspiracy, where the Feds are
kind of infiltrating, you know, right wing militia groups and
these kind of simplistic Bible Belt sort of prepper groups.
And then what happens is we got this Ron Paul phase, right,
So I would say from say two thousand and three, four, five, six,
seven and eight, as Alex Jones and Ron Paul begin
to have some popularity, begin to have some nationwide notoriety,
calling attention to things that were very real, like the
Federal Reserve being a giant scam. So Ron Paul did
did a good job in calling attention on a large
scale to real conspiracies like the Federal Reserve. Now, Ron
Paul I think had a lot of not so good
ideas and ideologies, and I don't think that libertarianism is
a real answer, but at least in calling attention to
the Federal Reserve, he did a lot of positive in
the history of American politics. Unfortunately, though, it was still
kind of wrapped up in that very limited very negative
liberty scope that libertarianism has, whereas it's not a real solution,
even though it has some good critiques, just telling everybody
privatize everything and let me have my liberties grow, it's
not good enough. It doesn't do anything. There's no.
Speaker 3: World power.
Speaker 1: That was actually liberty tarian except for perhaps America for
a little while. And so people who then continue the
outdated limited answers of libertarianism, whether it's a Ron Paul
figure or whether it's a James Lindsay or a Tempoole,
I mean, they might have good critiques at points here
and there, but the answers and the solutions are just
not enough. They're not good enough. Just mud gdp and
let me have my business and let me have my
stash of gold like you know, I would need to
audit the FED and strive stack some gold like Ron
Paul says. I mean, it's just not enough. People actually
want world views, and they want a religious perspective that
makes sense of why we should be libertarian or why
we should have rights or duties. You see, So just
more enlightenment liberalism is not enough. And that's when I ultimately,
doctor Jordan Peterson never got out of maybe he will
never got out of the controlled classical liberal dialectic. This
has been my same critique of him for almost ten years.
You're not going to stop the onslaught of trans and
Antifa and all this insanity. BLM with liberalism, more liberalism,
more civic nationalism. It doesn't work. It's emasculated and ineffectual.
And so I had to grow out of that libertarianist
phase that I had in my twenties. I think many
of us have had this phase. And a couple of
things that I read that really shook me out of this.
One of them was actually a trad cap book that
I would still recommend. Obviously, Yaqui's Imperium is a massive
critique of liberalism, of course, But before I read this
gigan antic, seven hundred page book, I read a very
obscure Roman Catholic and her name is Solange Hurts, and
she wrote a book that I read when I was
in the SSPX, And this is actually a really good book.
It's called The Stars Spangled Heresy of Americanism. Now again,
everybody knows here I am not a papist, probably the
number the Internet's number one anti papist. But Solange Hurts
wrote a great book critiquing the idea of classical liberalism
in the American experiment, the dialectic of Enlightenment experiment, that
is Americanism. And again, while she was a traditional Roman Catholic,
I don't think there's anything in this book except for,
like you know, she cites paper and cyclicals and that
kind of stuff. Like she had a really great critique here.
So it was actually amongst the tridcat that I really
started reading and questioning my classical liberal libertarian ideas that
I think most of us, as Americanists, we just kind
of we swim in this voice. I mean, we swim
in this water, whether this is the air we breathe,
so we just sort of default to thinking that, well, yeah,
classical liberalism is like they answered all of this, we
just need more America, more freedoms. But people are now
becoming i think, either really really dumb or more sophisticated
out in the public discourse, and they're starting to figure
out that there's no such thing as just the freedoms.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: How many times have we had debates over the last
ten years with libertarians and by the way, we kicked
off our public debating career with debating Adam Kocash, the
ten year ago famous libertarian. Now nobody even knows who
Adam Cocash is. He's totally forgotten dinosaur in terms of
media voices. And I don't say that out of any negativity.
I don't. I don't hate the Guardis. I think Adam's
always been very nice on like a one to one level.
He sent me his books and stuff. But it's just,
you know, if you go back to that debate, he
just never got the point in that debate, which is
that classical liberalism is dead. It's a old it's a
come and gone philosophy, and the classical liberals are kind
of in the same mindset as me in my twenties.
It's this idealistic thing of like, well, if we just
bring back more America, right, and this will be my
main critique, even of Alex Jones. I mean, I love
Alex Jones. He's a great guy, always been very positive.
But the one critique that I would have of Alex,
I mean, obviously I would like to see him to
become orthodox, but politically, you know, this classical liberal stuff
is just not going to do anything. It's not the
answer more. I mean seventeen seventy six is kind of
the earlier version of nineteen eighty four because it's still
in the sonic revolutionary ethos and I didn't really get
any of that until I read this. And then there
was another book that I read as a trad cat.
I think it's a book put out by the SSPX.
What was it called. I want to say there was
an SSPX book that came out I'm talking about in
like two thousand and five, right, So I'm reading SSPX
literature in two thousand and four or five, and I
want to say there was some book that came out
about monarchy, but I can't remember the name of it,
and I don't even remember who wrote it. I still
have all these old SSPX books, but they're at the
other place, and they're like on an old shelf. I
haven't thought about these books in like fifteen years, so,
but they they did make an impact on me, because,
you know, there were quite a few Roman Catholic traditionalist writers,
you know, throughout the seventeen hundreds eighteen hundreds that were
writing critiques of revolutionary philosophy that are still pretty good,
and we would probably agree with a lot of that stuff.
So I never really went back to classical liberalism after
understanding my critiques of the Enlightenment not just from a
trad cap perspective, but also an orthodoxy. And even when
I wasn't Orthodox and I wasn't convinced of Catholicism anymore,
I mean I didn't become like a classical liberal. I
mean I might have still thought, well, there's some good
points in classical liberalism, like we want to have, you know,
economic exchange and freedom to some degree. We want to
have you know, some degree of liberty, but what the
parameters of that are and how society should be structured
is just not going to be sold by the Enlightenment.
Ideas of of like negative liberty and negative liberty is
not a Christian position. Historically, negative liberty is the idea
of the atheistic writers of the French Revolution and of
the Enlightenment that the state has no role other than
to be a minimal tool for economic exchange. That's it.
But in the traditional Christian belief, the Christian monarch has
a role to promote to a degree of the virtues
and to punish the vices. Now, that doesn't mean a
big brother state where the king stares into your bedroom
to see if you're jerking off or having dirty thoughts.
We're not talking about big Brother. We're not talking about
the state having a role to promote all virtues and
to punish all vices, because amongst vices, there's a difference
between vices that are crimes and vices that are not rhymes. Okay,
so there would be a distinction between what's criminal versus
just something that's merely advice. For example, the state couldn't
have penalties for dirty thoughts. Okay, that would be impossible,
it would be insane, it would be some kind of
weird nineteen eighty four scenario, right, But the state could
conceivably have obviously penalties for public displays of nudity. I mean,
I think that's still on the books in most places.
You could have the banning of PDF, the banning of
you know, sodomy publicly, that kind of stuff. Granted, there's
no way to prove what everybody's doing in their bedrooms.
So having a Christian state or a Christian monarchy does
not equate to nineteen eighty four. So don't misunderstand what
I'm saying, because I already know when I say this
kind of stuff. Wait a minute, if the state has
a duty to punish the vices to promote virtue, that's
you're going to be in our bedrooms. No, do you
think that monarchies in the history of the West were
spying in people's bedroom I mean, it's just kind of crazy.
It's not even remotely close to history. In fact, many
of these Western monarchs permitted whorehouses. And we saw both
Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas argued for the legitimacy of
the state allowing houses of ill repute. I'm not even
sure I'm convinced of that, So, I mean, I guess
and libertarians, well, by the way, we'll point to that
stuff to point out the libertarian ethos of the West
or whatever. Anyway, so I think this is a great
point too. And by the way, that was another thing
that I realized it was a problem in tradcatism, was
you have this hyper rigidity about sexuality and sexual morals
and everything's immortal sin and everything should be punished with
these crazy trad cats, and then the top trad cats
argue that the state should allow whorehouses. I was like,
this is just insane. I mean, to me, that's just crazy,
like these people, there's something off in this world of
trad cats. By the way, a lot of the trad
cats that I knew back then have since come out
as skittles. Shocker. That's why that when that guy put
that thing up that he was at the SSPX mass
and he was, he looked on grinder and like three
of the dudes were sitting in the pew next to
him on grinder. So yes, trad cat is full of
gay shocker. Now moving on, I was, as you guys know,
Protestant and Roman Catholic, so I was a Calvinist and
I was a Catholic, and I'm not going to spend
a whole lot of time on that, but those were
huge mistakes because I had zeal without knowledge, and even
though I read like crazy and I read all the
time because I didn't want to be wrong about my theology,
I had absolute perfect spurgitude when it came to trying
to perfect my theology. And I learned as I got
older that actually reading all the right books and figuring
all the stuff out is a futile quest. That might
sound paradoxical, because of course I do like theology, and
I do enjoy intellectual pursuits. But I kind of realized
at the end of my twenties that I'll never read
all the books, I will never find all the information,
I will never get all of the archives, I will
never learn all the languages to go study in the
catacombs in the Vatican Library to figure it all out, Like,
it's not possible. Your life and your time is limited.
So I realized that although providentially I guess it worked
out that I had many, many, many years of reading
hundreds and hundreds of books, it kind of showed me
the futility of many, many many books. That's why Solomon
says to the making and writing of books, there is
no end. It's a futile thing. So what's the point
of all that That books don't matter? No, No, I just
had them in the wrong priority. And that brings me
to the next one, which is that obsessing over books
was wrong. Having the right Amazon list, the wish list
of reading list is not going to get you in heaven.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 1: I didn't think that having the books will get you
in heaven, but I did think that having the perfect
theology was absolutely essential, and that eventually led to a
dead end and it was just like, Okay, Rome is
not it? What do I do? And I had some
bad experiences back in two thousand and seven at some
Orthodox churches, and I was just like, I don't know.
So I was into sort of this amorphous unknown state.
I was not an atheist. I was kind of interested
in neoplatonism and perennialism or traditionalism to a degree. But
I wasn't like into some school of like, oh, I'm
gonna go study under Freidolf Schuan's cult. I mean, it
wasn't like that, just buying books and trying to figure
it out. So the next point is that everything was
lopsided in what I should have been doing. So the
books aren't the problem, the information isn't the problem. In fact,
throughout my twenties and thirties, I didn't most of the time.
I didn't spend any time on the Internet. I avoided
the Internet because I thought the Internet was a big problem.
I was pretty much right, and I always focused on
reading books. I didn't start doing internet stuff until about
twenty eleven, I mean consistently doing a lot of Internet stuff.
Prior to twenty eleven, I would only read books and
avoided the internet. And so I had wrong priorities because
I was still obsessed with figuring everything out. So I
wanted to read all the right geopolitical books, all the
right CIA history books, all the right espionage books, all
the right philosophy books, all the right whatevers, all the
right church fathers books. And I spent so much time
doing that, and it just ended up with kind of nothing.
And I was broke, still working a wage cuck job.
I had a massive library, even I was like in
my thirties still I think, working at a paint store.
I was a manager of a paint store. But it
was like I wasn't getting anywhere. I mean, I was
going to college, getting a undergrad and all that. I thought, well,
I'll just try to teach. My point being is like
I realized the futility of putting all of my time,
effort and energy into books. And it's not the books
that were the problem. It was the imbalance in me
that was the I should have been focused on furthering
my own situation in terms of getting established, getting a career,
et cetera or whatever. I mean, not that you have
to go into careerism, but I'll give you an example.
So in two thousand and seven or eight, when I
was going to be married to a girl prior to Jamie,
and I was going through the Catechumenate right, and I
was very interested in Orthodoxy, going to convert to Orthodoxy.
But I had a couple vices that were a serious
problem for where I was going. For one, I put
the theology and the ideas first, even though I was
dating for four years a girl that I intended to marry.
But I was not fair to her by putting my
ideas and my theology above everything else. And I really
struggle with this. I wasn't I don't think, maliciously trying
to be unfair, but I remember at one point she's
said to me something like, if you're going to marry me,
then marriage and a family should come before the theology
and the ideas. And she kind of had a point, right,
because we had been dating for four years and we
had the intention of getting married. And I was still
iffy about it because I was like, well, I need
to go to grad school and I need to you know,
get the PhD. And then maybe then I can you know,
provide for family or whatever. And she was like, well,
I'm ready to have kids now, and we should get
married now and now. Providentially, it all worked out to
where it was not the right thing to do. If
I had married her, I would have been a bad husband.
I would not have been able to provide and to
do the things that she actually had a really good
critique about. So she was actually correct. But in God's providence,
thank god we didn't get married, because it would have
been a disaster. It was a good thing, and for
her it was a better situation because she ended up
marrying a guy who was a priest, and I'm sure
she's much happier and she's got, you know, a full quiver.
She's got kids, and she's doing fine. And it worked
out way better for me to give me time to
actually mature and figure out I'm not actually made for
the mainline academia route. So you see how that would
have been a disaster. So it was actually better for
me to not have gone into that, to not convert
to Orthodoxy at that time, to wait, to take some
time and providentially come back around to it when I
was ready for that. I wasn't ready for that in
my twenties, twenty age twenty, I forget this is like
I was like twenty eight or something like that. So
one thing I would say too to my younger self
that was a mistake is that when I was younger,
obsessed with the theology and figuring it out and making
it all perfect, I also felt like I had like
it had to be done right now, like it's got
to be solved right now, and I had no concept
of patience and thinking, maybe it's going to take years
to get in the right place. Maybe God providentially knows
I'm not ready to do this stuff yet, and I
need time to mature. And that's exactly what it was.
And there's no solution to maturation that you can just
conjure up. I mean, a lot of the things that
we're talking about tonight actually has to do with time frames.
We're talking five, ten, fifteen, twenty year timeframes for some
of us. And that's okay. It's okay if you're not
immediately convinced of orthodoxy. It's okay if you say, hey, wait,
I'm not sure I'm ready for this. That's why we
always encourage people to take their time. And when I
was in my twenties, and it was two thousand and
seven and I was like, I need to figure this
out right now. I was not ready. I needed time.
So don't beat yourself up and freak out and act
spurgey in your twenties because you haven't figured everything out yet.
It's not a big deal. It's okay, Like take your time.
And everybody is so like attacked by this toxic culture
that now it's even worse. Right, So it took me
to age mid thirties to grow up. It's going to
probably take the next generation like into their forties to
grow up. So so getting a longer time frame and
learning patience was something that I really needed to learn
in my twenties and to not be so obsessed over
the things happening in the Middle East. I mean again,
I told you guys, like I got into the Middle
Eastern stuff in two thousand and seven. Around that same time,
right I started reading critiques of neo CON's American foreign policy.
I read all the anti Zionist, anti Talmudic, anti Jewish
stuff in the two thousands, and what I figured out was,
I'm not going to be able to solve this question.
I don't even have enough I live check to check
what am I doing? Worried about what's happening two thousand
miles away in the middle of four thousand miles away
in the Middle East, And I haven't like I'm struggling
check to check. My priorities are out of whack. That's
what I'm trying to say. And a lot of people
on the internet, a lot of activists, it's the same irrational, immature,
silly mistake. It's like, you're sounding out on the internet,
you're doing activism. Okay, that's great, but like, did you
pay your rent? Do you have a savings? And obviously
I don't believe in FII, but I mean, do you
have some bitcoin? Like what are you doing that shows
and demonstrates that you're actually a mature, capable man versus
bitching all day on the internet. And even though I
limited my time on the internet, I still bitched and
wind a lot on the Internet. For example, in the
two thousands, when everybody was on Facebook, I remember many many,
many nights drunk debating on Facebook. I mean, I don't
mean like sloppy, falling down drunk. I just mean so
much wasted time drinking beer and arguing on Facebook in
my twenties, And I'm like, what was I what the
heck was I doing?
Speaker 6: What?
Speaker 1: A complete waste of time? And as you get older,
you're going to look back and be like, dude, I
wasted Oh I wasted so much time in my twenties.
It was so retarded. Why was I doing that? That's
another huge mistake, drinking and wasting time in my twenties,
massive stupid mistake. The sooner that you don't do that,
the better you will be off, I trust you. So
looking for perfect theology when it came to Calvinism and
the systems of Aquinas, John Calvin and the papacy, right,
I was sort of looking for these perfect systems and
I went from one to the other, from Calvinism to Tomism,
thinking I found it. This is all This is the
perfect No, this is the perfect system. And again it's
not that systems aren't how things work, but I had
a overly high expectation, as a twenty eight year old
guy or whatever for thinking that the systems are the answer.
And is it Calvin, is it Thomas Aquinas? Oh wait,
maybe it's this other thing, right, And then you realize, okay,
none of these systems are going to be perfect. And
the systems were actually kind of an idol, and if
you told me that in my twenties, I would I would.
There's no way I was gonna say, oh, you don't
know what you're talking about. But then it dawned to me, Actually,
termism is an idol. Calvinism is an idol. The systems
are not Christianity. They have elements of it, and they're
trying to systematize it. And I still think in terms
of worldviews, paradigms, and systems, but I don't have the
same unrealistic, immature expectation for systems like I did in
my twenties. So when I see people like Wagner and
I see redeem Zoomer like I see myself in my twenties,
and hopefully as they get older, I think they will
also come to some of the same realizations that I
did when they get into their thirties and their forties.
Doesn't mean that you can't do systems analysis and systems thinking.
In fact, we still criticize the Roman Catholics for not
understanding and getting the point that if Roman Catholicism is
defeated at a systemic level, then it's a system defeater.
The system isn't true and there's no amount of catch
work that you can do if the system itself at
a systemic level is flawed. Last couple of points, so
that one is more so about the practical that I
didn't put establishing myself for a family and that kind
of stuff. And I was so obsessed with all the ideas.
And I've told you guys like my dad would say
stuff back then, like I try to argue with my
dad about geopolitics because it's like, oh, he was in
the Navy and he knows about Operation Mantis. He was
in Operation Mantis in the Gulf War and all this,
and we've talked about this, and I'd be like, well, yeah,
but you don't understand the neocons are all wrong because
blah blah, blah blah. And even though I was right
in what I was saying to my dad about why
the neocons were wrong, my dad would just say stuff
like do you have any assets? Have you got anything
in your savings? Do you have any property? Are you
sure that you're going to pay your rent next week?
And that would make me really mad, but my dad
was right. And as you get older, you realize, oh,
my dad wasn't just being mean. And I used to say,
what all the people say to me, d me, I
said the same stuff about my dad. Oh, my dad's
just mean. I can't believe you. So, even though I
was geopolitically correct, the neocons are a bunch of fraud losers.
My dad's point was rather way more practical. You're yapping
about all of this stuff in the Middle East thirty
fifty hundred years ago. Are you going to be able
to pay your rent next week? And that's stung. But
my dad was right and I was wrong. But I
was too immature and childish and out of whack to
realize that. And a lot of you guys that are
in your twenties that hate me, Now as you get
older in your thirties, you're gonna realize that I'm right
what I'm saying to you. And it's not because I'm
mean or I hate you or somebody. It's none of that.
My dad doesn't hate me. My dad is a gruff
military guy. But I look back and I realized he
was right. I was wrong. I was the one that
was immature.
Speaker 7: What does that say?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not talking about the Jordan Peterson clean your
room stuff Like I don't even know what that. I
don't even know what you guys are talking about. I'm
just talking about like basic living practices and figuring out
how to navigate in the world. A lot of the
stuff that people think boomers are crazy about or ridiculous about,
and boomers were and are way too focused on the practical.
So I still think they are obsessed over stuff like
just making money or something. But there is a point
some of it. Right, If you've never run a business,
how are you going to tell the world how money
should work? Just think about that. I remember when I
was in grad classes and we were talking about economics
one day, and I remember leaving one of my grad
classes and going and listening to Peter Schiff on a podcast,
and he made a really good point. And I totally
disagree with his gold boomer nonsense, right, but petersha have
made a really good point, which was, when you go
to college, you hear all these economics professors that have
all these high fulutant ideas about stats and how the
economy should work. And he's like, but these professors have
never run a business. Why would you think that a
person who's never run a business knows how the economy
should work, and I remember thinking, man, that's actually I
never thought about that. Real world practical insight and wisdom
is way more accurate than idealistic leftist, idiot college professor
socialists who tell you all the along about how it
should work and how it ought to be totally divorced
from the real world. And so again Peter shiff was
actually right, and that massively changed my paradigm when it
came to wait a minute, these professors don't know anything.
I mean, they know it's in some of the books.
But and I remember talking to Sammy the Bull, right,
and he said something like this, like, as a mafia guy,
I have a better insight into how the world actually
works than the professors. I was like, actually, that's pretty
much true. There's a funny scene in the Rodney Dangerfield
movie too, where this comes up back to school. So
there's this know it all college professor who's like talking
about all these economic theories, and Rodney Dangerfield goes back
to college, right, it's kind of a it's still kind
of a funny eighties movie. And he's just sitting in
the audio in the in the noting of the the class,
like in the back row and He's like, he's listened
to the professor tell all these theories, and then he's like,
who's going to grease the goods? Right, He's like coming
up with all this basic practical stuff about how you
actually run a business. So that's actually a pretty funny
scene that exemplifies what I'm saying. If you never watched
Back to School, watch it's pretty funny, but for eighties movies.
So I'm not gonna theologically go into the papacy or
Calvinism or whatever. We've done that a million times. You
guys can go watch all those all those critiques. But
I think personally part of the motivation for why I
looked at and believe those systems for certain years in
my life was because I thought, well, there is this
perfect system somewhere that actually categorizes and explains everything. And
when those systems would have very fundamental problem in them,
Calvinism and Tonism, then I would kind of be put
into a quandary in my worldview would collapse. So then
I didn't know what to do and I would have
to you know, kind of it's kind of the way
Jordan Peterson describes it, where you kind of have like
a death of your of yourself for a time period,
right your your worldview collapses, and it's a difficult experience,
but it's also a good experience because it allows you
to grow and become a better person. And it is
kind of like a little death, so to speak, when
you go through these paradigm level collapses in your in
your paradigm. So lastly, again to this point of like, yeah,
I was looking into different ideas and I will maybe
the neo Platonists and this and that, and maybe this
system and that system, and then I realized, Okay, there's
not a perfect idealized system, and maybe the system building
is itself the problem. And maybe books and deal politics
and political movements aren't ultimately going to say this and
that's not the ultimate answer. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy
those things. But in all of these things that we've
listed and talked about, I realized my priorities are out
of whack. That was the main problem here was I
was putting all these other dumb things first as if
I was going to solve the world's problems. And then
my own life has pretty significant flaws and problems and
I still have many problems. Sure, but when it comes
to writing my own books, running a business, etc. Like
those problems I have solved, right, becoming economically stable, paying
my bills. Those problems are solved. But I should have
focused on figuring out how to solve those problems way
earlier than trying to figure out all the world's problems.
Does that make sense? So now I want to head
on over here to X and we'll open it up
to see if somewhat related to these topics, if any
people want to call in. And I just said top
ten because it was loosely ten that I jotted down
on a piece of paper. It's not exactly ten, but
you get the idea. Good enough. Right, I will be
taking your calls, So we'll go ahead and start now
and see if we get some good calls. Maybe it's
time to now that we've kind of got a little
more breathing room on YouTube with what we can talk about,
maybe it's time to go through some of these classic
texts that we could used to talk about. Right, I mean,
we would have been doing lectures on Imperium, we would
have been doing lectures on Spangler, we would have been
doing lectures on all this stuff years ago. If we
hadn't had such a lockdown on what we could talk about.
And people say, oh, you're a coward because you didn't
just keep talking about Well, what was the point of
talking about the thing that would destroy the channel?
Speaker 4: I mean?
Speaker 1: And by the way, I did get my website destroyed,
So it's like I learned what it was like the
hard way to get my entire livelihood deleted in one
day and never got it back until I built it
back on my own.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So if you want to call in, you can call
in here on the X space where we are inviting.
Protestants are pretty much anyone else.
Speaker 8: I know.
Speaker 1: There's been such a a bevy of Protestants lately sort
of sounding off on Twitter. I thought maybe we could
get some of them to come and chat. I don't
know if they ever will, But what's up, man, what's
on your mind?
Speaker 9: Hey, I'm looking non denominational. I've been looking into product,
I mean, orthodoxy lately. I have some questions. Okay, kind
of because because I'm kind of in like a more
charismatic circle. I saw some of your previous work a
little bit, but like what is because I see a
lot of verses in the Bible that they quote about
like praying between like to the to the Father, praying
in the spirit, Like, what is your kind of a
response to those kind of verses.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, if you go to Orthodox liturgy, you'll
notice that it's all trinitarian, So there's always a focus
that the Holy Spirit moves us from the Son to
the Father. So there's this trinitarian movement of focus and
then it's not so it's not an either or so
when you say praying in the Spirit to the Father,
I mean, all the Orthodox liturgy is trinitarian, so it's
all going to be praying through the Spirit, through the Son,
in the spirit to the Father.
Speaker 9: Right, Yeah, there's a lot of different weird things they
do like that with the strinity.
Speaker 4: Because then a lot of them will get it kind.
Speaker 9: Of offended when you kind of mention because i mean,
obviously the Bible says like the Holy Spirit was given
like to the apostles, and then it goes through Apostolic
succession and it.
Speaker 4: Kind of remains in the church.
Speaker 9: Is kind of my understanding is that truly like me
and so these other people that kind of get offended
when they're like when they hear that kind of stuff
because they're like, we don't have the Holy Spirit, So like,
what is your kind of like understanding of like that.
Speaker 1: Well, they don't have the Holy Spirit in the sense
of the gift of apostolic succession. So in the Orthodox view,
the Holy Spirit in terms of authority and power to
preach the Gospel and celebrate the sacraments is a gift
that's passed on through apostolic succession, going back to the
laying on of hands of the apostles. So if you
read Paul's letters to Timothy, he describes this laying on
of hands and this transfer the gift of the Spirit
for episcopal presbytery authority. So that's for people to have
the authority to do the Eucharist and to exegy and
to forgive sins and so forth. That's different from the
presence of the Holy Spirit in terms of omnipresence, which
is everywhere. And yeah, there are movements and graces of
the Holy Spirit to bring people to the Orthodox Church,
or else none of us would have converted. But we
wouldn't say that becase because the Holy Spirit is everywhere,
that he's everywhere in the same way or in the
same power, in the same mode. So he's for example,
present at the Eucharist to make it the body, blood, soul,
and divinity of Christ in a way that he's not
present everywhere in the world. So there's a unique sacramental
presence that's not everywhere, and so that's why we make
these kinds of theological distinctions. So, yeah, the Holy Spirit
still can move and influence Protestants and Evangelicals, but not
in the same way mode, degree, force, and power as
in the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: And because with the Protestants, a lot of times, like
I mean, like I would like I kind of feel
like a.
Speaker 9: Lot of their criticisms come from a good place, and
obviously it goes the wrong way. But like, for example,
like the faith alone stuff, like I feel like a
lot of times they feel they feel good, like key word,
they feel like the church is a kind of forsaking
what Jesus did by putting stuff in the way. So
like and I kind of had like a question of
that's like if someone is like believes on Jesus and stuff,
and they're in the process of like maybe say katechisis
or maybe they're just going to an Orthodox church for
like three weeks or something, and like say that person
was like God forbid passed away or something like how
is something like that work where they're in the process,
because I think that's where a lot of Protestants get
tripped up and understanding the idea of salvation. They feel
kind of like the church is like kind of forsaking
what Jesus did, because that kind of is.
Speaker 4: Like a right.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I mean, first of all, Paul himself in
Galatians explains in what sense he means faith, and it's
not faith apart from any work. It is faith apart
from the works of Jewish ceremonial law, because he says
that the only faith that avails anything is the faith
that works through love. So it is a loving, working
faith that saves, as he says in Galatians five right there,
verse six, And that's exactly the same thing that James
is saying. When James says that it is not faith alone,
that's says, okay, So James and Paul teach the same thing.
It's just a Protestants take the passages where Paul is
talking about not by the works of the mosaic or
ceremonial law. Does this grace or this this theosis occur.
It is through a faith that works in love. Okay,
so it's not even oh, I in my heart do
an action of you know, in accord with the ten
Commandments and that causes God's grace to come to me. Now,
there's always a synergy, and even the works that we
do don't force God or cause God to save us.
God is the one who initiates, but the fact that
he initiates doesn't remove our energy of will and synergy
at every step in the process. There's never a part
or a place where God overwhelms us or does everything,
and we don't still have human will and energy proper
to our nature because we've never lost our human nature.
And that's why Calvinists and all these monarchists, they actually
become crystological heretics when they adopt the monarchists position. Anyway,
but Paul is clearly saying that the only faith that
saves is the one that works through love. But great questions, Daniel,
what's up?
Speaker 4: Hello?
Speaker 1: Hey, Hey, what's up?
Speaker 10: Jay?
Speaker 4: I had a question for you.
Speaker 11: Born and raised a Protestant, I'm thirty, just now coming around.
I realized I can't stay Protestant because people in the
early Church do not believe what I believe. With that said,
I was raised in the buckle of the Bible belt,
very pentecostal running around Benny Henon star wars, force on
people falling out in the spirit, but reflecting more in life.
Speaker 4: I had lots of spiritual experiences.
Speaker 11: It's not a bragg because all of them were negative
and they all were in like the church I grew up.
And so is that unheard of with Pentecostalism and the
conversations you had with people that have come from the sect,
And what even is pentecost Like, where did this come from?
Because I'm looking at church history. This was not a
thing in the early church, right the.
Speaker 1: Brain, well, it was a thing called Montanism. So the
Montanus did the very thing that Pentecostals and Charismatics do today,
and they were condemned within the first between one and
two hundred a d. The sect was condemned because it
really gave the idea that there's ongoing new divine revelations,
and that kind of ends up, even if they don't
mean it too, it ends up replacing and subverting and
supplanting the finality of the depositive faith, which, according to
Jude was once we're all delivered to the saints. So
if it's once we're all delivered by a Jude three,
there's not new ongoing public revelations. And once Montanus, who
was the early Church charismatics, started to preach that he
was the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit and he had
new divine revelations and he's got two women prophetesces with him,
the Church said no, no, sorry, that's that's heretical. So that's
the origin of it in the early Church. But the
modern Pentecostal charismatic movement comes out of Roman Catholicism and
the histrionic women saints of the last five hundred years
of the Roman Catholic Church that then become normalized in
the Protestant world through the Azuza Street Revival and all
that stuff. And I have multiple long live streams on
my channel. If you just type in jade ire Comma
charismatic or Pentecostal, you'll get a bunch of critiques and reputations.
Logan Ramsey, who is I think a pastor preacher? What's up? Logan?
Speaker 4: Hey?
Speaker 12: Jay, So Mike question for you is related to the
issue of solo scriptura. And I was one turn, I
was wondering if you could tell me if you believe
the Church today currently possesses anything that is fani other
than the scriptures.
Speaker 1: Sure, the Divine Liturgy.
Speaker 12: Are you suggesting that it's the honest God breathed in
the same exact way as the Holy Scriptures?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: Okay, how do you justify that claim?
Speaker 1: Well, if you look at the Old Testament, when native
and abay Whu are rebuked, they're rebuked because you can't
introduce or get creative with how we worship God. So
either God left the Church destitute in the first, second,
third century with no clear pattern of worship, or the Apostles,
outside of the written texts, crafted apostolic liturgies that we
know via tradition. So does the New Testament contain a
explicit worship service.
Speaker 12: No, I wouldn't say it contains a specific word.
Speaker 1: So does God not care about how he's worshiped anymore?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 12: I believe God cares about how he's worshiped. And I
think if we look at NAT having a buye who
God specifically doesn't want anything unauthorized?
Speaker 1: Correct? So the Apostles authorized a liturgical service, which Protestant
liturgists actually will admit is an apostolic practice in the
first second century, right or not?
Speaker 12: Well, you would have to demonstrate that the apostles themselves
gave a liturgical order.
Speaker 1: Well, the demonstration is the tradition of the church, and
since you don't accept that by definition, there is no
way to demonstrate it if it is an extra canonical thing,
because your assumption is that it has to be proven
from the canonical texts. But what is the normative authority
by which we know what the canonical texts are?
Speaker 12: Well, I would say that the canon is self attesting.
Speaker 1: So when there was all of these disputes throughout the
first several centuries, who was really the self attesting canon authority?
Speaker 12: Well, if it's self attesting, then it doesn't need any
extra authority.
Speaker 4: God does not swear by anyone other than them.
Speaker 1: So you're not even aware of how this actual process
happened in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth centuries.
You don't think that, do you think that we can
go read the people debating about what text went into
the canon in those centuries?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, So who was the Baptist pastor that figured
out at that time that it was self attesting.
Speaker 12: Well, there was obviously no Baptist back then the way
that we have Baptists now. My point is that the
Canon itself is self attesting.
Speaker 1: Okay, you say that, How do you know that, and
where is the historical evidence of that?
Speaker 12: Well, it flows from the fact that it is God's
own word and God can.
Speaker 1: So you keep stating things that you've not demonstrated to
just reinforce what your position is. So I know you
think that, But can you give me anybody in those
centuries that argues that the canon was self attesting and
that we would solve the canonical issue by just simply saying, well,
the one that's self attesting. You don't see how ahistorical
that is.
Speaker 12: I am not aware of a self attesting case.
Speaker 4: For the canon in the early period. Interestingly, it doesn't
flow from.
Speaker 12: That that the canon is determined by the human group
that has authority here on earth.
Speaker 1: Well, again, you say that, but when I go to
the Apostolic Canons, which was the Eastern Church's normative approach
to what was the Bible, and Canon eighty five explicitly
argues for pretty much most of the Dutero Canon, why
wasn't that self attesting there.
Speaker 12: Well, if you want to talk about the Deutero canon,
I would go to what Paul says in the Book
of run Ons.
Speaker 1: I want to I know you think that Paul talks
about that in Romans, but I want to know in
the fourth century, where was anybody with your mindset trying
to figure out Well, wait a minute, Apostolic canons. It's
just the one that's self attesting.
Speaker 12: Like I said, I'm not aware of anyone in the
early period specifically making the argument for cannon on the.
Speaker 4: Basis of its self attestation.
Speaker 1: But I do think that so it's a historical rights.
So your position is a historical that we're remitting.
Speaker 12: I'm saying the specific argument for the canon is something
that was not the issue.
Speaker 4: Of the early Church.
Speaker 1: Oh wait a minute, again, not true, because I'm showing
you absolute Canon eighty five right here, which has for
the entirety of the East most of the Dutero Canon.
Are you familiar with the Council of Rome under Damasis,
I'm somewhat familiar with it. Okay, it also in the
West in the fourth century has the Deutero canon as normative.
So East and West throughout the entire Church of the
fourth century, almost the entirety of the Church, and I
don't know if there's anybody who disagrees until Jerome. Almost
all the entire church accepts the Judo canon. So they
all got it wrong.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I think Jerome was right to look at the
Jews themselves to see.
Speaker 1: What Why do post Apostolic anti christ Jews that changed
the Dutero canonical text according to Irenaeus and Justin Martyr,
why do they have any authority for the Church to
determine the canon.
Speaker 12: I think that the Jews already had a canon in
the life of Christ.
Speaker 1: That's why Jesus, No, they didn't. No, that's your assumption,
and most Protestant scholars I have a whole essay on
this admit that at the time of the Apostles there
was not a fixed canon. The only thing that comes
close to that is the legend of the Council of Jamnia,
and that is after the time of the Apostles. So
the Apostolic Bible is the Septuagint, which includes the duterocononical books.
And that's why Paul and Jesus referenced the duter canonical
stories and tax many times in their epistles. So that's
absolutely false.
Speaker 12: I think if you're familiar with the scholarship of Roger Beckweth,
he demonstrates that there were specific sacred books laid up
in the temple.
Speaker 9: Obvious.
Speaker 1: So nobody understood this until a random Protestant scholar of
the modern period said, oh, there was some books laid
up in the temple, and that's the Protestant canon.
Speaker 12: Well, Josephus himself testifies to do this.
Speaker 1: So Jews anti Christ Jews tell us what the canon
is for the church? Did they tell us the New
Testament canon too?
Speaker 12: Well, when I'm talking about the Old Testament canon, I'm
talking about what was understood by the Jews during.
Speaker 4: The life of Christ.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's not true. Again, that's uh that does
Paul use the septuagen?
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's writing in Greek to Greek speaking.
Speaker 1: People, So he did the septuagen include the doer canonical texts?
Speaker 4: Uh? Well the.
Speaker 1: Answer yes, Protestant scholars admit this.
Speaker 12: Well, my point is that the sept tuoogen in that
early period was not the you know, it wasn't all
bound in one thing.
Speaker 1: We have a collection of long book step I can
give you multiple Protestant scholars that admit that, yes, it
included the duo chrononical texts, and Paul S going to be.
Speaker 4: I don't dispute that fact.
Speaker 12: I was just saying the sept tuo agent as it
existed in the ancient period.
Speaker 1: You know, we have a collection of Okay, So in
other words, you just keep moving the goalpost, you just
keep coping. So again, this is not going anywhere because what.
Speaker 12: I'm just trying to be specific about what as we're
talking about.
Speaker 4: I don't think I'm coping.
Speaker 1: But what Joe ciphas was a crazy cult member. What
does he have to do with the Old Testament Jewish canon?
And by the way, he was a hellenized you anyway.
Speaker 12: I'm saying, he's a Jewish person who attests to the
fact that there were certain sacred books that were laid
up in the temple, and so for one thing, the
temple has to be in existence.
Speaker 1: How do you know that what's laid up in the
temple tells you the Jewish canon?
Speaker 12: Because the understanding of the Jews was that nothing could
be laid up in the temple unless it happened.
Speaker 1: How do you know that that tells you the Jewish canton.
When was Jamnia?
Speaker 4: That was in these early second centuries?
Speaker 1: Thank you? So, how do you know that that tells
you the canon?
Speaker 12: I'm not talking about Jamie, I'm talking about prior.
Speaker 1: No, how do you know that the accus or the
allegation of what's laid up in the temple tells you
the canon?
Speaker 12: Because in order for something to be laid up in
the temple, it happens.
Speaker 1: How do you know that tells you the canon? You
just keep stating that the position tells you what.
Speaker 4: You're not allowing me to finish what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: You just restate the argument, which is not telling me.
How you know how you tell you that? How that
tells us the canon?
Speaker 12: I'm saying that the books had to be holy, and
so the fact that they were laid up.
Speaker 4: In the temple like that that, how.
Speaker 1: Does that tell you the canon? If the Jews themselves
debate the canon centuries later at Jamnia, we don't even
know if Jamny is real, it's just a legend.
Speaker 12: Well, the fact that they were debating the canon doesn't
mean a canon didn't exist. You and I disagree on
the canon doesn't mean that there is not no no.
Speaker 1: All, No, it's you that disagrees because you're not in
the church and you have no canon other than what
you think the Jews told you as the canon. So
it's actually you this the Judaized heretic. You're not even
in the church, so you're not even disagreeing with anybody
but the church.
Speaker 12: Huh was Jerome at judaized heretic? What about Athenasius?
Speaker 1: Oh wait a minute, so now church individual church fathers
are the ones that we pick. I didn't say that
Athanasius cites the dudoconical text, so what are you talking about?
Speaker 12: Well, in his thirty nine Festal letter, he doesn't list all.
Speaker 4: Of the Dudo canon.
Speaker 1: He cites the Utero canonical text throughout his writings, and
what he actually says is that for catechumens, the Dudo
canon is perfect to catechize them. So you don't believe,
you don't believe that the Duro canons for catechizing people?
And why do you listen to Athanasius? He was a
he was a pope of Alexandria.
Speaker 4: A pope of Alexandria, and you.
Speaker 1: Didn't know that that's a classic title for also the
bishop of Alexandra Yeah, no, you didn't know that. You
didn't know that. Admit that you didn't know that because
you balked at it.
Speaker 12: I balked at it because when you you bring it
up as if it would be so ridiculous, I would
give heed to anything Athanasius says, when very obviously him
being referenced as the father in Alexandria is not the
same thing that's understood by Mono Roman Catholics in regard
to the papacy.
Speaker 1: Oh so this is this again again. The fact that
he's called pope proves that it's not a title unique
to the papacy. It's an argument against the papacy. So
you even understand what the argument is, it just shows
that you're not even have you read, actually read Althenasius?
Have you read the Festal letters?
Speaker 12: I've well, I've specifically read the three nine Festal letter.
Speaker 1: Ok, I don't, right, But because that's the only thing
that you cared about, because you thought it backed up
the Protestant cannon when he says it, actually the deudo
canon is for katechisas have you e readbody says about
the Eucharist? What specifically at all in any of the
festal letters. No, okay, right, have you read the Canons
of Nicea? I have not read the Cannons nice okay,
So why are you even debating stuff that you're not
even familiar with the basics. That's why it's just a
waste of time for these people who have no idea
about any of this stuff, but they want to come
and debate what they think some Protestant scholar told them about. Well,
it was laid up in the temple, so it's the
canon tomo. What's up?
Speaker 13: Hello God?
Speaker 1: Yep, yep, right.
Speaker 4: Good. So I'm I've been wondering.
Speaker 13: So how would they come to talking with Zionists even Gallicals.
You could give them your footable proof that this whole
you know, Christians, you know, United the Jews, is completely unduticual.
You can give them scripts or versus, and then you
can give them quotes from earlier Christians, such as the
Church Fathers or other saints from years ago, such as
when Saint Ignatius said that christian did.
Speaker 4: Not come from Judaism. Judaism is a perversion of Christianity.
Speaker 13: You can give them all of that, and they and
and they'll just still automatically call you an anti semi
or from my experience, they'll use a bunch of fallacies
such as a straw man argument, like and like.
Speaker 4: So why do you think they do this?
Speaker 1: Because they are indoctrinated and they people don't believe things
just on the basis of logic, reasoning and argumentation. People
believe things because of emotional attachments, because of delusions, because
of pride. I mean, there can be all manner of
reasons why. I mean, look at the romancalol God that
just said the other day that we shared his tweet.
He said, even if my Roman Catholicism is proven false,
I'll just remain Catholic. So they don't care about what's
true first and foremost. And that's the main problem with
a lot of people. They would rather stay in their
heresy or their stupid pet theory that they've come up
with than believe what is true. Now, why don't I
say the Canons of Nicea, Because any person who's a Baptist,
there is no way you could read the Canons of
Nicea and come away thinking that you have anything in
common with the faith of the people that wrote the
Nicene Creed or the Canons of Nicea. Every Protestant should
read go to New Advent. And I'm not just talking
about the Nicene Creed the canons of the Council of Nicea,
because you will notice that they talk about the Eucharist
as i sacrifice. They talk about monastics, they talk about excommunication,
they talk about bishops and episcopate, they talk about jurisdictions
between Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Baptists don't have jurisdictions. You
don't have bishops, you don't have the Eucharist, you don't
have any of this stuff. And they all lie and
pretend that they have the same faith as Athenaious. No
you don't. It is not true. We believe the same
thing as Athnacius. For example, synodol church government, and Catechumans
Eucharist at the point of death. Deacons can't touch the
Eucharist before the priest touches it. Stop acting like you
have the faith of Athanasius when you don't. It's just
not true. And that's why he relies on the schism
of this or that Jewish idea of what the canon is.
So Protestants are unwitting and willing Judaizers from the get go. Steve,
what's up?
Speaker 14: Yeah, Steve, you what's on your mind?
Speaker 4: Good man?
Speaker 10: My my question is just more like I don't know what, Like,
they're not the denomination I kind of would be in
or whatever. But my question is more with the with
the paying to the saints.
Speaker 1: How do you I've got videos on that. It's because
we're all part of this same heavenly liturgy. When John
looks into heaven Revelation five or nine, he sees and
participates in the worship of Heaven, which is presenting the
prayers of the saints on earth. So we're asking the
saints to pray for us. I have many many videos
on that. You can go watch those videos. But thank
you for that.
Speaker 4: C K.
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 4: What's up? John? Sell your mom? Yeah?
Speaker 15: It is crazy how it's almost like Protestants think it's
acceptable to quote mind church fathers with their presuppositions to
justify their Protestant worldview. You know, I don't know why
on what basis they think that's okay to debate on
or to prove Protestantism, But it never fails to amaze
me when they do that.
Speaker 4: It's crazy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's uh, And it's like it doesn't matter how
many times you explain the difference between individual certitude and
normative authority. Like they still they still have a hard
time with it, But I'm happy to keep explaining it.
Thomas Guzman, what's now again? Notice the strength of this
argument that they're not even aware of this. They don't
even know what the Absalt canons are. The Abslot canons
were the normative church law in the East in the
fourth century. So let's look at this point because I
think this is a really strong point, and it refutes
West to two. By the way, so we look at
the Apsalt canons. This is church law throughout the East
in the fourth century. We notice that the duduo canon
is part of divine revelation, is part of the Texas Scripture.
The word duro canon itself means that it's not equal
to the Gospels. It's not as important as everything else
in the New Testament, but it is part of the
canonical list. And that's why Athanasius says it's perfect for
categ humans. Well, I didn't recommend it for catechumans if
he thought it wasn't part of divine revelation. It is
called deutero secondary canon because it is not as important
as the Gospels. In the Orthodox Church, the Gospels are
given a primary place before the Gospels are lifted up,
and they're in a gold book because they're important. You
have the reading of Paul's epistles. Paul's epistles are not
as important as the Gospels. So just because there's a
degree of importance, it doesn't follow from that that, oh, well,
Paul's epistles aren't authoritative or inspired because they're not lifted
up like the Gospels are. It's all Protestant either or thinking.
And they're taking Athenasius out of context. He didn't even
know that Athanasius was the pope of Alexandria. Because they're
not looking at the fact that distinctions in authority and
importance doesn't mean that it's not inspired. That's their first mistake.
So fourth century Canon eighty five, we notice it lists
the Maccabees. See that now, Yes, it also mentions a
couple books that later on are not necessarily part of
the canon. So pay attention to what I'm saying and
stop being low tier and reacting on emotions. I am
not saying that the canon was closed in the fourth century.
I didn't say that. I'm saying that the Church throughout
the fourth century East and West, because when we look
over here in the West at the Council of Rome
under Damasis. Oh, it turns out they also believe in
the Dudo canon. So the entire universal Church in the
fourth century, this is prior to Jerome. Okay, this is
right before Jerome. Right around the time of Jerome, the
church agrees to the duo canon. Jerome disagrees, but he's
one guy against the rest of the mind of the Church.
In subsequent centuries, the church does not agree ultimately with Jerome,
because by the sixth and seventh centuries the church basically says, yes,
Canons of the Apostles, Canons of Carthage, Council of Rome.
We affirm it is not the Protestant what would be
the Protestant canon. So if the Protestant position is right,
then essentially, in the fourth century, universally east and West,
the church was completely wrong. They had completely aired on
the canon. Now, let's think about this for a second.
If the Church in the entire fourth century prior to
Jerome could be totally wrong about the canon, Jerome comes
along and he's correct, supposedly in refuting them. There's no
reason why Jerome can't in the future be wrong. And
multiple Protestants that I asked today, I said, wait a minute,
so is the canon still open? And to be consistent
with their position, they were like, I guess, oh, because
there is no post apostolic, infallible normative decision. Okay, well,
then perhaps the higher critics are correct and we can
remove books from the canon. Do you not see how
silly this position is. If there's no normative authority after
the Apostles, then there's no reason why Jerome can't be wrong. Booh, Thomas,
what's up? I'm mute?
Speaker 16: All right, hey, Jay, So I think what's going on
here is you're encountering a lot of people. They just
don't have your academic level of training. And I think
we really encounter it's a Fromana issue, and unwittingly personally,
I believe that many Protestants have incorporated or imported somewhat
of an Islamic.
Speaker 1: Fromanah Oh in regard to this, not Fromana, Fronema, thank.
Speaker 4: You, in regard to their relationship with scripture.
Speaker 16: So in Islam, they believe that the Quran is.
Speaker 1: Eternal, and exactly I brought this up to that woman
yesterday or today.
Speaker 16: Yeah, and i've literally and there, I've seen Protestants on
acts express similar ideas.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They don't even think of the Word of God
as a person. It's the book. God is the book. Well,
they they equate it with Christ exactly. It's a it's
a form of a bibliolotry.
Speaker 16: And what they don't understand is it's also it's it's
very limiting to God because the Bible, ultimately, even if
you're reading it in the original Greek, it's still written
in human language.
Speaker 4: In human language is limited.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, I know you're spot on. Yeah.
Speaker 16: What what they don't understand is that one can fashion
and idol out of words and ideas just as easily
as one can fashion and idol life out of wooden stone.
Speaker 1: Yes, all right, but the ideolotry, I talk about ideolotry.
Speaker 16: Yeah, but there's like this this miss in there thinking.
But there are actual literal groups out there, they're very
tiny that literally believe that the Bible existed in heaven,
the King James version of the Bible existed in heaven,
written in English. Yeah, and that it was transmitted you know,
like it's like to the original authors of the texts
in a similar way that the Koran transmitted.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you can tell by the way that when
you study Islam, you can tell that when Mohammad was
kind of patching this together, he heard, probably because he was illiterate,
like he heard people saying, oh, the Christians talk about
the eternal Word of God, and Mohammad must have thought, oh,
that's a book, and what I have is the real
purified Word of God. So there's an eternal book of
God in heaven. You can tell that's exactly what he thought.
Speaker 4: It.
Speaker 16: It's basically whether they explicated or not that that's when
what it boils down to is the sol scripture position.
What they're trying to say is I know gold is
gold because I can look at it and.
Speaker 4: Tell that it's gold.
Speaker 16: But but it's not the same, Like they don't understand
that that a written a written document is not gold.
Or earlier I saw that there was that that one person.
Speaker 4: She's always going on some Protestant. I forgot.
Speaker 16: I forgot who was trying to equate interpreting scripture, like
saying it's on the level of like reading a cookbook.
Speaker 4: I mean, like a cookbook is.
Speaker 16: A completely different species of literature than scripture. But you
can you can point this out to people, and I've
noticed you get fresh rated. But the mindset of these
people it's just like so different, the the the it's
it's almost like the whole no matter no matter how
many facts you list, it's just not going to to
undo their mindset. Kind Of like at my former parish,
we had a convert. He was a former Muslim, and
one of the things he told me is when he
was a Muslim, he would hear the the Quran, and
he said it had like a narcotic like effect on
him when he would hear.
Speaker 6: It, and and the that it.
Speaker 16: Took like a lot to just like break those mental patterns.
And I think that you run into that a lot
with people, you know, the the they hear your words,
and I think on some level, like the gears turn,
they can repeat what you said, but they can't they
can't internalize it. That's what I think is going on,
And I think that's why you get frustrated.
Speaker 1: Well, that's why you're talking about. What you're talking about
is the actual psychology of what happens when paradigms get challenged.
I mean, hardly any of us when there's a challenge
that comes into our paradigm, we don't immediately say, ah,
allow me to be neutral, perhaps I can change my paradigm.
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 1: No, What we all do as a kind of in
an emotional reaction, is we sense that our worldview is challenged,
and out of a kind of protective you know, shell
in casing, we jump back with an emotive response. That's
just fallen human nature to do that because we are worried.
We don't, we're nervous, we don't. We think, oh, well,
maybe it is you know, maybe I'm wrong with it.
So you have to sort of protect the core identity
of the person who attaches their identity to these paradigms
and these worldviews. And we all do this right, This
is why, you know, the Roman Catholic guy says on
the tweet the other day, says, even if it's wrong,
I'm not going to leave it because the identity is
the person's subjective identity is erected with this system. And
it would mean essentially that he would have to start over.
There would be a death process that Jordan Peterson talks about.
Whenever there's something that shatters our paradigm. He says, it's
the same psychological process that a person goes through when
there's a death of a family member. It's the same
thing that happens in us emotively and even psychosomatically. And
that's why the defense mechanisms come up. So I try
to not be frustrated. It's still frustrating because even though
I recognize that like, it still is frustrating. It's still
hard to deal with the same old sort of you know, responses.
And I usually assume that if a person comes to debate,
they're going to be familiar with some of the of
the of the basics, and so many of the time
they're not.
Speaker 16: Well, it's like you're talking to chatbots, and you know,
we all engage in confirmation bias to a degree or
else we'd go crazy. And it's also like what Willard
Benn Klein talks about the web of beliefs, like beliefs
that are closure to the center.
Speaker 4: We're going to defend. However, one of the things.
Speaker 16: That we have as Orthodox, like if Protestants stump me
on something or I don't know something, I can always say,
you know, if I don't know something, I can ask
my spiritual father.
Speaker 4: I can ask my parish.
Speaker 16: I can ask my bishop and I can get an
authoritative answer.
Speaker 4: I don't have to figure this out.
Speaker 16: I don't have to make a hope of myself because
ultimately that's what every Protestant does.
Speaker 4: You make a pope of yourself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, at the end of the day, you're the final
authority and there's no higher authority. And how do we know? Well,
God's talking to me, so chief, what's up? What's that mean?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 1: Yo?
Speaker 3: Hello? Yeah, I'm in my car right now?
Speaker 4: Is my audio plan?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 3: So I'm assuming you guys are all so many Catholic or.
Speaker 1: What.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'll just get right into it.
Speaker 1: We're Orthodox Orthodox Catholics, not Roman Galicy.
Speaker 4: Sure.
Speaker 17: So my first question is to you, what do you
understand salvation to mean? Versus what Paul says about salvation?
Then number two is having a spiritual.
Speaker 3: Father biblical for a second Timothy Chapter two for five.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean Paul says I am your father in
the faith to Timothy. So it's Timothy himself that says
that to Paul. I mean, it's that's the relationship that
Paul has to Timothy. So what do you mean?
Speaker 13: Right?
Speaker 4: But what is that in the verse.
Speaker 1: Well, let's talk about faith alone first, because Paul says
in Galatians five to six that the faith that counts
as the one that works.
Speaker 17: Right, So what if paula in gladious to three verse eleven.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you understand you've gott to harmonize the verses
and you can't just say, well, this one says not
by works, so right, right, So no one is justified
by mosaic law, we all agree. But the justification that
Paul talks about in in in Galatians five is the
one that works through love.
Speaker 3: Right, Sure, So my response.
Speaker 17: To that would be that, Paul, is that just by
faith in Galatians through eleven.
Speaker 3: You also said it in two different other contexts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're just assuming that that's a faith that's
not the working faith.
Speaker 3: Right, So what do you take? What do they work
in faith?
Speaker 1: The one that works through love? How does Paul define love?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 4: So?
Speaker 6: Can you work for a gift?
Speaker 1: It's not an either or You can also you can
be given a gift that is also partly what you
work for.
Speaker 4: Yes, but that's not what the Bible.
Speaker 1: Well, you just keep saying that's not what the Bible says.
But every time I show you something that is contrary
to you ignore it. When was Abraham saved?
Speaker 3: Oh that's a good lesson. Go to Romans after fovers
one through three.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm glad that you want to go to Roumans four.
Speaker 3: Read Romans fors one through three? Was that? Was that?
Pays also a working kid?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: It was?
Speaker 1: Because when did Abraham? When did Abraham pass from wrath
to grace? When did Abraham pass from wrath to grace?
In your view?
Speaker 3: From what sorry of my herd?
Speaker 1: When did Abraham pass from God's wrath to God's grace
in your view?
Speaker 3: Well, the way they received ovation was a different No.
Speaker 1: It wasn't. Then then how can you use then? How
can you use how can you use Romans?
Speaker 4: For?
Speaker 1: How would Paul use Abraham as a model if it's
a different way to be.
Speaker 3: Saved because it shows that through Abraham he was not justified.
Speaker 4: By the law.
Speaker 1: Just keep we know the Protestant we know the Protestant position.
How could Paul use Abraham as an example if it's
a different way to be saved?
Speaker 3: Wait but it let me finish.
Speaker 1: You're not even understanding the argument, dude, You're not even
understanding what I'm arguing, when was Abraham saved?
Speaker 3: He saved after the idol?
Speaker 1: Oh my god? When in his life was he saved?
Speaker 4: We know you saved?
Speaker 13: Words?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 1: And when? What verse is Paul sighting? What verse in Romans?
For is Paul cding in Genesis? What chapter of Genesis?
Speaker 6: I'm not aware?
Speaker 1: Oh my god, it's Genesis fifteen? Sure, okay, does that
mean that that's when Abraham was saved Genesis fifteen?
Speaker 3: No, of course not.
Speaker 1: Okay, Then when was he saved?
Speaker 4: Then?
Speaker 1: When was he saved?
Speaker 4: You're not.
Speaker 1: I want you to address the argument, but you're you're not.
What are you laughing at it? You're making a fool
of yourself. When was Abraham saved?
Speaker 4: Are you gonna let me speak?
Speaker 1: When was Abraham saved? According to Paul? In your argument?
Speaker 3: I'm gonna answer it.
Speaker 1: Answer so, okay, So our forefathers of steve salvation different
than the way we did. No, they did it. You're
just saying that when was it?
Speaker 10: All right?
Speaker 1: All right? This is too retarded. I just can't even talk.
He's not following the argument, he's not even he doesn't
even understand what's being argued. Genesis fifteen is what cited
in Romans for if the Protestant position is true, then
Paul has made a theological error. Why because it would
mean that Abraham was lost from Genesis twelve to Genesis
fifteen until he was converted and saved in Genesis fifteen
by faith. So that means that there's three chapters of
Abraham doing good works that Hebrews lauds and praises. Hebrews
even says that Paul's actions of faith in Genesis twelve, thirteen,
and fourteen are action of exemplary faith. Uh oh, but
it turns out that if Romans four is teaching salvation
by faith alone, then Abraham's transition from wrath to grace
was in Genesis fifteen. And by the way, when James
White addressed this argument, he actually bit the bullet and said, yes,
Abraham was not saved in Genesis twelve, thirteen fourteen. He's
not saved until fifteen. Oh well, then guess what Hebrews
is wrong because it's saying a person with dead faith
who's lost was an example of faith because it laws
and praises Abraham's actions prior to fifteen. This is so stupid.
What's up? I'm mute? What's up, Matthew. Matthew, unmute?
Speaker 6: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yep?
Speaker 6: Counsel of Trollo in.
Speaker 18: These Decree twelve and forty eight says that bishops should
not live.
Speaker 4: With their wives.
Speaker 18: I don't see how that is an alignment with Rust
Corinthians seven, which says that you should only separate from
your wife for a limited time for a fascinated prayer.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Well, so the church has the authority to enact disciplines,
just like Paul had the authority to enact discipline. So
if there's a time period when the church determines that
it's appropriate for bishops to be drawn from monasteries, then
they can do that. It's not a ironclad rule that
could be overruled, and you could have bishops who are
married as possible.
Speaker 6: Okay, so.
Speaker 18: It's telling bishops they shouldn't live with their wives. But
that's that's some kind of new rebel.
Speaker 1: No, No, it's not new revelation, because the writings of Paul.
In many places he says. For example, Paul even says
at one point in the epistle, I think it's to
the Corinthians. He says, this I give is my opinion,
not of the Holy Spirit. So in your view, was
the Holy Spirit telling Paul that this is not of
the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 18: Well, I believe in that passage Paul is he's saying
when he's saying like, this is not from the Lord,
he's saying that Jesus himself didn't say that when Jesus
walked on the earth. I don't believe he's saying this
isn't actually from.
Speaker 1: The Holy Spirit, even though he says he says not,
I say this not the Lord.
Speaker 18: Right, He's saying that Jesus is the Lord. And so
when Jesus, he's saying, Jesus didn't say this.
Speaker 6: Before I said this.
Speaker 1: Okay, So you've come up with a Protestant cope to
where there's not actually just opinions. Paul's obviously giving his opinion.
He's saying this is not of the Holy Spirit. This
is my opinion. So it's not divine revelation. This is
what I think is why for this situation you're saying, no,
it's still a divine revelation. He's just saying that because
Jesus didn't literally say that. I mean, that's ridiculous.
Speaker 18: So you're saying in First Corinthians, seven that when Paul
says to only separate from your way for a limited time,
that's Paul's opinion and not the only spirit.
Speaker 1: Paul, as an apostle, has transferred apostolic authority for church
law for the church to govern and rule at different times.
So yes, there can be changes to church practice. It's
called canon law, and that's why Nicia, for example, lays
down canons and laws that aren't all necessarily followed even
to this day. That's why the church has to have flexibility.
So if at a period in time it's determined that
bishops should be drawn from monastics circles rather than from
the laity, that was done as a necessity for that time.
If you try to make the canon law into some
sort of eternal law, then it doesn't work. And that's
why no Orthodox person or no Orthodox church does that.
We don't make the canon's eternal laws. That's why they're flexible.
Speaker 18: So you're saying, are certain times when what Paul said
can be disregarded due to what bishops say.
Speaker 1: Bishops have authority because they're successors to the apostles, and
they have to address specific issues of their time and
your own heretical Protestant sex do the exact same thing.
So I don't know how you think you're any better.
Speaker 18: So, but how is it a specific issue of the
time if they're just telling bishops they shouldn't live with
their wives.
Speaker 1: Because that at that time where bishops came from and
how the Church got its bishops, it was determined to
be better and more beneficial if they were single and
they were drawn from monasteries versus the ones that were married,
because especially when it came to the mission field, if
bishops had families, that was very difficult for them to
go out and move to other places, harsh climates, et cetera.
So monastics ended up being better traveling bishops than married
priests were. So there's little tea traditions or disciplines that
the Church enacts for specific situations. That's why nobody believes
that church law is equivalent to divine revelation or that
it's equivalent to eternal commandments for all the time. That's why,
for example, Paul says, I don't think women should braid
their hair and wear you know, jewelry or whatever. He says, Okay,
well that's not an eternal law. As if women can't
braid their hair and walk into the church. Right, there's
specific situations for specific times. But you guys, are you
act like Muslims? You think that the Bible is an
eternal Kuran. That's a statement for every single situation in life.
It's not.
Speaker 6: Okay?
Speaker 18: Is would you say the same thing with Canon six
it says that a clergy can't get married after they're
appointed as a clergy.
Speaker 6: Member, they can't get married. I see that in contradiction with.
Speaker 1: We don't care what we don't care? What you think
is in contradiction because you don't have any authority at all.
Speaker 6: So how do you know that? How do you know
I don't have the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 1: You were not called because nobody with authority called you
or told you to preach. You're a self appointed street preacher.
Speaker 6: Why would that matter? Why would I need somebody to
tell me to preach?
Speaker 1: Really, have you read Hebrews? Because he Hebrews says that
nobody takes this office upon himself.
Speaker 6: So the Great commission is is not for all believers.
Speaker 1: You are not committed the Great commission. You appointed yourself
to preach and teach. Who appointed you to be? Who
appointed you to be a who appointed you to be
a street preacher.
Speaker 6: Imitate him.
Speaker 1: Paul did not appoint you to be a street preacher. No, see,
you are a self appointed person. You don't have any authority,
Hebrews says, Hebrews, you are not appointed by God because
you don't have any connection to the historic church. Yourself
appointed your delusion.
Speaker 4: No, God's appointed me, You know he didn't.
Speaker 1: I already know he didn't appoint you, because nobody with
the vine authority told you to go and do this.
And the fact that you say God directly appointed you
already tells me that you're disqualified. So when first John
two says, those are not your books, you're citing our books.
They're not your book. How do you know that the
Holy Spirit hasn't those aren't your because they're not your books.
You don't have those books. Those are not your property.
They're taken out of context that Christ commanded Jesus also
established a church and you're not part of it.
Speaker 3: How do you know that?
Speaker 1: Because you're a self appointed s tree preacher and everything
you're saying is like super low tier self appointed Protestant nonsense.
What do you mean who appointed you to teach?
Speaker 6: Can tell a person to go I don't.
Speaker 1: If so, everybody claims that the Holy Spirit appointed them,
who decides, where's the norm authority to decide between all
these self appointed street preachers?
Speaker 6: Who appointed Jon preach?
Speaker 1: Again, you're begging the question that you were appointed by
the Holy Spirit. Why should we think that.
Speaker 6: Because the Holy Spirit is so?
Speaker 1: Because the Holy Spirit told me, Because the Holy Spirit
told me, that's your argument.
Speaker 6: How how else would you know what's from God.
Speaker 1: With normative authority in history? That's the point.
Speaker 6: How do you know who has normative authority in history
without revolution from the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 1: Because I have a historical attestation to the Church, and
Jesus established a body of people called bishops who have
that authority which you don't have.
Speaker 6: How do you know they're the church?
Speaker 1: How do you know the people that because they teach
the same they because they teach the same thing through
all these centuries, And I've read all these church fathers
and they decided what the Bible is.
Speaker 6: And that so that means the Holy Spirit can't tell
me what the Bible is.
Speaker 1: Correct because you disagree with them? Who because sorry, say,
he's losing his mind, going crazy. This is why we
can't This is what these people are insane, San Jose?
What's up? No, every random dude does not have the authority.
The very fact that you say yourself appointed proves that
you're not appointed, because you are not a part of
the people who gave you the book that you're using.
Speaker 8: What's up, man, Jay Day it is It is the
great Reformer of Mansfield here, Martin Lusa, and I am
here to settle the issue of Apostolic succession once on
Tarol Do you hear me?
Speaker 4: Jdayah?
Speaker 8: I am here to tell you that from ze Lolius
peasant to the great Sist Bishop, everyone has the authority
to properly interpret the scripture.
Speaker 4: Yes, I have received it. I have received it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is what Luther said. Luther said he would
want every plowboy to have all the same authority and
power as the Pope. Dale Grassias, what's up? Yeah? Yeah?
Speaker 19: So my question is, how is Orthodoxy essentially different than Protestantism?
Speaker 1: I mean, are you serious or like, yeah, are you trolling?
Are you being serious?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 19: No, seriously, seriously, I've been looking into Orthodoxy and to me,
the more I dug into it, it just seems like it's.
Speaker 4: Like the same thing.
Speaker 1: Okay, come on, dude, are you wasting my time with
this nonsense? So if you actually dug into it, there's
literally no way you could actually say that and be serious.
That's why you're giggling. Where were we just?
Speaker 7: Uh?
Speaker 1: Paul repeats this principle in Hebrews five, even in the
Old Testament. You can't just do these things on your
own authority. No man takes this honor to himself. But
who is called by God as Aaron was now all
every Protestant, every giver says, the Holy Spirit cold me
to go preach on the street because God said so.
Because the Holy Spirit said so, There's no way that
any of us knows that you actually have this calling
unless there is a body of people that say that
you are called to do that. That's why no one
takes this authority on to himself. That's why Jesus established
bishops authority. And outside of that it is chaos. Even
inside the church there's problems, but outside it's total insanity.
Laptop five dollars. What's good? First? Super chat is information
physical or on physical? I mean information itself in terms
of the concept that is conveyed obviously is non physical,
but the texts or the symbols that represent the concepts
are physical, so it's a both end fuck it button
five dollars. I'm by curious emotional democrat. Jay is not
something that was on my bingo card. Turns out we
all make mistakes. Murat Akbulut gifted fifty memberships. Wow, thank
you so much. Welcome all the new members. That's a hefty,
nice super chat there, I mean gifting fuck it button
five dollars. It is not Aliens. It is a clever
country that has a sketchy history. We were lied about.
We were lied to about that. There's a documentary called
or he's joking about the movie.
Speaker 4: What is it?
Speaker 1: Iron Iron Sky? He's joking. David James ten pounds. Did
you read Oriental Heritage by wil Durant? I have not
read that. The paragraph says a nation is born stoic
and it dies Epicurean is bone chilling, Okay. L Rodriguez
five dollars. I'll have to I've not read much Wilderrant,
but I thank you for that, David James, flood L
Rodriguez hoods. While most conspiracy theories are bunk, I would
still warn you about the too saw me coming your way.
From the mega planet exactly. There's a black dude that
can create megaplanets with his mind and also predict Whosammi's
broke twenty dollars Esoteric Bollywood, Yes, that's a I think
I actually made that joke like ten years ago. But
if you guys want to repeat the jokes from ten
years ago, you can and you can get esoter Collywood
in the shop at Jason Elysis Jade. Did you see Bogonia?
Speaker 4: Do you like.
Speaker 1: Your ghost movies? I didn't like the previous one with
Emma Stone. I thought Bogonia was great, and I was
thinking about actually doing analysis of it tonight. But so
actually I saw two movies recently, which this is rare
to actually see two new movies that are worth an analysis,
very rare. But Bogonia and Eden were both pretty good
in just in turn. I mean, I'm not saying that
I agree with everything in the movie or there's not
criticisms to be made. I'm just saying like they at
least had a message in symbolism, and and uh it
was a little bit of the feminist nonsense in Bogonia,
but it was still pretty funny. And uh, I knew
exactly what was gonna happen, we called it, but gobbagool
Tony gets some prosciudo and mozzarella. Jonathan Kelly five dollars.
I want your opinion. If America balkanizes, where do we
form the Orthodox Empire? I mean, I think we're a
long time away from I think you're joking, but yeah,
I mean, we're not going to build some political entity.
But the church does thrive under persecution. So we only
build the political stuff when the majority of the of
the population has become Orthodox. Okay, we don't. This is
the wrong headed idolatry of people that think that we'll
fix the politics of the country. Uh, and then we'll
do the religious stuff. I mean, the Roman Empire didn't
become Christian until a few centuries of martyrs. Violator, that
what's so funny? I mean, violator, you're going crazy with
your emojis. What's up?
Speaker 4: I'm you?
Speaker 10: Okay?
Speaker 20: Were you doing the Protestant circle jerk stuff right now?
Speaker 4: Or is it opening to anything? What do you mean.
Speaker 1: You want to talk about or what are we talking about?
Whatever you want?
Speaker 4: Okay, I want to accuse you of being a near
Eurasian cook.
Speaker 21: Okay, how is that because the way you use Orthodoxy
is not really as a discovery of truth or anything
like that. It's more And it's funny because you just
said right now that you don't want a political thing, but.
Speaker 1: Well that completely Wouldn't that mean that political movement?
Speaker 3: What do you want?
Speaker 1: Wouldn't that mean monarchy? Wouldn't that mean that My point
stands that it is about truth. If I'm not primarily
concerned with politics.
Speaker 4: I don't believe so. I think you're just disingenuous.
Speaker 1: Okay, about how what's what's the proof of that?
Speaker 4: I say, mostly your the way you engage with the
with your face.
Speaker 20: It's it's not really to the way you attack the Catholics,
the way you attack everything.
Speaker 1: I attack everything? How do I attack every way?
Speaker 22: The way you attack the Catholics is not really like,
it's not really.
Speaker 20: Anything substantive outside of just your guy's biblical stuff. You
won't you won't engage with Nick Fuents anymore, You won't
engage with any of these people.
Speaker 1: Well, none of that's true. First of all, I asked
multiple times for Nick to come and have a discussion, right,
but you guys.
Speaker 4: Have had a discussion once before, and it was just
a bublical like it was boring. I'm not a bublical guy,
so it was boring. I'm more of a politics person.
Speaker 1: Okay. So again that that proves though that if the
religion is about the biblical stuff, and that's mainly what
I'm concerned with, that refute your argument that I'm disingenuous.
Speaker 4: I don't believe so.
Speaker 20: I don't believe so because the biggest thing that you do,
but you're really really do is I've seen you you
dance around the Christian nationalist.
Speaker 18: Thing, and the only thing that you've really really able.
Speaker 4: Took a concrete stances would you wear on?
Speaker 20: I think it was believe alex Is Jones so did
a whole hour about talking about Christian nationalism.
Speaker 4: You do believe in that I believe in not within reach.
Speaker 1: So you're you're like a You're like a you don't
even know my positions and you're just here to talk ship.
Speaker 4: I would say, I would say that you are more.
Speaker 20: Of like a communist who just realizes that there's no
way of achieving your.
Speaker 4: Goal anytime soon.
Speaker 1: A communists, how as a member how as a member
of ro Corps, as an Orthodox Christian monarchist, could I,
in any possible way be a communist? It makes makes
no sense.
Speaker 20: I'm accusing you of being a communist that is aware
that their ideas are not achievable whatsoever within a modern
context right now.
Speaker 4: You just said it to that guy earlier.
Speaker 1: So then I am how could I be disingenuous if
I admit that we're not going to have a Christian
monarchy because you're no different.
Speaker 20: Than the communists that says, oh yeah, you know, we
could at some point how the state dissolve and how
are a communist state?
Speaker 4: But it's just not achievable right now. But you can
always talk about it, and that's what that's the whole point.
Speaker 1: So this is, this is so low, IQ that because
I have a similar argument to a communist, I'm a communist.
Speaker 4: No no, no, no, no, no, that is not what
I said.
Speaker 6: That is not what I said.
Speaker 4: I'm comparing the the disingenuous of both of your guys' stances.
Speaker 1: Decingenuous, bro a bro hold on though, hold on, bro,
how does any of that prove I'm disingenuous? You don't
realize it's a very effeminate thing to come and debate
people's motives because you can never prove her disapproval. Man,
that is very cool.
Speaker 20: You can call me a femine you want.
Speaker 4: But you do with the argument, Okay, it's.
Speaker 1: Not an argument, it's a it's an un it's an
undisputed You are.
Speaker 4: No different, you are no different from them.
Speaker 1: How can you debate motives?
Speaker 20: Your politics will never be achievable.
Speaker 4: That's the only reason.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I don't make politics number one, so what Yeah,
but I'm saying to you that is your position you hold, well,
you don't know nothing about nothing, bro, You do value monarchy?
Speaker 6: So do you not?
Speaker 1: But how does that make me like a comedy? It
doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 20: It makes you like a comedy where you guys are
both disingenuous with your positions.
Speaker 1: How is that you're too stupid to even understand that?
That makes that makes me? How could that make me
dis But how would that make me disingenuous?
Speaker 4: Earlier that the whole entire country?
Speaker 1: No, I didn't say that. I said that. I said
the majority. I said the majority, and I said it's
not in our lifetime? Why are you lying like a communists?
Speaker 4: The communist thing.
Speaker 1: The fact that someone sounds like a communist but as
a totally different position has nothing to do with that.
Speaker 9: What do you not say this?
Speaker 4: You're being racist, You're saying.
Speaker 1: You're too dumb to even follow an argument. Man, you
can't even understand the distinction between sounding when.
Speaker 20: You can't control the flow of the conversation.
Speaker 1: If but nothing you're saying makes any sense or is
any any way convincing, and it actually proves it actually
listens communist, it actually you know, it actually shows that
I am genuine if I'm admitting that my position can't
be achieved in my lifetime and I don't put politics first?
Do you not understand that though, Dude, that someone says
an argument like someone else has nothing to do with
whether they have that position. That is so stupid.
Speaker 20: I'm just making a comparison that you are both disingenuous hacks, multiple.
Speaker 1: Like people like both anyone like that.
Speaker 4: You are no different from those people.
Speaker 20: And the fact that you just acknowledge that your political
movement could never be achieved with in your lifetime.
Speaker 1: But you do, how would that make me disingenuous? How
would that make me disingenuous? All you're doing are you
demonically possessed? You're just shouting and you can't have a
rational conversation. Why are you acting? But why are you
so upset? It doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to
reason with you. Why are you so mad? You calling
me dipshit, all this stuff. I'm trying to reason with you.
Speaker 4: And did you not make fun of my accident?
Speaker 1: I make fun of everybody. It's part of the it's
part of the joke. I'm not upset, I'm trying to
reason with you. How does it make me disingenuine?
Speaker 20: It makes you disingenuous because you want to say that
you don't have a political movement, but that is the goal.
You do, want to change people's minds.
Speaker 7: You do.
Speaker 1: That's not politics. I don't believe that religions.
Speaker 20: No, it's not need majority of the country to be
Orthodoxy in order for you to push your politics.
Speaker 1: Do you understand the difference? But do you understand the
difference between priorities priority?
Speaker 8: Bro?
Speaker 4: You need to accomplish that first.
Speaker 1: No, you don't. I totally disagree with politics.
Speaker 4: First.
Speaker 1: I think that religion is more important than politics. So stop,
you're just all right, You're all right, You're done, You're done.
This is so stupid. Yeah, this is a low iq midwit.
You can't even talk to to explain that. I don't
believe that politics is first. I believe politics is lower
on the priority. I believe religion comes first. And none
of that would make me disingenuine. You might disagree with
my approach, but that has absolutely nothing to do with
being disingenuous. So it's like not even a coherent person. Kevin,
what's up? Kevin? What's up?
Speaker 4: Hey? What's up?
Speaker 13: Jay's I just want to come on and say, yeah,
that was crazy.
Speaker 4: I used to think the same thing about you. That
was really I mean the broadest this, that, and the.
Speaker 1: Other memberships why, I have no idea. So I mean,
if you're super chatting on dream Labs, you can super
chat alula ten dollars. Without you, I wouldn't have a chance.
This world is messed up. It's full of deceivers. At
least I have a chance. Well, thank you. I'm glad
to say that. At least it looks like we help
some people. So that's good. John, you want try again?
Speaker 6: Hey?
Speaker 14: Can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Huh?
Speaker 4: So I have a question about the Western right.
Speaker 16: Uh do you think it would make it easier for
Protestants to convert to Orthodoxy or do you think it's
to the point where for the average American, the Western
Right and the Byzantine rights are both equal.
Speaker 1: I don't think the Western right even really is worth it.
It just causes more problems. So no, people just need
to find a good Orthodox church and not worry about
Western right. Orthop. What's up? And I'm saying, like the
church and the priest matters more than what the right is? Like,
what's up? Orthop? When I'm mute?
Speaker 4: What's up?
Speaker 3: Hey?
Speaker 1: I was wondering, I can't hear you, man? Can you
can you talk into the mic?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Better barely? What's up? Yeah?
Speaker 16: I was wondering, what is the best way you would
make the argument between me and thisism and Diophistism.
Speaker 4: I have a couple Oriental Orthodox friends.
Speaker 1: Well, we're not doing that tonight. I appreciate. We're gonna
do the next stream in about a week or two
or tee me about what did KAY say? I think
we're gonna do the seventeenth So we're gonna do the
next installment of the Monophysite stuff, the seventeenth storm of
the Cat ten dollars. Vox Days said that the false
logic of Darwinian evolution is inspired by Adam Smith and
free trade economics where there's paris or protectionism. Do you
think that's true? Probably? Probably, I mean that seems to
vibe with some of the stuff that I've read. I
don't know how far I think social Darwinism is absolutely
tied to Laise Fair, you know, Adam Smith, survival of
the fittest and the market type stuff, So probably I
would agree with that. JB. Five dollars. Oh no, we
did that. Alula, Yo, my boy, thank you for what
you do.
Speaker 4: I love you.
Speaker 1: Thank you a Lula Storm the Captain dollars. Do you
like Dungeons Sith Synth? I don't know. I think I
played one clip of that one time.
Speaker 10: Is it like.
Speaker 1: This nostalgic Dungeons synth? Let's see what it sounds like.
Speaker 4: M h.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's okay. I guess it reminds me. I feel
like I'm playing, you know, Final Fantasy or something, so sorry,
I might play in the background or something. Marco, what's up, man, Marco?
Am you?
Speaker 6: Hey, good evening.
Speaker 23: So as far as uh uh you know Darwinism, here's
what I'm gonna say about that, there is uh you know,
scientific proof that you know, illusion to a point it
is factual. But uh, you know we can also use
you know, Darwinism still and be Christians, you know, still
believe in Bible, you know, follow the.
Speaker 4: Way.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm Darvin, good old Darwin. Darvinism is where it's
thank you, Joshua. What's up Eddie Lifts? Where's the atheist at?
They're the best? You know, we had one and I
just didn't have the energy to do the whole thing
all over again. So if he had called in early on, maybe,
but we're three hours in. I just don't have the energy.
What's up?
Speaker 4: Man? Hey Jay, how you doing. I just want to
take the chance to say hello.
Speaker 6: And I first found you on Info Wars with Alex.
Speaker 4: I like your work, man. You make me, make me
keep the mind open. And personally, I call myself a Christian.
Speaker 8: I was raised in Christian family and community, but I
find myself.
Speaker 4: Religiously homeless because I don't really.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I have a hard time being told with a think
and how to feel about stuff. What do you have
to say to someone like me?
Speaker 1: Go visit orthodox church. Try it that way rather than
trying to do it intellectually. Gabriel, what's up. One of
the things we talked about at the beginning of the
stream tonight was the inadequacy of approaching everything intellectually, right.
That was kind of you know, when I was refuting
myself from my twenties, I approached everything purely intellectually and oh,
if I read all the books, I'll get it all
figured out. And uh that was a you know, an immature, idealistic,
young guy way to approach the world. And I was
wrong in that. What's up, Gabriel, Yeah, it's funny.
Speaker 4: Scientifics they have so much I.
Speaker 1: Can hear you, man, Can you speak up your your
mi barely?
Speaker 4: What's what? Oh? Uh?
Speaker 5: Just a quick comment on on the evolutionary guys and
the scientificists all the time. You know, it's like funny
that they think they sound super smarting uh huh, fact
and theory.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 3: It would be great that they just said, Okay, I
don't know.
Speaker 1: We can't hear you man, there's no there's no sound,
no audio, it's all cutting out. So try to call
back when you got a better signal. Because I was
I was liking where you were going with that. I
was smelling what you're what you're putting out Andrew saying
five dollars redeem. Zoomer says that he's going to do
a full Orthodox debunk this month. Uh oh uh oh,
I'm scared. I guess it's I guess we're done. We
got a twenty two year old. He's going to end
it all. It's over. Pack it up, orthos, it's over,
straight white male five dollars. What's with hispanic ripers? Are
they aware that Nick is white identitarian? I don't think
that guy was very coherent about anything, so what does
that tell you? He just wanted to call in and
yell and cuss at me. Devin five dollars, Thank you
so much, Jonathan. No, we did that. Bye, No, we
did that. Excuse me, Anonymous, one hundred dollars. Thank you
for all this free content. Well, thank you, Anonymous. I
meant to get to the part too of changing images
of man, and we had way too many Protestants today
just going crazy on Twitter, so I thought, actually we
would get more Protestants calling in. We only got two,
but of course they were They were definitely gems. So
if you missed tonight's protestants, go back and rewind and
listen to them. Because we had a Baptist who was
ready to debate all about the canon and Athanasious, but
didn't know anything about Athenacious or the Church of Alexandria
or what the canons of Nicea were. So that was comedic.
And then we had a self appointed street preacher prophet
man who also kind of had a meltdown. So we
had some excitement tonight. And if you're interested in perfect
exemplars of where the Protestant ethos ends up, you can
check those out. Jonathan, what's up? We do have church tomorrow,
as everybody knows, so I can't stay here all night.
Got to go to bed early because it's hard to
get up. Man, what's up, Jonathan, that's on your mind?
Speaker 24: I'm a person, so probably the third one then, sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's up? What's on your mind?
Speaker 10: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: Can you hear me? Yeah? It's fine.
Speaker 24: It's specifically so again, I've listened to you a little bit.
I'm talking about your old video, your videos when it
comes to our targets against well, no, it's the big
one that I kind of focused on to talk about
was about Norman of authority, because you say, I think
your position is that Christianism has a lack of normal authority.
Speaker 1: When it comes to even like yeah, so for example, like,
are is anybody bound in their conscience to what the
Candona scripture is or is it open?
Speaker 24: Would you would you take a like ecclesial tradition as
showing that it's supposed it's what our ecclesiology.
Speaker 1: You're you're cutting out say that again.
Speaker 6: Sorry, man, it's my it's my.
Speaker 1: It's my it's my mic.
Speaker 24: So would you would you accept like, uh, this an
ecclesiology specifically like.
Speaker 1: When we have Protestant cand of door cand of Door
or like Westminster Baptist confessions. Well, I think the point
is that even though you do believe that there are
these authorities quote unquote, the Protestant tradition out of the
Reformation is premise partly on the idea that nobody can
bind another man's conscience. So that's I think the sticking point,
because you believe in the right of private interpretation too.
Speaker 4: Yes, I think that that was in Westminster Baptist.
Speaker 1: Right, So how can you do you think that? So
for example, let's let's take the Council of Nicea when
it excommunicates anybody who disagrees with Nicea. Clearly, they don't
believe that everybody has the right of private interpretation and
the freedom of conscience.
Speaker 24: Just and that's kind of built on the principle of
the ability for the Church to be able to excommunicate.
Speaker 4: And call see right.
Speaker 1: Well, what I'm saying is that no, specifically, the idea
that you can bind people's consciences to an interpretation contradicts
the Protestant idea of the freedom of conscience and the
right of private interpretation. That's why that the normative authority
thing is a problem.
Speaker 6: Got you, Okay, Now it's.
Speaker 25: A little clear.
Speaker 6: I don't have an answer to that.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to give a better No.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. I'm happy to clarify. I am not
saying as many Roman Catholics do, which I think is
a bad argument. I am not saying that normative authority
grants individual epistemic certitude. I think when Roman Catholics make
that argument that, well, you can't know for sure without
the pope, and that's just moving the problem back and stepka.
Speaker 6: I don't have anything else.
Speaker 1: But thank you for sure, Yeah, anytime. Appreciate your goodwill
and civil discussion there so we can have the civil
discussions all day long. It's very simple. Actually, just don't
call and cuss and scream at me, like like the
hispanic dude and the self appointed street preacher prophet, and
we'll have a great discussion. See it's very simple. It's
not that hard. Lat No, we did that one. Let's see. Well,
Emmanuel five dollars. My childish mind wants to say that
you were wrong about anime because there are some worth watching.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: I actually agreed that there were some worth watching because
I liked ghosts in the show. I liked, uh, what's
the you know, Mio Ayazaki movies. I enjoyed those. They're
kind of weird. I just forget about it, and I
don't think about getting around to watching a full Metal
Alchemists and Neon, even Jellium whatever. I will eventually watch those,
So I'm not like just the automatic anime hater. I mean,
anime was already underground getting popular in the nineties when
I was a teenager, so I was like seeing it
becoming popular. And my best friend, the one that passed away,
that was a comic book artist that died this year,
I mean, he liked he wasn't super obsession that so
many people have with weird parts of anime. That's the
weird part. But uh, there's nothing about the artistic style
itself that I don't like.
Speaker 4: I like of it.
Speaker 1: I also resent the fact that when I go in
a bookstore it's gigantic rows of shells of anime and
manga now and it's not books. So it's also kind
of like, how can I phrase this? It's a foreign
art form, which I can appreciate, and I don't dislike
foreign art forms, but I want Western civilization to also
preserve and have its native art forms. Does that make sense?
Oh so you hate jumping use people? See how stupid? No,
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying, why is everybody
you know, twenty five and under, thirty and under like
super into anime? And I don't mind it in the
sense like yeaheple can have diverse tastes and appreciation in
terms of art and all that, but it's sort of
like the hip hopification of everything, Like why is everybody
only like super obsessed with hip hop for the last
thirty years and then rap is you know, all that's
kind of dying out, but like it is black culture,
and I don't mind it. But it's like, are all
the white people supposed to be into black culture? Why
can't we just have people appreciating everybody's culture and having
your own native art and culture. MKG says Full Metal Alchemist.
Is it the symbol looks like the monarchical Trinity? Yeah,
I mean I'm absolutely open to watching some of these things,
decoding them and appreciating them. Like I said, I've always
liked Ghosts on the Shell. Remember when I first got
a CD ROM on a computer, like back in the
two thousands, my buddy who's the comic book artist, one
of the first CD ROMs that he burned off was
Ghosts in the show, So he burned that off for
me to watch on computer. I was like, this is
like the most nerdy shit ever. It's like people burning
off anime to watch on CD rems. Joshua, what's up, hey, Jay?
Speaker 4: Since it came up, Thanks for a second shot here anime?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 16: I would love to see you do a breakdown on
something like Blue Exorcist.
Speaker 4: Have you ever heard of that familiar with No?
Speaker 1: I mean people just people say all these animes and
I don't even I've never even heard of them.
Speaker 25: So I got what is that Blue Exorcist with like
the Catholic Exorcism school and you know, a relationship between
demons and exorcists.
Speaker 4: It's a pretty.
Speaker 16: Interesting anime, and I think that'd be something you'd do
a great breakdown on.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll check, I'll take a look at some of these.
I just always forget to do it. But I actually
probably grow the channel a lot more if we covered
a lot of that stuff, because those things are probably
more popular than like the movies that we cover.
Speaker 10: I don't know.
Speaker 1: So see everybody's saying, when are you gonna do Neon
Genesis Evangelian. I mean people have actually been telling me
to do that for like ten years, so maybe I should. Gabriel,
did you want to try again? Is your mic better?
Are you there? I'm you, Julio Marida? Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 4: Okay? Is it better than last time?
Speaker 1: Yes? Much better?
Speaker 4: Hi, I don't funny, thank you.
Speaker 5: There's some very interesting themes an anime, and any man,
there's a lot of cultural trash there as well, and
I think a lot of like.
Speaker 4: Foreign subversion.
Speaker 5: But I would recommend, like no, I'm not gonna recommend
anything to do your own research. But the issue with
with ANIME, I think is the popularity that it has
is the decay.
Speaker 4: Of Western media.
Speaker 1: That's what I was trying to think is like people
are looking for aesthetics elsewhere, not that I blame them,
but I think we need to we need to recover
our own aesthetic.
Speaker 5: Right, Yeah, it would be great because yeah, they do
have some like very it's it's very thoughtful, like even
in the.
Speaker 4: As a comparison, it has deep it has depth as
and you don't really get as.
Speaker 5: Much in today's Western media, like you do have great classics.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 5: But to to what I was going at earlier with
scientific evolutionary types is.
Speaker 10: That they.
Speaker 5: If anyone understood their own epistemology, they should admit that
they don't really know that their theories, and you know,
they always try to make this distinction for political reasons,
like a theory isn't actually just a hypothesis, because it isn't.
It's more than a hypothesis, but that the relationship with
the facts and the theory is a pite case.
Speaker 4: It's a it's a paradigm, and it's it should.
Speaker 5: Be as you know, in scientific rigor, it should be
subject to revision you know when better information comes up.
So nothing is set in stone, and like the facts
can build the theory. You're supposed to build a theory
with facts, but the theory isn't a fact, right. You
can't say, oh, the theory of evolution is act is
a fact.
Speaker 4: That would be completely dishonest, makes no sense.
Speaker 5: But it would be interesting if they could ever argue
from that point of view, like, oh, we we joined
all be very meticulous, we joined all these little pieces
of fact that's together and made this very like eloquent
and not really facts either.
Speaker 4: I mean like they put facts into it. Similar like
they put facts into it, which is the replicability. But
the theory is what's like, what's a fact?
Speaker 6: Well, like I.
Speaker 4: Found a boat, that's a fact. Okay, what does the
bone mean?
Speaker 1: Is the theory?
Speaker 4: Now it's not.
Speaker 22: So facts are actually propositions about the boat. The boat's
not the fact, and science facts are factual statements.
Speaker 4: About observation, and any of those can be revised.
Speaker 22: So that's one of the problems is Colosly we just
think like, oh, fact is something that's.
Speaker 4: Kind of given, it's true, et cetera.
Speaker 6: But nobody even knows philosophy of science, and it's like.
Speaker 4: Facts are not out there in the world.
Speaker 22: Facts are a property of prop propositions, and the facts
are about the world. And people think like, oh, that's
just kind of like a objective kind of givenness or something.
Speaker 4: It's like any of those could be revised.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I understand, I understand series probably Oh sorry, sorry, no,
go ahead, Oh that the epistemic proposition is not even
you know, fathomed.
Speaker 4: They don't.
Speaker 5: They don't go there like the they diss that as
a sort of armchair philosophy. But even in their own,
like I'm talking even from their own perspective what they
considered to be facts from their epistemic or lack thereof,
they still make that confusion between what they would consider
facts and you know what is clearly not a fact,
which is you know, the the arrative that they sort
of twirled between the the facults. That's why I called
it factlets, because it's it doesn't really have an epistemic structure.
Speaker 6: But you know, even in their.
Speaker 5: Cosmo vision of what effect is, they still make that confusion.
Speaker 4: They don't they can't make that distinction between fact and theory.
Speaker 5: You know why, Well, I guess it's political it's because power.
Speaker 4: They're they're the high process. And I was going to
say because they're retarded, but.
Speaker 5: Yeah, no, I think I think it's it's it's a
political posture. They gain influence, and it's what gives them
their grants. It's in the end, it is a doctrine
that they have to uphold and it gives them power
and grants, you know, and tenures and all that shit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you for chumming
in the FDA guys.
Speaker 4: I want.
Speaker 1: Note that the good news is that it seems like
since the Apple update, the infamous choppy audio issue is
finally hopefully solved, right, Like, we didn't have any of
that pretty much for most of the last stream in
this stream, so I think maybe, I mean, I don't
know what happened in the last couple of minutes, but
hopefully that issue is solved. I mean, you guys didn't
hear any choppy in the live stream yesterday or today
right anyway, But I think we're gonna have to call it.
And I thank you guys so much. A lot of fun.
Thank you FDA for popping in here, guys. Remember heading
over to chalk dot com thank you, welcome all the
new members. Zach says, I was raised Catholic, I'm now
the non denominational. I'm generally inquiring. My wife says that
she would never become Orthodox thoughts. I mean, you know,
love your wife and invite her to liturgy and once
once she find and sees that there's sane women and
you can have, you know, an actual relationship with saying people.
That's usually what's going to convert the ladies. So she
might have a change of heart. Making sure I didn't
miss any super shots Joshua three dollars. Is it easier
to convert Protestants or atheists? I don't know there's easier.
I mean, I think everybody kind of needs the same
grace pretty much, and people convert for different reasons, so
it's a good question. I don't know that either one's
necessarily easier. Did you see Zoomer historian got his channel nuked?
Speaker 6: Now?
Speaker 1: Is that the guy that talks about tiny mustache man
that was trying to see if he would wanted to
come and do a debate. No, I didn't know he
did that. Or this proves your point about you can't
talk about these topics and have a career. Yeah, I mean,
you know, you never know really what what's going to
get you nuked and what's not. That's kind of a name.
Rolocks j Are Calvicks an Orthodox at a standstill about infiltration.
I don't know what you mean infiltration. I mean, I
know what you mean, Like, I mean, what do you
mean by standstill? No, I don't. I don't think the
church is ultimately going to cave to to infiltration. I
think the Roman Catholic system, because the nature of its
system is already compromised and at a systemic level, contradicts.
But I don't think so, old timer. Can you give
me a book recommendation about the monarchy of the Father?
I mean doctor bo Branson's lectures. There's a there's a
playlist of doctor Branson. Let's see if I can find it.
And also I'm not sure that there is a book
on monarchy of the Trinity. I mean usually, you know,
if you read Orthodox theology in general, it's going to
come up because it's it's just classic, you know, Orthodox theology.
But if you look at this playlist right here, the
Monarchy of the Father, that's a good good source for that.
All right, guys, Remember to head over to talk dot
com use promo co j A Wiper zero get forty
percent off, and head on over to The Jay's Analysis
Shop and get your signed copies of it