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