Speaker 1: All right, we are going live and I want to
Speaker 1: know if you guys can hear me. Let me know
Speaker 1: in the Jays Analysis YouTube channel, audience, if you can
Speaker 1: hear our discussion before we start rambling and nobody's listening.
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure it says we can here.
Speaker 1: All Right, Dave talk a little bit, so can hear you?
Speaker 2: Jack one chick too?
Speaker 1: Everybody here, Dave? All right, it sounds like we're good. Okay, welcome.
Speaker 1: We finally found a person who wants to finally step
Speaker 1: up to the neo pagan heathen plate and play a
Speaker 1: little bit of that a little bit of that heathen
Speaker 1: baseball at the Heathen Diamond. We're gonna see if our
Speaker 1: opponent has the stuff he says he wanted to do it.
Speaker 1: So I'll tell you what so I don't I'm new
Speaker 1: to you. Tell my audience who you are, what took
Speaker 1: you down your path? Take as much time as you need.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna let you say whatever you want to say.
Speaker 1: So welcome to the show. Thank you for stepping up, Dave, absolutely,
Speaker 1: thank you so much.
Speaker 2: And before I get started, like to thank you again
Speaker 2: for letting me come on here and have the opportunity
Speaker 2: to test my steel against a formidable opponent such as yourself.
Speaker 2: You are a master of your craft and had quite
Speaker 2: a few friends to tune into your content. Speak highly
Speaker 2: of you, so, you know, thank you for having me on,
Speaker 2: and thank you to everybody tuning in. You know, I
Speaker 2: appreciate all you guys, and hopefully this is a fruitful
Speaker 2: discussion and we walk away with this both learning something
Speaker 2: and going away with with more wisdom than we had before.
Speaker 2: But I'm big Dave Martel. I am a veteran of
Speaker 2: the podcast circuit. I have been involved in you know,
Speaker 2: all kinds of political nonsense. I ran madamericannetwork dot com.
Speaker 2: I've a notorious troll. I've been around. I've been around
Speaker 2: the block for quite a few years with all the stuff.
Speaker 2: But I am also a folkas then I practiced the
Speaker 2: faith of Aso true. I have been converted for you
Speaker 2: know about you the better about a decade. I've been
Speaker 2: practicing one. Before that, I was you know, researching, doing
Speaker 2: my research and everything like that. I was elected as Goati,
Speaker 2: which is like sort of like a like a priest
Speaker 2: of my kindred about six years ago. And it's just
Speaker 2: it's been a wonderful experience rediscovering my faith. However, as
Speaker 2: a child, I was raised kind of half asked Catholic,
Speaker 2: half asked Christian, kind of like you know how a
Speaker 2: lot of us are growing up with the boomer parents
Speaker 2: that you know, we don't really do. We go to
Speaker 2: go to church a few times a year, and you know,
Speaker 2: they you know, all the Golden Rule and they don't
Speaker 2: really understand the theology. But I do have some family
Speaker 2: that are very very well versed in the Catholic theology.
Speaker 2: And I'm not one of the autistic pay gang folks
Speaker 2: out there and that you know, go. I'll call people
Speaker 2: Christus all the time. I will call people cucks if
Speaker 2: they act like cucks or I think their position could
Speaker 2: be cucked. But I don't go out there and start
Speaker 2: war with Christians. I have so many wonderful Christian brothers
Speaker 2: and friends and family members of my life that yeah,
Speaker 2: I respect them. That is their path, that is what
Speaker 2: is that is their perennial truth. And I even have
Speaker 2: I have a few little statues to my my grandfather
Speaker 2: who was a devout Catholic, that I still have, and
Speaker 2: I regard them as sacred because it was It's not
Speaker 2: my faith, but it was my grandfather's faith, and my
Speaker 2: grandfather was a tremendous man. I have a statue of
Speaker 2: Saint Jude, statue of Saint Thomas Aquinas so so that
Speaker 2: I do certainly believe that there are good spiritual truths,
Speaker 2: perennial truths within the Christian theology and the Christian doctrine.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I converted to paganism focus also true about
Speaker 2: ten years ago, and yeah, I've been practicing ever since.
Speaker 2: And that that's about it. That's how I started.
Speaker 1: Okay, the first thing I would ask is, uh, what
Speaker 1: are the the convincing things? What are the things that
Speaker 1: convinced you that that was the path to go? I
Speaker 1: mean like like why did you what was the Was
Speaker 1: there like a series of steps that you went through
Speaker 1: of like, oh, you know, our people are kind of
Speaker 1: being warred against in the media and so forth, and therefore,
Speaker 1: you know that should be expressed in my religious perspective,
Speaker 1: and so therefore I need a kindred that I don't
Speaker 1: really get at like a Novasordo church or a normany
Speaker 1: Catholic type of situation. Was it like a series of
Speaker 1: steps or did you have like a like a one
Speaker 1: book that you read that just kind of changed your
Speaker 1: mind or what was it that was really kind of
Speaker 1: the defining points that made you go that route.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean those are all kind of material reasons,
Speaker 2: and those are certainly positives when it comes to to Ostro,
Speaker 2: like the tribe, the kindred kind of format, the folkish
Speaker 2: for Matt, the uh, you know, just the idea of
Speaker 2: of your your ancestry also being tied with your spirituality.
Speaker 2: That's not what brought me to it. All of those
Speaker 2: things actually came later when we started getting into the
Speaker 2: more heated political climate and all of this stuff. And
Speaker 2: I became more aware of it as I get older
Speaker 2: into my adulthood and I had children and got married
Speaker 2: and stuff like that. But my, my, what drove me
Speaker 2: into my spirituality were spiritual experiences. I had spiritual experiences
Speaker 2: that I could not explain that we were parallel with
Speaker 2: a lot of what is talked about in our spiritual texts,
Speaker 2: which are the Edis, and just I've I just you know,
Speaker 2: I guess it was just revealed to me. I've found
Speaker 2: things by I don't believe in coincidence, but I kind
Speaker 2: of stumbled upon things and they resonated with me. And
Speaker 2: it's just all kind of came together and I just
Speaker 2: I just ended up here. I can't explain it one percent,
Speaker 2: you know, in material terms, but it was just a
Speaker 2: I feel that it was a path that I was
Speaker 2: meant to be on, and the you know, the gods
Speaker 2: revealed all of these wisdoms to me, and this is
Speaker 2: this is how I ended up here. The stuff that
Speaker 2: you're talking about, you know, those things are absolutely true,
Speaker 2: and those things are very true for what draw people
Speaker 2: in now. And I'm not saying anything bad about people
Speaker 2: that get drawn in for because they have a yearning
Speaker 2: or a cultural or ethnic yearning, or nationalist yearning, or
Speaker 2: a family kind of thing that they're lacking before, as
Speaker 2: you said, the Norman Catholic, and you know, so I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that those things are necessarily bad. In my
Speaker 2: experience was superior or anything of that nature. But my experience,
Speaker 2: my path into my faith was purely based on spiritual experiences.
Speaker 1: Okay, So my first question would be, there's two points here,
Speaker 1: if one would be and I'm not trying to offend
Speaker 1: you or challenge the claim that you didn't have a
Speaker 1: spiritual experience, but number one, how do you know that
Speaker 1: those spiritual experiences are good or that they line up
Speaker 1: with what is good in some objective sense. And number two,
Speaker 1: I think the chief problem that I see in any
Speaker 1: kind of pagan view or any kind of approach like
Speaker 1: this is that it ultimately does kind of fall into relativism,
Speaker 1: because there's not really any way to justify or know
Speaker 1: that there is objective truth. There's really just everybody's kind
Speaker 1: of competing claims, and your subjective experiences are just as
Speaker 1: valid or or I mean, how could you measure your
Speaker 1: subjective experiences as to why this religion is true for
Speaker 1: you or why the spiritual experiences that you had were
Speaker 1: necessarily good? Maybe they were from an evil spirit or
Speaker 1: something like this? How do you adjudicate between the truth
Speaker 1: and the false, and the good and the evil? If
Speaker 1: it's if it's essentially a subjective type of system.
Speaker 2: Well, I wouldn't necessarily say it's a subjective. I would say,
Speaker 2: you know what, Now, Now, I'm not a biblical scholar
Speaker 2: by any by any stretch, so correct me if if
Speaker 2: I ever like paraphrase anything, that's incorrect. But uh, what
Speaker 2: what did Christ say about knowing whether or not people
Speaker 2: or divine teachers were actually divine. He said, look at
Speaker 2: the look at the fruits of of their of their
Speaker 2: words or something like that. Correct, you know I look
Speaker 2: at go ahead.
Speaker 1: Well, I would say that's one thing that we look at. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but he gave a lot of different, uh kind of
Speaker 1: test cases, litmus tests for how we know that you're
Speaker 1: in the falls. So just because in other words, I
Speaker 1: might I mean, if I already believe that what I
Speaker 1: am interested in is true, then I will I will
Speaker 1: interpret the fruits too to vindicate that. I'll have a
Speaker 1: kind of verification bias if I already believe something is true.
Speaker 1: So in other words, you kind of already have to
Speaker 1: have a system or a paradigm by which to judge
Speaker 1: the true in the false, to know if they are
Speaker 1: actually are quote fruits of that system.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean that's a that's an argument that a
Speaker 2: lot of times atheists used in order to kind of
Speaker 2: you know, beat up on on spiritual truths or perennial
Speaker 2: truths or things like that. But uh, with the thing
Speaker 2: that that Christ said, I measure the metric that I
Speaker 2: used to know whether or not my path is true
Speaker 2: is the fruit that came from it. You know, when
Speaker 2: I when I converted. I was, you know, I come
Speaker 2: from I mean, I caught poor, white trash. I came
Speaker 2: for a single mother household. I had a really rough
Speaker 2: early adulthood. I was really bad into drinking and partying
Speaker 2: and doing drugs, and I was pretty much a huge,
Speaker 2: just degenerate until I've you know, started feeling some kind
Speaker 2: of way and I met my wonderful wife and I
Speaker 2: started to, uh, you know, walk this path and practice
Speaker 2: uh ceremony and and really put my faith in my
Speaker 2: heart and my spirit and gave it to the gods.
Speaker 2: And from then I've I've done a complete just turn around.
Speaker 2: My life is completely turned around. I have a decent career,
Speaker 2: I have two beautiful, wonderful boys. I have you know,
Speaker 2: so many wonderful friends. My life is just the fruits
Speaker 2: of what has come from walking this path or just
Speaker 2: you know, immeasurable there. I've just been rewarded so much
Speaker 2: the gifts that I've been given or are obje.
Speaker 1: But like so, I mean, similar things could be said
Speaker 1: about somebody who has a moral reform or a change
Speaker 1: of life that goes into any cult or religion. So
Speaker 1: in other words, a person could conceivably say the same
Speaker 1: things about going into scientology. A person could say the
Speaker 1: same things about Oh, I was a you know, a
Speaker 1: bad alcoholic and I got involved in AA and then
Speaker 1: I joined a I don't know, a yoga cult and
Speaker 1: it just completely changed my life. And so in other words,
Speaker 1: even still, I think it kind of misses the point
Speaker 1: that how do you know that the religion itself is
Speaker 1: true on the basis of the fact that some good
Speaker 1: things happen? When that same kind of litmus test could
Speaker 1: be applied to any different kind of group where people
Speaker 1: join it and they perhaps have positive effects in their
Speaker 1: life later, that doesn't necessarily prove that the system of
Speaker 1: belief itself is true.
Speaker 2: Well you know number one, Like, I understand why you're
Speaker 2: using this argument, but this is essentially an atheist argument
Speaker 2: to kind of bring spiritual truth back down down and
Speaker 2: try to force it into material metrics and stuff. I mean,
Speaker 2: that argument could be used against people that say they've
Speaker 2: had spiritual experiences in Christianity, or how do we know
Speaker 2: that the Word of God is true? How do we
Speaker 2: know that the Bible is true? Well, you know this
Speaker 2: is that?
Speaker 1: Well you say that, right, I use that argument a lot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: as a Christian apologist, yeah. So, But the fact that
Speaker 1: atheists use this argument doesn't mean that it's in quote
Speaker 1: atheist argument. But yeah, I'm atheists will use logic. That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean the logic comes from atheists.
Speaker 2: But it comes down to what is the metric of good?
Speaker 2: How do we know that? What? How do we define good?
Speaker 2: What is what is these things that happened in my life?
Speaker 2: How are they good compared to somebody that joined scientology. Well,
Speaker 2: the things that that good that have been happened in
Speaker 2: my life are objectively good. They're objectively good. I mean
Speaker 2: I I had a family, I had children, I started
Speaker 2: to get financial success, I have a career, Like these
Speaker 2: things are all just all you know easily you know,
Speaker 2: they're just objectively good. Yea, somebody that's from that joins
Speaker 2: the yoga class that we're talking about.
Speaker 1: But how do you how do you determine what's objectively good?
Speaker 1: And and now on what basis are there objective truths
Speaker 1: and principles?
Speaker 2: Because well, how would you you define good? Define good?
Speaker 1: Well, ultimately, it's a transcetional category that applies to God.
Speaker 1: So God is the ultimate absolute, and because he's omni
Speaker 1: present and omniscient, eternal, et cetera. That's the grounding that
Speaker 1: I have for any kind of a claim of that nature,
Speaker 1: any kind of a universal, absolute claim kind of makes
Speaker 1: sense with with belief in a single, universal personal God,
Speaker 1: Whereas if there's not that, then it kind of seems
Speaker 1: to be chaos and fate that that reigns, that rules
Speaker 1: the universe and there's not really any universal principles at all.
Speaker 2: But you're saying that there is. You're a Unitarian obviously,
Speaker 2: so you're saying that there is a universal, uh primordial
Speaker 2: perennial truth.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, I'm a monotheist, I'm not a Unitarian.
Speaker 2: I mean well, I mean we can get into that too.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean that's a specific heresy that that's kind
Speaker 1: of in was invented, you know, in the last few
Speaker 1: centuries after the Puritans, with you know, people like Horace
Speaker 1: Man and h. Thomas Jefferson. We're Unitarians, So that's a
Speaker 1: specific kind of Jovah's witness style type of cult.
Speaker 2: My apologies, my apology.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that it's monotheism is at unitarian But
Speaker 1: so how how does that I don't understand the argument here, So,
Speaker 1: so what if it's monotheists, how does.
Speaker 2: That Okay, Well, if you want to talk about monotheistic,
Speaker 2: I actually disagree with the idea that European brands of
Speaker 2: Christianity are monotheistic. I think you know, you talk about
Speaker 2: you believe in the Trinity, correct, you believe in? Uh yeah,
Speaker 2: the Trinity you believe in? Do you believe in angels
Speaker 2: and saints and stuff like that? So how is that monotheism?
Speaker 1: Well, because the source of all life, the source of
Speaker 1: all existence, the source of all those creative beings, as
Speaker 1: God the Father.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you you would pay homage to the saints,
Speaker 2: and pay homage to the angels, and pay homage to
Speaker 2: these these manifestations of the divine correct.
Speaker 1: Right, because paying homage or reverence is different than worship.
Speaker 2: So you essentially are a polytheist.
Speaker 1: No, we consistently argue against polytheism because there's only one God,
Speaker 1: one divine nature.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have a very similar concept. We believe in
Speaker 2: the overarching primordial divinity as you know, what Christians call God.
Speaker 2: And then like Christians, we have you know, our gods,
Speaker 2: which would be I guess sort of like you know,
Speaker 2: in the Christian pantheon. I guess like angels or lesser
Speaker 2: kind of entities and stuff like that, and then we
Speaker 2: have heroes who are we believe to be divinely inspired
Speaker 2: men like saints. So it's the exact same concept, but
Speaker 2: with different semantics.
Speaker 1: No, it's actually very different concepts because we don't think
Speaker 1: that any of the saints or any of the angels
Speaker 1: actually possess the divine nature. So we have a very
Speaker 1: specific reason why we believe in a distinction between created
Speaker 1: and uncreated things. So the creative world has beginning in time,
Speaker 1: it's held in existence by God, and it has a
Speaker 1: certain te lose that God is determined for it. But
Speaker 1: that's different than the kind of being that God, that
Speaker 1: God is. And the reason that we are different from
Speaker 1: what you're talking about is because if you begin to
Speaker 1: blend the two and you kind of have these gradations
Speaker 1: or what would be maybe a chain of being idea
Speaker 1: amongst the Greeks, very similar to what you're talking about
Speaker 1: with hino theism, or that there's these gradations of participation
Speaker 1: in the divine nature and all this kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: it's really incoherent. So once we've adopted an incoherency about
Speaker 1: our starting point, the whole system kind of makes no
Speaker 1: sense because If the divine nature is kind of this
Speaker 1: beyond kind of great thing that everything participates in gradations,
Speaker 1: then it's not truly one. It's not truly simple, and
Speaker 1: we don't really know anything about it because every everything
Speaker 1: kind of gets melded into molded into that great oneness.
Speaker 1: This is the problem with all monistic religions. So what's
Speaker 1: unique about Christianity. The reason why the Trinity is different
Speaker 1: in this regard is that we don't believe in a complete, absolute,
Speaker 1: unknowable oneness or monism. And we also don't believe in
Speaker 1: a complete chaotic particularity where everything's crashing gets you, everything's
Speaker 1: just ruled by chaos. There's actually both unity and multiplicity
Speaker 1: are imperfect balance in God himself. It's not in perfect balance,
Speaker 1: and a whole bunch of chaotic gods and and you know,
Speaker 1: Zeus having sex with animals, turning into an animal, and
Speaker 1: having sex with women, and it's just it's all chaos
Speaker 1: and nonsense. That's another problem I think with that view.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to get too off course, but there's
Speaker 1: not really any coherency to this, to the pagan conception.
Speaker 1: We have a very worked out philosophical and theological perspective
Speaker 1: that we believe comes from revelation, and what we get
Speaker 1: in paganism is much more of a kind of sort
Speaker 1: of primitive anti philosophic bias. And so that's why there's
Speaker 1: naturally a rejection of ideas like objective truth. But the
Speaker 1: problem is that we see that that I think those
Speaker 1: religions still need and want objective truth just as much
Speaker 1: as the atheist wants to have an objective universal principle
Speaker 1: or truth, but he doesn't have any consistent way to
Speaker 1: talk about it or justify such a thing or give
Speaker 1: a coherent reason why there would be such a thing
Speaker 1: in his worldview. The same criticism applies to the neopagan
Speaker 1: or the or the Heathen or whatever, that if chaos
Speaker 1: and fate rule these things, then you really don't even
Speaker 1: know if all of reality has this great oneness of
Speaker 1: divinity that all the other beings participate in by gradation,
Speaker 1: it's just just something that you subjectively read somewhere or
Speaker 1: made up or and then the next guy could come
Speaker 1: along and say, no, I am actually the incarnation of Odin.
Speaker 1: There is no you know, I mean, how on what
Speaker 1: basis is one of these things true? And the others not.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, I'd like to reject. You know,
Speaker 2: sometimes there's people get used to using like weaponized language,
Speaker 2: And one of the examples of weaponized language that you're
Speaker 2: kind of rolling out here is saying, oh, well, you
Speaker 2: believe in the oneness, but it gets convoluted and clogged
Speaker 2: up because then you have all this chaotic stuff that
Speaker 2: comes down down the And I reject the idea of
Speaker 2: it being chaotic. In fact, it's very very orderly, the
Speaker 2: understanding of our gods and the hierarchy of our gods
Speaker 2: and the eschatology around all of it.
Speaker 1: So but but I mean, the whole history of various
Speaker 1: mythologies and different cultures. Isn't the gods fighting with one
Speaker 1: another and cheating with one another and stealing wives and
Speaker 1: connecting humans and practicing vctiality. That's not in the history
Speaker 1: of the gods.
Speaker 2: Well no, but you know it kind of you're boiling
Speaker 2: it down. I mean, you're you're you're a spiritual guy.
Speaker 2: You understand when you read scripture that you you're not
Speaker 2: supposed to get hanged hung up on the details. Atheists
Speaker 2: make this argument all the time. They'll read like the
Speaker 2: story of I don't excuse me, let me finish, please.
Speaker 2: But you know, the atheists use the They'll use the
Speaker 2: example of the story of Job, and they say that,
Speaker 2: you know how the story of Job happens, and you know,
Speaker 2: God punishes Job and to prove to the devil that
Speaker 2: you know, he's he's so loyal to God and this
Speaker 2: and that, and then atheists say, well, how do you
Speaker 2: you know, why would you worship a god that does that?
Speaker 2: And then you know, and so you understand that when
Speaker 2: you look at that story, you're not looking at necessarily
Speaker 2: the details. You take a step back and you draw
Speaker 2: the universal spiritual truth that comes from that story, the
Speaker 2: moral teaching of that story. So when you look at
Speaker 2: the Bible has tons of who are regarded as divinely
Speaker 2: inspired men or god like men and stuff that dude,
Speaker 2: degenerate shit that do bad shit, you know. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's like so to say that, you know, because there's
Speaker 2: these stories where the gods do things, you know, that
Speaker 2: are lousy, like for example, the Saga of Volley, where
Speaker 2: Odin is so angry about the killing of his beloved
Speaker 2: son Balder that he goes and he essentially date rapes
Speaker 2: a giantess woman, a princess in front of her father,
Speaker 2: so they can give birth to a child that goes
Speaker 2: and murders and gets revenge for the killing of his son.
Speaker 2: I mean that sounds awful, you, I mean, it sounds degenerate.
Speaker 2: But if you take a step back, you understand the
Speaker 2: nature of Odin, and you understand that Odin is he
Speaker 2: sees all things. He sees all of time, past, president
Speaker 2: in future happening simultaneously, and then you go on to
Speaker 2: understand that Volley goes on to be one of the
Speaker 2: most crucial characters within the later within the cycle of time.
Speaker 1: So, first of all, it's a big difference between saying
Speaker 1: that David sinned and God or Jesus committed sin. Those
Speaker 1: are different things because we believe that God is God,
Speaker 1: and God doesn't He's not fallen, so he's not going
Speaker 1: to commit the kinds of actions that you would speak
Speaker 1: of in terms of that kind of deity. And so
Speaker 1: that's very different from saying, well, the Bible has men
Speaker 1: committing atrocious actions. Yeah, because that's part of the mess
Speaker 1: of the Bibles, that we're falling human beings. That's why
Speaker 1: we need we need, we need God. But again, how
Speaker 1: do you know when again, I think it. I think
Speaker 1: it kind of begs the question to say, well, but
Speaker 1: you know, that's why you got to step back and
Speaker 1: not get hung up on the details. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: really what I'm asking, though, is like, on what basis
Speaker 1: do we know when something is a revealed truth about
Speaker 1: Odin and when it's a thing where we say, now,
Speaker 1: let's let's not really read that literally, let's step back
Speaker 1: and find a universal principle. And I mean, there's there's
Speaker 1: no clear way to adjudicate this, and the fact that
Speaker 1: every single Pagan could just come along and say what
Speaker 1: he thinks, uh, I mean, maybe you have the true
Speaker 1: pagan revelation. But what I'm saying is, how do you
Speaker 1: know to how to adjudicate the two? And the reason
Speaker 1: I'm asking that is to read to lead to kind
Speaker 1: of a clearer issue. To make this clear is that
Speaker 1: there are universal principles like reason and logic, mathematics. These
Speaker 1: things are not culturally relative, right, not things that we
Speaker 1: just make up as social constructs. The forms and patterns
Speaker 1: that we see in nature, concepts about logical laws, syllogisms,
Speaker 1: and so forth, they're not They're not human constructs. They're
Speaker 1: actually operant principles in the world. And what that suggests
Speaker 1: is that is that there is a consistent pattern of
Speaker 1: reason and doing reasoning. And what I get from you
Speaker 1: is that's a kind of an atheistic approach. What we
Speaker 1: want is to return to spirituality. So you kind of
Speaker 1: set reason against spirituality. We don't do that. We believe
Speaker 1: human reason is perfectly in line with with spirituality.
Speaker 2: First, I didn't I didn't imply that. What I'm saying
Speaker 2: is that atheists are essentially just they're here to tear
Speaker 2: They're Discordian, They're just here to tear it down. They're
Speaker 2: just using weapons. They're not. I mean, I agree with
Speaker 2: you entirely. If you if you in uh in Heathen theology,
Speaker 2: we say the same thing. We know, uh human nature, logic, reason, mathematics,
Speaker 2: all of these things are completely in tune with our
Speaker 2: spiritual flofilosophy. Like you're just you're talking about the mathematics,
Speaker 2: and I just briefly watched some of your video where
Speaker 2: you talked about numerology and stuff, and that nailed it
Speaker 2: on the head. I would say that same exact stuff,
Speaker 2: except I would switch out some of the language that
Speaker 2: I use. You we're describing kind of the same thing,
Speaker 2: except the argument here is coming from you know, essentially semantics.
Speaker 2: It's coming from semantics, it's not.
Speaker 1: It's very different to say that there's one God with
Speaker 1: omniscience and who, by his divine providence, is the basis
Speaker 1: by which we ground these principles in universals that are
Speaker 1: offer in nature and by and contrasting that was saying, well,
Speaker 1: there's a chain of being and that the top there's
Speaker 1: odin and then there's all these kind of conflicting you know,
Speaker 1: gods or whatever. So I mean, are the gods fighting
Speaker 1: or not? Are they Are they just representations of symbolic
Speaker 1: principles or are they actual entities that are fighting out
Speaker 1: there in the world.
Speaker 2: I mean all of the above. It's here's the thing
Speaker 2: about in uh in Heathenry, we don't try to pretend
Speaker 2: that we understand and our little human minds can express
Speaker 2: and really define what is divinity? What are the cosmic
Speaker 2: mechanics of the universe. We're not gonna So we have
Speaker 2: the gods to teach us it through story and allegory
Speaker 2: and scripture, how to understand it and behave properly during
Speaker 2: our short time on this life. In our earthly vessels
Speaker 2: until we pass on to the next life.
Speaker 1: How do you know? How do you know when you're
Speaker 1: supposed to enact revenge? And how do you know when
Speaker 1: you're supposed to not? I mean, where there's no consistent ethic.
Speaker 2: In this at all? There is absolutely.
Speaker 1: How do you know? How do you know what? When
Speaker 1: is a good action? When is a virtuous action?
Speaker 2: When is it not?
Speaker 1: When are you supposed to go to war? When you're
Speaker 1: supposed to have a vendetta? When are you supposed to not?
Speaker 2: I mean, it says clear and day in the ed
Speaker 2: is it says in the Havamal. There's there's plenty of
Speaker 2: clear as day, succinct descriptions on how you should behave
Speaker 2: in certain things, how things should be done, and how
Speaker 2: to live your life and how to make decisions and
Speaker 2: stuff like that.
Speaker 1: However, how do you know those aren't the How do
Speaker 1: you know those aren't the details that don't really matter
Speaker 1: that you're supposed to overlook and find a universal principle.
Speaker 2: How do you know that the ones in your scripture
Speaker 2: are well.
Speaker 1: We have a we have a way of a pattern
Speaker 1: of knowing this, because it's not just me reading this
Speaker 1: book there's a whole history that goes into where this
Speaker 1: came from and fulfilled prophecies. There's no fulfilled prophecies in
Speaker 1: in Uh in.
Speaker 2: Paganism, absolutely there is, absolutely there is Ragnarok. Look at
Speaker 2: look at the story of Uh. You know, the cyclical
Speaker 2: nature of time. It describes to a t the cyclical
Speaker 2: nature of civilization, and it's coincides contradiction if no, no, no, no
Speaker 2: no no, it coincides with the stories that come into Vedas.
Speaker 2: What they talk about in Sonata Dharma is like when
Speaker 2: they describe the Yugos.
Speaker 1: Those are completely different philosophies there just because they are,
Speaker 1: just because you find a similarity. The basis of that
Speaker 1: religion is that you need to uh destroy your ego
Speaker 1: and and find unification with the thusness of the universe.
Speaker 1: That's why you see, that's why you see Yogis sitting
Speaker 1: out there in their shit, because that religion is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It's not the same religion as what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: So what you do is cafeteria style, pick and choose
Speaker 1: what you want from each one of these traditions to
Speaker 1: call to concoct the thing that you think makes it
Speaker 1: look all the same that's false.
Speaker 2: First of all, you're you're implying that I'm saying that
Speaker 2: the totality, the entirety of all of Hinduism is exactly
Speaker 2: the same as that. You know, what I'm talking about
Speaker 2: is the original scriptures written in the Vedas are hail
Speaker 2: from a similar ancestral spiritually philosophical root. And we know
Speaker 2: that in science, we know that we've uncovered these people,
Speaker 2: the the you know, the Indo Arians, they all hail
Speaker 2: from the same kind of root philosophy, and that's where
Speaker 2: it all came from. Now to get what philosophy comes from,
Speaker 2: it's called proto Indo European.
Speaker 1: Oh so, in other words, it took as it took
Speaker 1: secular academics to dig up and prove what is the
Speaker 1: true revelation that's the skeletal thing that's been corroded throughout
Speaker 1: all these millennia, which you're arguing is somehow.
Speaker 2: In some skeletons, you're going to deny truth prophecy. By
Speaker 2: the way, so what you're saying is you're going to
Speaker 2: not deny truth because it comes from a source that
Speaker 2: you don't like I thought you were just said.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that you are your arguments here are all
Speaker 1: subjective because you're lying not they are. You don't see
Speaker 1: that they are, but they are because you're relying on
Speaker 1: principles that are mathematical, that are universal, that are that
Speaker 1: are supposedly scientific. But the arguments that you're giving to
Speaker 1: ground this are subjective. That's the problem.
Speaker 2: It's not subjective. You just said a few moments ago
Speaker 2: that you are in line with logic and reason and
Speaker 2: science and and what we do know and what are
Speaker 2: mathematical truths. If we uncover a mathematical truth, if somebody
Speaker 2: that we don't like that we're not in line with
Speaker 2: discovers it, does that make it not true? No, that
Speaker 2: would be that would be a sinful act, right to
Speaker 2: deny something that is absolutely true, you know. So, I
Speaker 2: don't understand why you would want to deny something or
Speaker 2: expect me to deny something that is a universal truth.
Speaker 1: I think you're again you're begging the question because I'm
Speaker 1: asking how you're getting a universal truth or a universal claim,
Speaker 1: and then when you explain where it comes from and
Speaker 1: how you get it, it's a bunch of places that
Speaker 1: you go to that don't make sense, that aren't co
Speaker 1: that aren't consistent with the philosophy that you have. That's
Speaker 1: what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2: Well, I just I just you know, no, I made
Speaker 2: the case that it is consistent, and in fact it's
Speaker 2: consistent that it's and I'm making the case like if
Speaker 2: you read do Mozill, he points out many, many, many
Speaker 2: different religions across the Northern Hemisphere, and even in you're
Speaker 2: talking like Iranian and like Zoastrianism, and all of these
Speaker 2: faiths have similar universal truths. And how do you know
Speaker 2: what they are? That's the question.
Speaker 1: You're just saying these things. There's no clear there's no
Speaker 1: You've not given a single clear example of how do
Speaker 1: I know in a certain instance whether I should enactive
Speaker 1: indetta or whether I should run away from it? Well,
Speaker 1: that's say, Well, there's a lot of general general principles.
Speaker 2: Up we're talking about. How how do I know that
Speaker 2: it's universally true? How do I know that my spiritual
Speaker 2: philosophy is true? I know? Well, number one, and how
Speaker 2: do I know that the mathematics and the metrics in
Speaker 2: which I used to measure it is true are in
Speaker 2: fact true? And I'm saying that one of my metrics,
Speaker 2: one of my my pieces of evidence. Is that it
Speaker 2: coincides and it's parallel with many, many, many other cultures
Speaker 2: around the world that came to the same conclusion and
Speaker 2: have even more more.
Speaker 1: That's just, that's just, that's just an appeal to uh
Speaker 1: a large number. That's a fallacy. It doesn't matter how
Speaker 1: many people. That's appeal to consensus is a fallacy.
Speaker 2: But that's how science works. How does how do we
Speaker 2: come out? How do we establish that?
Speaker 1: As you about scientific consensus, I'm asking you for a
Speaker 1: logical justification, and you gave an appeal to consensus.
Speaker 2: No, but what we're doing is we're I'm proving that
Speaker 2: consensus is a legitimate thing. It's a legitimate system all
Speaker 2: the sciences fallacy, it's but it's not. It's it's absolutely
Speaker 2: based on consense, and consensus is the whole reason we
Speaker 2: have scientific theory in the first place.
Speaker 1: Appeal to consensus is a fallacy.
Speaker 2: But you asked me what evidence, and I'm giving you
Speaker 2: one piece of evidence. I mean, you can I didn't
Speaker 2: ask for evidence.
Speaker 1: Also like fallacy, So there's a difference between a a
Speaker 1: logical justification and empirical evidence or data. I agree with
Speaker 1: you that we can bring forth pieces of evidence and data.
Speaker 1: But I asked a more specific question about logical justification
Speaker 1: for a claim or knowledge of a claim or a
Speaker 1: metaphysical principle that you're talking about, And you can't justify
Speaker 1: that by giving me an appeal to consensus, which is
Speaker 1: a fallacy.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I also don't. I don't like the
Speaker 2: idea of logical fallacies because it's just a way to
Speaker 2: cop out of an argument.
Speaker 1: So no, it's not you believe You just said you
Speaker 1: believe in logic and universal principles.
Speaker 2: Yeah I know you don't. No, No, I totally do.
Speaker 1: You don't believe in the logical fallacies?
Speaker 2: You don't, Well, I will take I'll take a logic
Speaker 2: and reason and scientific consensus and real world evidence over
Speaker 2: just some like subjective you know, argumentative you know tactic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot. The the appeal to consensus is not
Speaker 1: a subjective tactic. It's it is a tactical fallacy. Do
Speaker 1: you not understand what fallacies are?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah I do. But it's just it's just some
Speaker 2: ship that some guy made up. So he get it.
Speaker 1: Now you just have loss of debate.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, okay, but yeah, let's get back. Okay, let's
Speaker 2: get let's get back to the to this stuff here.
Speaker 2: But what was it? What was the original topic? We
Speaker 2: kind of like went went crazy around in some crazy.
Speaker 1: So we were talking about, uh, the ideas of the
Speaker 1: gods and the ideas of I was talking about fate
Speaker 1: and the problems that I see in kind of trying
Speaker 1: to find a basis for for paganism in in like
Speaker 1: a perennialist approach. I did a debate a few months
Speaker 1: ago with a guy who's a perennialist. It was a
Speaker 1: very similar discussion to what you and I are having.
Speaker 1: So basically, what I'm saying is that I just see
Speaker 1: a bunch of conflicting approaches that don't really have a
Speaker 1: unified vantage point from which to try to to do ethics,
Speaker 1: to try to I'm not saying that in your own
Speaker 1: life an experience, you don't have good things happen to you,
Speaker 1: or you don't do good things, or you don't have
Speaker 1: true experiences. I'm not saying anything like that, or that
Speaker 1: everything you're saying is false. I'm just saying that when
Speaker 1: I look at the philosophy of the worldview that you have,
Speaker 1: when I look at the ethical claims of that system.
Speaker 1: When I look at the metaphysics of that system, when
Speaker 1: I look at how you know things and how you
Speaker 1: believe and have come to believe that the the addas
Speaker 1: or whatever are a kind of revelation. I'm saying that
Speaker 1: to me, that's where it kind of breaks down. That's MYRT.
Speaker 2: Now I will completely admit to you, and I'm gonna
Speaker 2: it's gonna be completely honest, and I know you're gonna
Speaker 2: you're gonna jump on me on this, but you know
Speaker 2: it's it's it's fact that a lot of our our history,
Speaker 2: our artifacts, a lot of our our our literature, and
Speaker 2: a lot of our stuff is lost in time and
Speaker 2: we have to do a lot of stuff to put
Speaker 2: it back together. And we have a lot we still
Speaker 2: have some work to do to put the our faith
Speaker 2: back together. And that's why we were called. I reject neopagan,
Speaker 2: the word neopagan. We are a reconstructionist religion. We are
Speaker 2: reconstructing and you're automatically, I know what you're gonna say.
Speaker 2: You're gonna say, well, if it's not all together and
Speaker 2: you don't have all the pieces, why would you follow it? Well,
Speaker 2: because you know, because the gods are real, Because divinity
Speaker 2: is real because this is the way that divinity uh
Speaker 2: speaks with me and every man to understand divinity. And
Speaker 2: we need to get away from materialism. And this is
Speaker 2: my path out of materialism, and this is the path
Speaker 2: for many people out of materialism. And it's objective that
Speaker 2: the fruits of what we're doing and what we're enacting
Speaker 2: are good. We're getting people people stop, you know, when
Speaker 2: you in as true community, people stop watching porn, they
Speaker 2: get married, they have kids, they give up drugs, they
Speaker 2: get good jobs. We do, we build communities, We give
Speaker 2: positive things to people's lives, and so you know, to
Speaker 2: say that, you know, yeah, we we are a reconstructive movement.
Speaker 2: And I'm not gonna I can't debate that position to
Speaker 2: like because it's true, and I will one hundred percent
Speaker 2: admit that. But the fact that it is does it
Speaker 2: take away from the the the objectively good and objectively
Speaker 2: true things that we're doing in society and beating back
Speaker 2: the clown world degeneracy that all of us here, you know, you, me,
Speaker 2: everybody listening, we all hate this, this postmodernist clown world garbage.
Speaker 2: We all see that it's it's it's trash, This is
Speaker 2: our formula. This is my formula, and this is what
Speaker 2: has resonated with me and what has been the best
Speaker 2: path for me and for many many, many thousand millions
Speaker 2: of us. So that's that's what I got to say
Speaker 2: about that there.
Speaker 1: So let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say that,
Speaker 1: Let's say I have a dream, and I'm being serious,
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be a clown. I'm like, look,
Speaker 1: what if I had a dream and I felt like
Speaker 1: it was my duty to restore the true teachings of
Speaker 1: Peyonic Egypt. And so what I do is I go
Speaker 1: and I kind of construct from all of the from
Speaker 1: the Mempha, the Memphi, the Memphi Creation Document, and the
Speaker 1: Hermitica and these different ancient texts that we believe come
Speaker 1: from Egypt. And I put forth a kind of a
Speaker 1: skeletal approach, and then I build a pyramid out in
Speaker 1: my backyard and I get it going, and I say that,
Speaker 1: you know, the true Faluronic religion requires I have discovered
Speaker 1: this through my own research, and I've actually found some
Speaker 1: scholars that will back me up on this. We've discovered
Speaker 1: that everybody who follows my cult that they need to
Speaker 1: offer their all the hottest daughters all need to be
Speaker 1: given to me. And that's that's divine phyronic revolution revelation.
Speaker 1: I am like wadib, I am the god Emperor. So
Speaker 1: how would you say that any of this is wrong?
Speaker 1: How would you say that any of that's incorrect or
Speaker 1: on what basis? Because I'm going to say, yeah, but bro,
Speaker 1: it's objectively true that I am helping out these hotties
Speaker 1: because when I'm laying the pipe to my harem of hotties,
Speaker 1: I'm given the best possible world for all human beings
Speaker 1: by more and more offspring coming from JD.
Speaker 2: Well, what is what? What? What is the fruit of
Speaker 2: this guy?
Speaker 3: Like you?
Speaker 2: What are you? What are you proving? How are you
Speaker 2: religion that I have constructed? Those are good fruits, bro,
Speaker 2: that's that. But that's not fruits. That's just claims like
Speaker 2: you got to produce something to show that you have
Speaker 2: veg I.
Speaker 1: Really do this, and I really do have a harem
Speaker 1: and a whole bunch of uh supermodel babes and I
Speaker 1: and I act like I'm a god emperor, Like, how
Speaker 1: is that not the fruit's consistent with my revelation in
Speaker 1: my religion?
Speaker 2: Well, how would if a guy came out like that,
Speaker 2: that said he is the next Messiah, and how would
Speaker 2: you take him?
Speaker 1: And he could prove it, well, I would argue with
Speaker 1: him the same way I'm arguing with you is that
Speaker 1: these these contracts kind of break down because you ultimately
Speaker 1: have when you're gonna compare these kinds of systems, you
Speaker 1: have to go back to things like logic. You have
Speaker 1: to go back to things like universal claims and principles,
Speaker 1: and that's gonna involve pulling out things like logical fallacies,
Speaker 1: which I guess you said it doesn't really matter.
Speaker 2: Well, do you know I actually agree with you one
Speaker 2: hundred percent? Yah. You were is twenty nineteen, like we
Speaker 2: we're a current year. So it's going to be kind
Speaker 2: of hard for a guy to prove to me that
Speaker 2: he is, you know, the son of Odin and he's
Speaker 2: here to establish galactic pagan supremacy and he's got a
Speaker 2: whole harem full of you know. Okay, but let's say
Speaker 2: you're not.
Speaker 1: Let's say that I do this off over on my
Speaker 1: own libertarian island somewhere and I'm not even messing with
Speaker 1: your people. Your people. What I'm saying is, is there
Speaker 1: any basis that you have to say what I'm doing
Speaker 1: is wrong.
Speaker 2: I mean, sure, if you're if you're going against the
Speaker 2: the you know, principles of Frith and oath set forth
Speaker 2: within the the halve of mall and within the head
Speaker 2: is then you're you're not doing constructing.
Speaker 1: I'm constructing the true Pharonic religion.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, okay, so number one, if you're constructing the
Speaker 2: Egyptian religion, I would question you, you know, right away,
Speaker 2: because you're not Egyptian. You're you're a white guy obviously.
Speaker 1: So, but there's a good argument to be made that
Speaker 1: the upper class of Egypt, the upper cast were actually
Speaker 1: uh perhaps Arian, So I actually agree with that.
Speaker 2: But but even so, but even so, so, what why
Speaker 2: do I have to.
Speaker 1: Be part of that racial h haplo group in order
Speaker 1: to be that maybe maybe the gods have donned me
Speaker 1: the new initiator of the new Pharonic religion.
Speaker 2: Well okay, so this this gets into the the debate
Speaker 2: of focism versus universalism and perennialism, and that divinity. In
Speaker 2: our school of thought, divinity is expressed differently among different
Speaker 2: peoples because different people are you know, as we know
Speaker 2: in these you know, in these circles out here on
Speaker 2: the internet. Different people are are biologically different, they think differently,
Speaker 2: they have different attributes, they have evolved in different places.
Speaker 2: They're just we're just obviously different. You know, it's not
Speaker 2: one race, the human race. So obviously when something comes down,
Speaker 2: you know, when they're divinely inspired, they will express divinity
Speaker 2: in different ways, and that is why it's different. We don't.
Speaker 2: We don't. So I could look at.
Speaker 1: There's nothing wrong with my with my wad deep God
Speaker 1: Emperor cult. I'm the Quizat's hotter rock. I gotta hear them.
Speaker 1: Nothing wrong with that.
Speaker 2: Well, there is something wrong with that because you're just
Speaker 2: coming out with it. You're not. You're there's no basis
Speaker 2: in ancestry that shows that it's a tradition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you just said that you had spiritual experiences
Speaker 1: that led you to your religion. So I'm saying the
Speaker 1: same thing. I have had a spiritual experience. It happened
Speaker 1: in a dream. I was told that I need to
Speaker 1: set up the pyramid in my backyard. On what basis
Speaker 1: is that going to be degenerate?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well, number one, it's it's not like Okay, So
Speaker 2: here's the fundamental misunderstanding about Heathenry is that people that
Speaker 2: look through a universalist lens still keep looking through a
Speaker 2: universalist lens. It's not a universal religion that you could
Speaker 2: just pick up. It's not something that you could just practice.
Speaker 2: It's not Buddhism, it's not Christianity. It's not something to use.
Speaker 2: It is an ancestral tradition.
Speaker 1: It is a okay, But ancestral traditions are particular, right,
Speaker 1: They're specific areas or locales within history, geographical places and
Speaker 1: so forth. But earlier in the debate you were making
Speaker 1: a point to try to say that the point of
Speaker 1: Odin is that he is a connection to or a
Speaker 1: manifestation of universal logical laws and principles in mathematics. Is
Speaker 1: that's why those two things don't make sense.
Speaker 2: I'll make it sense. Make it makes sense right now.
Speaker 2: Odin is the german Man. Is the Germanic deity that
Speaker 2: has come to explain to us of Germanic descent how
Speaker 2: divinity works. He speaks our language, he looks like us,
Speaker 2: he is he is part of us. He's the guy
Speaker 2: that came to teach us how divinity works. That's that's
Speaker 2: what that is.
Speaker 1: But how does he look like you, if he's the
Speaker 1: ultimate perennial god nature, that's beyond all things.
Speaker 2: We mean, look at the depictions of him when he
Speaker 2: reveals himself to people. Yeah, that's how he manifests. That's
Speaker 2: how people understand him, that's how people have seen him,
Speaker 2: that's how people depict him. That's how he's expressed in
Speaker 2: our folklore.
Speaker 1: And that's universal, but he appears to specific cultures.
Speaker 2: Odin is not universal. Odin is not universal. Divinity is universal.
Speaker 1: Okay, So is it the same principle that's revealing truths
Speaker 1: to all these different religions over time and space that
Speaker 1: maybe it's not Odin, but it's like an avatar of
Speaker 1: this same divine principle.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so like an equivalent of Odi.
Speaker 1: What's that it's perennialism basically.
Speaker 2: Essentially, essentially it is a very similar to perennialism.
Speaker 1: Okay. So the problem with perennialism is that you can't clearly,
Speaker 1: just clearly say what is degeneracy and what's not. Is
Speaker 1: uh a giant orgy of but sex? Is that degenerate
Speaker 1: or is that just part.
Speaker 2: Of the right absolutely degenerates it's a degenerate Why on
Speaker 2: what basis. Well, because it's a it's a dishonorable act,
Speaker 2: it is a disgraceful act, it's a it's a an
Speaker 2: act of the flesh.
Speaker 1: That's a that's a reification.
Speaker 2: Okay you Okay, so it's bad because it's bad. No, okay,
Speaker 2: So within within USO true, we understand that. Uh for uh.
Speaker 2: In order to achieve a higher level in order to
Speaker 2: like what you should strive for in your in your
Speaker 2: life is you should find a balance between all of
Speaker 2: the all of the natures of being, all of your
Speaker 2: levels of existence, which you I'm sure, I mean, I
Speaker 2: know you Plato, Guy Plato talked about the tripartite soul.
Speaker 2: Many other people, philosophers talked about the tripartite soul. Everybody
Speaker 2: understands tripartite soul. It appears in all European spiritual philosophies.
Speaker 2: Same thing. In order for you to ascend to a
Speaker 2: level of awakening, to a level of I guess a
Speaker 2: spiritual oneness, you must balance mind, body, and spirit. In
Speaker 2: order to balance them, you must master them and to
Speaker 2: be like kind of a slave to just the carnal
Speaker 2: Thurst's is the opposite of is the opposite of that.
Speaker 2: It's anus worship. It's worship of the material, and that
Speaker 2: is degenerate.
Speaker 1: Okay, But Plato also thought playing around the little boys
Speaker 1: was good.
Speaker 2: Well, it doesn't mean everything he said was good, you know.
Speaker 1: Okay, So we're back at the pick and choose cafeteria approach.
Speaker 2: You're picking it chuse it too. You like Plato, I
Speaker 2: don't tell me you don't like Plato, and then you.
Speaker 1: Must not be you must not be familiar with what
Speaker 1: I talk about, because that critique Plato more than I
Speaker 1: praise Plato. I mean, yeah, I talk about when I
Speaker 1: think he says things correct. But so most of my
Speaker 1: talks are critiques.
Speaker 2: But you are picking and choose, and you say that
Speaker 2: he does say some good stuff.
Speaker 1: But I believe, but I have a basis for him.
Speaker 1: Believe in universal logical principles that directly relate to the
Speaker 1: mind of a personal God. And you're telling me that
Speaker 1: it's both subjective and irrational and coherent and rational at
Speaker 1: the same time. That's the problem. There's a dialectic between
Speaker 1: a universal rationality that you want to have to make
Speaker 1: truth claims and to say something is objectively wrong in X,
Speaker 1: Y and Z cases. And then on the other hand,
Speaker 1: you're saying, well, I can't really say because in our religion,
Speaker 1: it's just it's based on my people group, this revelation
Speaker 1: to Germanic peoples. That's not universal. So what's the problem
Speaker 1: is that there's there's an attempt to have both things
Speaker 1: at the same time, and it's based on again a
Speaker 1: kind of a dialectic. And I think that again, this
Speaker 1: goes back to the Trinity. This is one of the
Speaker 1: reasons why of the Trinity resolves this problem of one
Speaker 1: and many is because we don't believe that there's an
Speaker 1: ultimacy to either unity or to particularity and the many
Speaker 1: that's out there. We believe that God is both one
Speaker 1: and many, but ultimately there's one, one personal God. So
Speaker 1: so that's the reason and basis for how we can
Speaker 1: have a logical approach to adjudicating between true claims false claims,
Speaker 1: true religions false religions is that it's not subjective. It's
Speaker 1: it's objective, and it's not just saying it's objective. There's
Speaker 1: actually a logical basis for how there are objective truth claims.
Speaker 2: Now, this goes back to why I think it's a
Speaker 2: lot of it's semantic because like when I hear you
Speaker 2: talk about, well, it's the separation between one and many.
Speaker 2: We just have the one and then there's the many.
Speaker 2: But then you also pay homage to the many. But
Speaker 2: then it's not it's not worship, it's homage. It's different.
Speaker 2: It's just a bunch of these semantic arguments. I feel
Speaker 2: like we're both like we're both wearing like green shirts,
Speaker 2: except you're telling me your shirt's not green.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not semantics, because even you yourself have
Speaker 1: already said that the I mean, presumably the terminology that
Speaker 1: you would differ in when you read the Vedas and
Speaker 1: you find things that you don't agree with, that's on
Speaker 1: the basis of the terminology and the words that are there.
Speaker 1: So yeah, all all differences are semantic. That what's But
Speaker 1: but semantics matter because words match up to reality.
Speaker 2: Well, what you're saying is that there's a universal mathematic
Speaker 2: understanding of things that create an objective metric to measure things. Right, Sure,
Speaker 2: that's what I'm doing. I'm saying that you know, in
Speaker 2: this these guys came up with two plus two equals four.
Speaker 2: These guys came up with two plus two equal four.
Speaker 2: My stuff says two plus two equals four. Therefore two
Speaker 2: plus two must equal four. That's what I'm coming up with.
Speaker 1: That is the metric, except that that's not what you
Speaker 1: were saying in the first half of the discussion. I
Speaker 1: was saying no, because mathematics is directly related to logic.
Speaker 1: Logical laws can be formulated most of the time, many
Speaker 1: times in mathematical forms and principles. So that means that
Speaker 1: you can't, for example, deny fallacies because the logical fallacy
Speaker 1: is nothing more than a specific example of something that
Speaker 1: is a formal logical principle, and those logical principles are
Speaker 1: essentially the same as mathematical laws, like if you talk
Speaker 1: about a universal or universal negative universal claim, those are
Speaker 1: very similar to things in math, math claims, and math sets.
Speaker 1: So to, on the one hand, say that and then
Speaker 1: say that that that, for example, the informal fallacies don't
Speaker 1: matter shows that that's not really in your mind when
Speaker 1: you approach your perspective or your worldview. So again, what
Speaker 1: I hear is an attempt to want to be objective
Speaker 1: and to have objective principles, but at the same time
Speaker 1: to want to have a complete subjectivity and irrationality that
Speaker 1: allows for you to pick and choose in a kind
Speaker 1: of cafeteria approach, which things are true, in which things
Speaker 1: are false. And again there's not if you don't have
Speaker 1: do you have access to the ultimate divinity that's beyond odin,
Speaker 1: that's present as the skeletal outline of all religions.
Speaker 2: I mean, we see it every day. It's everything is
Speaker 2: an expression of the divinity. So it's monistic, yeah, sort of.
Speaker 1: Okay, So if monism is true, this breaks down at
Speaker 1: a really fundamental philosophical level. If monism is true, then
Speaker 1: ultimately everything is at root one.
Speaker 2: Right, everything? Okay, So it's not everything is the root one.
Speaker 2: Everything is at root one. Okay, Well, so what monism
Speaker 2: what you're talking about is that everything is part of
Speaker 2: the great oneness. Everything is involved in the great oneness.
Speaker 2: That's not necessarily what I'm saying. What I'm saying is
Speaker 2: everything is an expression of the great oneness, including the gods,
Speaker 2: including you know, which are different for each people. And
Speaker 2: you know, that's that's what I'm getting at here. Now.
Speaker 2: I want to before we go on, you said that
Speaker 2: the metric that I'm using to describe logic along with
Speaker 2: my line of thinking doesn't coincide with what I was
Speaker 2: originally talking about. I want to know exactly what you're
Speaker 2: talking about that didn't coincide.
Speaker 1: Because you said that the peal to consensus is not
Speaker 1: a fallacy, and it is therefore everybody who would do
Speaker 1: logic and basic logic would know. Then appeal to consensus
Speaker 1: is an informal fallacy. But informal fallacies are nothing more
Speaker 1: than examples or instant instantiations of universal principles that are
Speaker 1: that are formal fallacies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just uh, when when I'm discussing stuff with
Speaker 2: people and it's just a lot of time, I'm sure
Speaker 2: you've ran into this. People that are masters of sophistry.
Speaker 2: It's the logical fallacy thing is is a very easy
Speaker 2: escape for them to get out of.
Speaker 1: Ark, there's not going to be any debate that an
Speaker 1: appeal to consensus is fallacy.
Speaker 2: But why is it that science relies so heavily on
Speaker 2: appeal to consensus.
Speaker 1: Because science deals with the domain of empirical research and data.
Speaker 1: It's not dealing with the domain of rational justification, conceptual justification,
Speaker 1: epistemic justification.
Speaker 2: So shouldn't spirituality be based on research and data as well.
Speaker 1: Aspect there's an aspect to religion, which is experiential and existential,
Speaker 1: but there's also an aspect which is a priori and
Speaker 1: conceptual or even mathematical.
Speaker 2: But it should be we should absolutely still be logical,
Speaker 2: reasonal human beings. Yeah, so I just don't I just
Speaker 2: don't understand the disconnect here.
Speaker 1: Because I'm making a presubpisitional critique of your approach, your worldview. Again,
Speaker 1: the metaphysics, the ethics, the epistemic claims, they don't cohere.
Speaker 2: But I'm saying that they do. And it's just we're
Speaker 2: using kind of I know.
Speaker 1: You're saying that, but that doesn't you know, doesn't make
Speaker 1: it so. And I've already kind of been illustrating through
Speaker 1: going through each of these points how it doesn't cohere.
Speaker 1: The there's a bunch of conflicting claims.
Speaker 2: It's like you're you're saying this is true over here,
Speaker 2: this is not true over here, and you're just kind
Speaker 2: of like mixing it up, so it just all sounds jumbled.
Speaker 2: But the fact is that I'm saying that you asked
Speaker 2: me why is it that, or you asked me what
Speaker 2: is the metric? What is the objective metric to prove
Speaker 2: the stuff that I'm talking about, you know, And then
Speaker 2: you said, you know, well, in spirituality, we should absolutely
Speaker 2: use logic and reason. We should be scientifically minded because
Speaker 2: we are modern people. As a place, yes, yeah, it
Speaker 2: absolutely should have a place. Science should always have a place,
Speaker 2: good science, not pseudo science crap, you know. But then
Speaker 2: I give the example of a very scientific approach of
Speaker 2: putting this thing together and proving my metric, and then
Speaker 2: you say it doesn't make sense now.
Speaker 1: Because again there's a distinction between what the domain of
Speaker 1: science and empiricism and investigates and the question that I'm asking.
Speaker 1: That's a higher level question, which is how do you
Speaker 1: justify claims? And this is pretty normative in philosophical discourse.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be a douchebag and I'm trying
Speaker 1: to be a sophist. It's just like, if you listen
Speaker 1: to the debate that I would JF for example, we
Speaker 1: talked about justifying claims or how do we make sense
Speaker 1: of things like logic in the world. So it's kind
Speaker 1: of a metallogical question basically, which is.
Speaker 2: Which is which is a A?
Speaker 1: I mean, this comes up in perennialism, this comes up
Speaker 1: in the history of Greek philosophy. This is not an
Speaker 1: out out there like I didn't make this up. This
Speaker 1: is the Yeah, if you took a philosophy class in
Speaker 1: the history of Western philosophy, you're going to deal with
Speaker 1: the justification of claims, the justification of epistemology. How do
Speaker 1: we know? How do we know the difference between believing
Speaker 1: something and knowing something? These kinds of questions. So what
Speaker 1: I asked you was was a very pointed thing about
Speaker 1: how do you know that these this religious system is true?
Speaker 1: And you appeal to a consensus, And I'm saying that
Speaker 1: is a fallacy, That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Well, it's not just the consensus.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: You asked to be about it a metric, a scientific
Speaker 2: metric in which I could prove it, And I look
Speaker 2: to the first thing that I know about science, and
Speaker 2: that is appeal to consensus. So I gave that as
Speaker 2: an ex as one example of truth. Another example of
Speaker 2: truth that I gave was, you know, the fruits that
Speaker 2: it bears, How these things that come out from this
Speaker 2: faith are objectively true, and how these things that come
Speaker 2: out from this faith are objectively good?
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can't imagine in a million years, you would
Speaker 2: argue that having children and living a traditional life and
Speaker 2: getting back to the simples and rejecting degeneracy is bad.
Speaker 2: I can't ever see you say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But again, you're missing the point. The question is
Speaker 1: about knowing and justifying beliefs and claims. How do you
Speaker 1: know what's degeneracy and what's not degeneracy. That's kind of
Speaker 1: the question I've been asking from the get go. Andy, Well,
Speaker 1: it's just objectively good to have kids. That's called a
Speaker 1: circular argument. That's restating the thing that you think is good.
Speaker 1: And I'm saying, how do you know how to adjudicate
Speaker 1: between the two. That's why I gave the analogy of
Speaker 1: the guy who starts his pyramid cult. You might not
Speaker 1: agree with where I get my vindication from my dream
Speaker 1: of the gods talking to me and saying I'm the
Speaker 1: new Pharaoh. But but who are you to say that
Speaker 1: that's not true? I mean, who are you to say
Speaker 1: because you grounded your positions on kind of like the
Speaker 1: the spiritual experiences that you had, Like, how do you
Speaker 1: say that my spiritual experiences are no more, are not
Speaker 1: as valid as yours?
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, when we got started, when I was talking
Speaker 2: about by spiritual experiences. That was to explain how I
Speaker 2: got here. That wasn't you know this this later stuff
Speaker 2: that we're talking about is as my spirituality, my understanding
Speaker 2: of the philosophy developed and became more refined. That's how
Speaker 2: I you know, now I look through different lens.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this question. So, if do you
Speaker 1: understand the idea that that morals or propositions are theory laden?
Speaker 1: In other words, if in my belief system, I believe that,
Speaker 1: and I'm acting on the whether I actually I don't
Speaker 1: even have to believe it or not. If I'm acting
Speaker 1: on the principle that I'm saying that the gods told
Speaker 1: me that I should started the Pharaoh cult, then what's
Speaker 1: good in my belief system, in my worldview is going
Speaker 1: to be determined by my assumptions, within my my paradigm,
Speaker 1: within my if so, if I believe and if I
Speaker 1: think that I'm the God Emperor, then it is a
Speaker 1: good thing for me to have a harem and to
Speaker 1: to I don't know, have all the brides of my subjects.
Speaker 1: If I so desire like, that's what I determine as
Speaker 1: a good thing. And I'm saying on what basis is
Speaker 1: that not a good because the goods in this perennial
Speaker 1: system or any perennial system, are subjective.
Speaker 2: But they're they're not subjective because you know, I know,
Speaker 2: you're we're going to go back to the fallacy of
Speaker 2: consensus or whatever. But it's parallel with what other people
Speaker 2: are objectively saying to the fruits of what happens. You can't,
Speaker 2: I can't let that go. You understand that that's not you.
Speaker 1: That's not a justification of a claim, but.
Speaker 2: It's one one piece of a justification. You can have
Speaker 2: multiple angles that come together into one full thing.
Speaker 1: You believe that a lot of people can a lot
Speaker 1: of people be wrong about something?
Speaker 2: Give me, give me one secon here. And this is
Speaker 2: what we're running into here. I'm trying to give you
Speaker 2: like a multifaceted justification, and you're kind of like stopping
Speaker 2: me on this and stopping me and like picking apart
Speaker 2: of the ballacy.
Speaker 1: Then it doesn't work as a justification.
Speaker 2: But it can when it's mixed together. Yeah, of course
Speaker 2: it can. Of course it can. Yeah, Okay, then get.
Speaker 1: Rid of that pallacies to justify a proposition or belief system.
Speaker 2: Okay, So here's another justification. It says that these behaviors
Speaker 2: are how we're supposed to act clear as day in
Speaker 2: the Eddis, and that was written by divinely inspired men.
Speaker 2: That is the word of God.
Speaker 1: Okay, on what basis do we know that that's the
Speaker 1: word of God when you were also appealing to like
Speaker 1: ancient texts like the beta is to say that it's
Speaker 1: the same idea there that's in the betas.
Speaker 2: I'm just confirming. I'm just confirming that it's saying other
Speaker 2: things for other people, that the mathematics and the metrics
Speaker 2: are true.
Speaker 1: How do you know that that confirms that?
Speaker 2: Though?
Speaker 1: How do you know which things are the right things
Speaker 1: to pick out when it's literal and when it's not.
Speaker 1: Because you said a minute ago, don't get caught up
Speaker 1: in the details, Well, maybe the detail of a situation
Speaker 1: or a story about Vendetta is a detail I need
Speaker 1: to pay attention.
Speaker 2: Well, how do you know that? What is your process
Speaker 2: for justification? Then?
Speaker 1: Well, we have a process within the church, which is
Speaker 1: where you actually go into the catechisis the whole mindset
Speaker 1: of the church spread throughout the world, because there is
Speaker 1: an objective revelation given in scriptures. No, it's a mystical experience,
Speaker 1: it's initiatory experience.
Speaker 2: So you're you're how do you know that your experience
Speaker 2: is better than mine? Then because of this coherent How
Speaker 2: is it coherent?
Speaker 1: Because I can give a justification, a basis for all
Speaker 1: these things that I'm talking about. How there are these categories,
Speaker 1: how there are these principles that reflect in the mind
Speaker 1: of a single personal God, And I don't think you
Speaker 1: can give me a basis for it.
Speaker 2: It kind of sounds like you're just creating this like
Speaker 2: logical uh, this like lot uh, like this giant straw
Speaker 2: man logical trap, so you could like pick everything apart,
Speaker 2: put it together, and knock it down when you're really
Speaker 2: just kind of describing the same exact thing you're saying.
Speaker 2: You're saying, you're saying, you're but no, no, no, know
Speaker 2: what you're saying. It's called sofist string is what it's called.
Speaker 2: It's called your point out things. I think.
Speaker 1: I think, I think I think that anytime you see
Speaker 1: a fallacy or get called out, you think that sophistry.
Speaker 2: But yeah, no, I'm doing philosophy. But it's the intent
Speaker 2: behind it. The intent behind it is to you because
Speaker 2: you're because we know what the intend is. That's why
Speaker 2: we're here. We know what we're here to debate and stuff.
Speaker 1: So you know you're saying that my intention is to
Speaker 1: be to be sophistical and not to be rational or
Speaker 1: to do philosophy. Now I'm doing philosophy when I'm asking
Speaker 1: you these questions. The basics of philosophy are ethics, metaphysics, epistemology. Uh.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to be looking at your worldview, your paradigm,
Speaker 1: your belief system, and seeing if what I see their coheres.
Speaker 1: I don't see a coherent uh starting point in any
Speaker 1: of those positions. And while Christianity Orthodotrician unity I say specifically,
Speaker 1: it might not have an answer to every single thing,
Speaker 1: it's at least coherent. So what we do in my
Speaker 1: approach is we can there two different paradigms and we
Speaker 1: see which one is coherent. Because I believe in a
Speaker 1: coherent You want me to be clear, I'm believing a
Speaker 1: coherency theory of truth. I don't think that when I'm
Speaker 1: getting here is coherent. It seems like a bunch of
Speaker 1: jumbled up contradictory stuff.
Speaker 2: It sounds like you're described been kind of the same thing.
Speaker 2: You say. Okay, well, it says in the in our
Speaker 2: texts that this is true. It says through spiritual mystic
Speaker 2: experiences that this is true. And it also says that
Speaker 2: throughout our church, throughout the time and the world. You know,
Speaker 2: the consensus of the church says the same exact stuff
Speaker 2: I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: No, but the difference is that our paradigm has no
Speaker 1: Our paradigm has a basis for how to justify these
Speaker 1: these beliefs in each of these three categories of philosophy.
Speaker 1: So what I've been doing is critiquing, critiquing your paradigm,
Speaker 1: critiquing the basics of where you start the system. Uh,
Speaker 1: And I'm saying that it's not coherent, and I'm saying
Speaker 1: that if you look at ours, it is coherent.
Speaker 2: So what I said was essentially texts, uh, spiritual experience, consensus,
Speaker 2: and then you said text spiritual consistence, spiritual experience, and
Speaker 2: then consensus. Right.
Speaker 1: But the point is that the explanation of those things
Speaker 1: was not coherent.
Speaker 2: But it's the same thing at its at its core.
Speaker 1: You can use the same words. I know you're talking
Speaker 1: about semantics, but I showed you earlier that it's not consistent.
Speaker 1: How do you how do we know if the guy
Speaker 1: who starts as cult is did you or not?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 1: How you said, because it's objectively not true and there's
Speaker 1: a scientific consensus. But actually there's not a scientific consensus
Speaker 1: about whether having a bunch of kids it's true or not,
Speaker 1: because much of science is bought off and now promotes
Speaker 1: the idea that you shouldn't have any kids. So there's
Speaker 1: not even a scientific What is science anyway? What is
Speaker 1: the scientific consystem?
Speaker 2: And there's a whole other debate, there's a whole nother
Speaker 2: debate is it is?
Speaker 1: But but so, and I appreciate the rejected scientism, but again,
Speaker 1: there's not going to be a clear definitely. You said, well,
Speaker 1: the EDAs tell us this, okay, But you also said
Speaker 1: that the EDAs have a thing where we shouldn't get
Speaker 1: caught up in the details, like things like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: the gods seem to act like men, don't they They
Speaker 1: seem to be personified human beings.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So what I'm saying is that I think at root
Speaker 1: here what the problem of paganism is that it's relativistic.
Speaker 1: And I know that you're really reaching four ways for
Speaker 1: it not to be relativistic. But I don't see how
Speaker 1: that is justifiable or inescapable.
Speaker 2: But you know, I'm just gonna go back to the
Speaker 2: bottom line, is what's the similar about both of our
Speaker 2: face describing you know, get rid of the debate, tactics
Speaker 2: and all of this. Is you know, your justification for
Speaker 2: spiritual truth is what is said in your texts? What
Speaker 2: is spiritual experiences? And uh, you know, consensus. And I
Speaker 2: would say, I would go further, and I would say
Speaker 2: that my consensus is more thorough than yours. Yours is
Speaker 2: just based within the confines of your church mind branches
Speaker 2: out to many, many different other spiritual philosophies that branch
Speaker 2: throughout different names.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean you can pick and choose and
Speaker 1: do that. I could pick and choose and say that, well,
Speaker 1: there's similarities and all these other religions to my religion.
Speaker 1: Therefore there's a skeletal outline of how my religion is
Speaker 1: the true religion that that doesn't really I mean, that's
Speaker 1: so that's so vague. It could be anything. I mean,
Speaker 1: we can find similarities in anything between anything by doing that.
Speaker 2: Well that this is the problem with universalism, as you
Speaker 2: think that you're you have the one universal truth for
Speaker 2: all of the world, and which has led to multiculturalism
Speaker 2: and all kinds of this other stuff that has gone down.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying, though, I'm not saying that the Orthodox
Speaker 2: Church has led to this. I'm not saying Catholics have
Speaker 2: led to this, but just the general idea of universalism
Speaker 2: has been fundamentally, absolutely destructive for all of the world entirely.
Speaker 1: This is another contradiction. Do you think that your position
Speaker 1: is true? You've been arguing that there are objective truths,
Speaker 1: that's a universal claim in a universal position, and now
Speaker 1: you're trying to make a fallacy argument about how Christianity
Speaker 1: is the source of and Judeo whatever history is the
Speaker 1: source of universal claims and universal religion. That's what I
Speaker 1: just tried to argue a few minutes ago, that your
Speaker 1: position has universal moral claims.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, my position has My position has
Speaker 2: universal truths. There are universal truths, but universalism isn't universal truths.
Speaker 2: There are things that are just that are universally true,
Speaker 2: like you said, mathematics are universally true, but that's not universalism.
Speaker 2: Universalism is taking all of your philosophy and believing that
Speaker 2: all people around the world works for them, which is
Speaker 2: just fundamentally wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well again, I think that what you think is
Speaker 1: sophistry is again doing philosophy, and this is how philosophy works.
Speaker 1: This is doing philosophy, is asking questions about assumptions. If
Speaker 1: you read the Apology, know you were talking about played
Speaker 1: too Socrates. I mean, that's essentially what what Socrates does
Speaker 1: when he goes out in Athens is he questions everybody's presuppositions,
Speaker 1: they're starting points their paradigm. That's what I'm doing. And know,
Speaker 1: actually what you're the sinction that you're trying to make
Speaker 1: there really doesn't work. Because if it's morally wrong for
Speaker 1: me to start the cult and have a harem and
Speaker 1: to practice magic butt sex, then it's universally morally that's
Speaker 1: a universal claim. So even if you don't want your
Speaker 1: religion to be universal, but at the same time you
Speaker 1: want it to have universal aspects, you're still a universalist.
Speaker 1: Even a relativist, even the most rank relativist who says
Speaker 1: there's absolutely no truth, man, he dogmatically believes that that
Speaker 1: is a universal truth. And that's what I'm saying, is
Speaker 1: that that's inescapable. So you play you're the one playing
Speaker 1: a sophistical word game of wanting to have objective universal
Speaker 1: claims and truths, and then turn around and say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's the Christian who wants the universal truths when you
Speaker 1: have in need the same thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, I made the clear distinction that just because
Speaker 2: there are parts okay universal, you admit that there's a
Speaker 2: different parts of your religion, yet it doesn't matter because
Speaker 2: its matter. Remember, words matter, definitions matter. You said, you
Speaker 2: said that.
Speaker 1: You believe there's universal truths in your religion.
Speaker 2: Because some aspect there are parts that are universal, because
Speaker 2: there are some things that are absolutely universal, but as
Speaker 2: a whole, it is not philosophically universalism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it doesn't matter whether you tack on the
Speaker 1: ism on the back of it, because you still believe
Speaker 1: that it's wrong for me to have the harem and
Speaker 1: the magic butt sex.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, you know, why do we got to talk
Speaker 2: about butt sex? Like? Can we just make it in
Speaker 2: a lot of pagan literature? That's what it's not pop prominent.
Speaker 2: I've read all of the I've never seen a single
Speaker 2: uh butt sex, no butt sex, and and and uh.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Plato earlier Plato talks about it.
Speaker 2: Well, Plato is not Germanic pagan and in fact, a
Speaker 2: lot of people argue thatism.
Speaker 1: And you're trying to you were appealing to Plato. You
Speaker 1: were appealing to the no no no, no, no no no.
Speaker 2: I gave. I gave an example that I knew you
Speaker 2: were familiar.
Speaker 1: So only the Germanic tribes were the ones that were
Speaker 1: that refrained from butt sex. Okay, yeah.
Speaker 2: In fact, and Tacitus, you know, he explained how the
Speaker 2: Tutons would throw sodomites and bogs and pile rocks on
Speaker 2: top of them and disappear them. So sodomy has not
Speaker 2: been historically something that we are, you know, tolerant, tough.
Speaker 1: Well, whether it is or it isn't, I don't say
Speaker 1: on what basis is it wrong?
Speaker 2: I mean, I mean you just made the claim that
Speaker 2: there's gods having butt sex in the head is which
Speaker 2: is I you know, it's just so I said, I talked,
Speaker 2: I said the Greeks, all right, well I'm not Greek.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're you've been appealing to other religious traditions
Speaker 1: as a universal way to vindicate the skeletal outline.
Speaker 2: Because I thought that it would be a better I
Speaker 2: thought it would be better than just appealing to myself,
Speaker 2: which is what the argument you're doing, And so.
Speaker 1: The appeal outside of yourself doesn't work as what I'm
Speaker 1: trying to say.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm saying that the you know, the appeal to
Speaker 2: yourself is kind of a you know, it's like saying,
Speaker 2: you know, uh, it's you know, appealing to yourself is
Speaker 2: also subjective, and it's kind of you know, it's kind
Speaker 2: of sketchy. You know. I'm saying like, there's these other
Speaker 2: examples all over the place, and you're saying, oh, my
Speaker 2: examples come from in house.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: I appealed to how you justify claims in philosophy when
Speaker 1: you when you go to a debate, you kind of
Speaker 1: there's the assumption that they're that both parties are going
Speaker 1: to be subjected to the same rules and laws of logic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, but but it doesn't get past my point here,
Speaker 2: is that Why is it that my justification I'm using
Speaker 2: are contradictory. No, they're not.
Speaker 1: The exampt doesn't make them not.
Speaker 2: But they Yeah, you say, there's there's there's gods having
Speaker 2: butt sex in paganism all over the world, doesn't make
Speaker 2: it true because it's not true. But here's the here's
Speaker 2: the bottom line.
Speaker 1: Is that true?
Speaker 2: It's not? Okay, read the edis. If you read the edis,
Speaker 2: I will bet I'm a thousand dollars a thousand dollars,
Speaker 2: you will not find one single examits why.
Speaker 1: Are we supposed to follow the EDAs? Why are we
Speaker 1: not following Zeus? And in the Greek myths? Like why
Speaker 1: is one true in the other? Well, I said, well,
Speaker 1: it's this is from my people, so it's relative, it's subjective,
Speaker 1: and I'm saying that you need a way to adjudicate
Speaker 1: between true and false, between evil and good. You don't
Speaker 1: get that in your religion.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, here's here's a good metaphor. So like, uh,
Speaker 2: I'm though, like what is like say, you're trying to describe,
Speaker 2: You're just trying to express what a light is to
Speaker 2: multiple different people. Light, a light is light. You mean,
Speaker 2: we know what light is there. But if you go
Speaker 2: to you know, in India there's a different word for light,
Speaker 2: still light. If you go to Germany there's a different
Speaker 2: word for light, still light. Go to Russia, same thing,
Speaker 2: over and over and over, still light, but it's spoken
Speaker 2: in different languages, so that makes it it's consistently light,
Speaker 2: it's just spoken in a different tongue.
Speaker 1: That's different than trying to say that the same religion
Speaker 1: is manifesting itself across all these different cultures and that
Speaker 1: there's a basic skeletal outline between all these different religions.
Speaker 1: They're fundamentally contradictory.
Speaker 2: There's a difference between religion and God. There's a difference
Speaker 2: between religion, philosophy and divinity.
Speaker 1: I said, knowing that that is true and that you're
Speaker 1: actually accessing true propositions about the the divinity that's beyond
Speaker 1: the different avatars or whatever, there's no way to know
Speaker 1: that because system is completely contradictory and relativistic.
Speaker 2: Okay, debate stuff or argument of tactics society is there
Speaker 2: yes or no? Is there an overarching entity in the universe? Yes?
Speaker 2: Or no?
Speaker 1: Do you understand that the debate tactics aren't tricks, that
Speaker 1: you're actually appealing to things that are real principles, they're
Speaker 1: not they're not tricks.
Speaker 2: Well it is, because Okay, here's the thing you're you're
Speaker 2: trying to prove to your audience by making me pick
Speaker 2: apart my I could say something that's universally true. Like
Speaker 2: just now, I know you would have said yes, but
Speaker 2: you avoided the question because you're trying to pick me
Speaker 2: apart and you're trying to make a display that you
Speaker 2: and your position are superior to mind as opposed to
Speaker 2: having you.
Speaker 1: Trying to make a point to you about how and
Speaker 1: what the debate is and how universal claims and logic works.
Speaker 1: And you see it as kind of like a sword
Speaker 1: that you bring to the battle to whey, that that
Speaker 1: you like rhetorically kind of sneak around people and make
Speaker 1: them look bad. And I'm saying I do not view
Speaker 1: it that way. You can think that I that I
Speaker 1: do that, But the way I view it, and I'm
Speaker 1: being honestly when I tell you this, is that we
Speaker 1: are actually our minds are tapping into actual universal metaphysical
Speaker 1: principles out there in the world. Logic is really a thing.
Speaker 1: It really there really are real fallacies and all this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. They're not just tricks. It's not just semantics.
Speaker 1: It's real. And so when we approach it that way,
Speaker 1: what I'm trying to do is look at the justifications here.
Speaker 1: And again, I mean, you're aware that there's the idea
Speaker 1: of justifying things in like a philosophical way.
Speaker 2: But this is a performance, this is this is a production,
Speaker 2: is a.
Speaker 1: How do you you don't know my motives? You're just
Speaker 1: assuming that this is like theatrics and Hollywood or something.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, I'm not saying that. But I'm
Speaker 2: saying that you have the the intent to defeat taking
Speaker 2: it because you know, I mean, am I wrong? Am
Speaker 2: I wrong? That you have the the intent of promoting
Speaker 2: your faith and kind of knocking down mind? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: That's part of my intention.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's go back to my first question. Is there
Speaker 2: yes or no? And overarching divine entity in the universe
Speaker 2: in all of creation? Sure? Yeah, So why is it
Speaker 2: that you're avoiding these universal truths and using essentially pill
Speaker 2: pull to kind of pick apart something that's also universally trial.
Speaker 1: I've been sitting here arguing for universal truths and claims
Speaker 1: only consist that they're only consistent with they personally revealed God,
Speaker 1: and that is distinct from the idea of all of
Speaker 1: creation being a kind of pantheistic manifestation of God. So
Speaker 1: that's very that's very important for us because we don't
Speaker 1: confuse the Creator and the creature. They're two different realms
Speaker 1: or two different things. Creation can be exalted, it can
Speaker 1: it can participate in different operations or energies of God,
Speaker 1: but it's never the same thing as the divine nature.
Speaker 1: And that's the central problem with paganism, is that it
Speaker 1: confuses the divine nature with what's created. And so when
Speaker 1: once you blend those two worlds, what you get is
Speaker 1: idolatry and you get the madness and relativism of paganism.
Speaker 2: But it's so what, Okay, let's let's take a step back.
Speaker 2: What is your were metric? What is the justification that
Speaker 2: your metric for analyzing this is true?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna utilize the justifications in philosophical discourse, right,
Speaker 1: the justifications in logic, the justifications in uh epistemic analysis,
Speaker 1: the justifications that also are at times empirical. Sure, there's
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with putting forth empirical evidence, but that's again,
Speaker 1: it's different than the way that we justify a claim
Speaker 1: because that has to do with universal claims. And the
Speaker 1: only way you can justify universal claims is not ultimately empirical.
Speaker 1: It has to be a priori.
Speaker 2: Okay, So you're going to go back to you're essentially
Speaker 2: using the same justifications as me. You're just using a
Speaker 2: a more I mean.
Speaker 1: You've missed the entire argument I've been making the whole time,
Speaker 1: and you're saying, you're just saying it's pillpol it's talmudism,
Speaker 1: it's it's this kind of stuff. Uh No, I mean,
Speaker 1: philosophy is not pillpool, But.
Speaker 2: You know, debate tactics is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's because I mean, have you are you not
Speaker 1: familiar with debate?
Speaker 2: Like I mean, I'm not very.
Speaker 1: Rude to you, but I mean justifying claims is not
Speaker 1: semantics and tricks.
Speaker 2: But when you when you split hairs and you try
Speaker 2: to pick apart every single little detail before.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think having a harem and but magic
Speaker 1: butt sex is splitting hairs.
Speaker 2: I mean that's a simple question. Well, I mean I've
Speaker 2: I would never, you know, advocate for any kind of
Speaker 2: butt sex ever.
Speaker 1: I know I'm not saying you are. I'm asking the question,
Speaker 1: how do we judicate between whether that's degenerator or no.
Speaker 2: You're keep you know, you keep bringing up butt sex,
Speaker 2: and I'm just saying that it triggers me and I
Speaker 2: don't want to talk about butt sex. That's all I'm
Speaker 2: saying here.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, we can pick a different human sacrifice, to
Speaker 1: pick a different thing that we think is degenerate.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I made the I made the distinction that
Speaker 2: you know, just like you did that. The justification for
Speaker 2: why my faith is true is holy text is consensus
Speaker 2: is results. The fruit of what has happened results the conclusion.
Speaker 2: That's the same thing you said. So it's just like
Speaker 2: all this other stuff to see kind of like fluff
Speaker 2: to me, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, do you want to you want to go?
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not mad or anything. I think it
Speaker 1: was a great discussion, but uh, you want to do
Speaker 1: like a Q and A. We've we've we've been going
Speaker 1: for a good while here. Yes, yes, sir, So you
Speaker 1: want to do a Q and A and we'll take
Speaker 1: maybe some super chats and all that and uh then
Speaker 1: we'll do like maybe closing statements towards the end.
Speaker 2: Is that cool? Yeah? Absolutely, yes, sir.
Speaker 1: Okay, So everybody, if you want to, if you send
Speaker 1: some super chats and we'll do some Q and A
Speaker 1: and I'll read the ones that are here. What do
Speaker 1: you think of this is wamp want five dollars. What
Speaker 1: do you think of borrowing some pagan ideas like throwing
Speaker 1: these people in the bog? Well, actually, well, you know,
Speaker 1: the Old Testament laws about that were pretty strict, and
Speaker 1: of course in the history of Byzantinem you have pretty
Speaker 1: strict laws about that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: So I don't think it really has to.
Speaker 1: What the pagan perspective in dramatic tribes or amongst degenerate
Speaker 1: Greeks is. In my view, it doesn't doesn't really have
Speaker 1: any any bearing on what a Christian civilization could enact
Speaker 1: on the basis of their understanding of divine law. Do
Speaker 1: you have any comments on that?
Speaker 2: I'm the fucking bog lord. Yeah, yeah, I'm all. I'm
Speaker 2: all for the bog cowards, shirkers, traders, sodomites.
Speaker 1: All may We don't want to get the channel taken down.
Speaker 1: So all right, so you we have a strong view
Speaker 1: on that, gotcha. Corneliu Corneliu Cordeliau fifty knocks Jay debate
Speaker 1: Steven Anderson. Uh no, I'm not going to debate those guys.
Speaker 1: They're not they're not they're not goodwilled opponents and debates.
Speaker 1: Uh Imperium five dollars. How is perennialism any different than relativism?
Speaker 1: By the way, I love how my like low iq
Speaker 1: tweet inspired the greatest debate of twenty nineteen. What wow,
Speaker 1: I don't uh, well really he thinks this is Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a compliment to both of us. Thank you, imperium.
Speaker 1: I would say, if you saw the debate that I
Speaker 1: did with with Eric, I don't believe that perennialism is
Speaker 1: any different from relativism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say, it's the Oh, go go ahead,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry if you have any comments, so free. Yeah, well,
Speaker 2: relativism is it's it's kinda this is kind of a
Speaker 2: hard thing because some things, you know, I don't believe
Speaker 2: in these dichotomies, Like you can have things that are
Speaker 2: that are objective and then also subjective. You could have
Speaker 2: things that are both simultaneously true. You can have pieces
Speaker 2: of this and pieces of that. Because the divinity is
Speaker 2: in like spiritual philosophy is isn't just like bound by
Speaker 2: our material definitions. I mean you can take a step
Speaker 2: back now. What we're talking about tonight is is the
Speaker 2: absolute objective metrics in which you you measure these things.
Speaker 2: But to say that you know, relativism is is subjective
Speaker 2: and all bad. I mean, I mean obviously obviously, I'm
Speaker 2: I believe very strongly in perennialism. So yeah, I say
Speaker 2: that it's I guess it could be relative. I guess,
Speaker 2: I don't know. I'm not sure. That's a It's a
Speaker 2: big topic that goes into more and more discussion.
Speaker 1: Eric Jewel timbucks, how do you feel about the practice
Speaker 1: of uh drink looking male fluids as a as practiced
Speaker 1: by Odin. I'm not aware of.
Speaker 2: That, but I'm not aware of that either. I have
Speaker 2: no idea what the hell he's talking about.
Speaker 1: I think he's trolling. But let's see Lawrence Ballynag two dollars.
Speaker 1: Anyone want to match my chat? Well, I don't know,
Speaker 1: do they? All right? So a little bit of super
Speaker 1: chat action there. Let's see you want to do a
Speaker 1: closing statement. I'll let you if you want to do
Speaker 1: a closing statement to go first, and then and then
Speaker 1: I'll give mine.
Speaker 2: Sure, absolutely, And mister j oh we got another super
Speaker 2: chat here. Let's do it.
Speaker 1: Let's do it. Jake Berg five dollars as Ortho, can
Speaker 1: you explic explicate how our faith is the fulfillment of
Speaker 1: the expectation of nations. Yeah, I would say that if
Speaker 1: you look at a lot of those Old Testament predictions,
Speaker 1: like Genesis twelve, Justice fifteen, Justice seventeen. You know, God
Speaker 1: says to Abraham that the Gospel will expand out of
Speaker 1: Israel to the whole nations. And so there's a lot
Speaker 1: of predictions in Amos, there's a lot of predictions in Hoseiah, Isaiah,
Speaker 1: major Prophets, Daniel, etc. That Daniel even says in Daniel
Speaker 1: nine that by the time of the Roman Empire, and
Speaker 1: even secular scholars admit Daniel was written prior to the
Speaker 1: existence of the Roman Empire. Daniel says that by the
Speaker 1: time the next empire comes after Alexander, after the Greeks,
Speaker 1: there will be a birth of a Messiah and you
Speaker 1: will see the end of the Jewish temple sacrifice. And
Speaker 1: then he says the gentiles will be brought into the Kingdom.
Speaker 1: And that's what we've been seeing for the last two
Speaker 1: thousand years, is the bringing in of the gentiles, as
Speaker 1: Jesus talked about in Luke twenty one, in Matthew twenty four.
Speaker 1: So that's how I think that all the way back
Speaker 1: to Genesis. The promises of the Messianic sed are fulfilled
Speaker 1: in Christ and in his Orthodox Church, and so that's
Speaker 1: how I understand the fulfillment of the expectation of the nations.
Speaker 1: So I don't see any more, super chat. So if
Speaker 1: you will go ahead, uh, you have the floor for
Speaker 1: your final statement beautiful.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, mister j thank you so much once again
Speaker 2: for allowing me to step up to the plate here.
Speaker 2: I hope I presented my position in my faith with
Speaker 2: tact and cunning, and it's been quite the pleasure to
Speaker 2: stand up with uh and class swords with an intellect,
Speaker 2: intellectual giants such as yourself. You are, as I said before,
Speaker 2: master of your craft. And uh I hope I uh,
Speaker 2: I hope in this time David fared well against Goliath.
Speaker 2: So uh, you know, thank you so much? Uh do you? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Let me go.
Speaker 1: What's your final statements on on paganism if if you
Speaker 1: have any funds? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Okay, So my final statements for paganism for us true
Speaker 2: specifically because uh, paganism and ostu are not synonymous. My
Speaker 2: final statement is that you know within the clown world,
Speaker 2: within our the sea of degeneracy and darkness, that is
Speaker 2: the that is racked rock. As we approach our final days,
Speaker 2: it is very hard to kind of find our way
Speaker 2: back home. It is very hard to find, you know, continuity.
Speaker 2: And you know, we're homesick for a place that we
Speaker 2: do not we don't even know exists, We've never seen it.
Speaker 2: So what is what is as true as true is
Speaker 2: the gates to Hyperborea. It is it is a way
Speaker 2: for us to master our mind, body, and spirit and
Speaker 2: become in touch with our ancestral knowledge and our ancestral
Speaker 2: wisdom and become a higher level of being, and to
Speaker 2: become in touch with the things that make us human.
Speaker 2: And that is family, that is folk, that is country,
Speaker 2: that is that is divinity, that is all of these
Speaker 2: things that are just wonderful and wholesome and make us
Speaker 2: complete as men, as humans, as Germanic people. Hail Odin,
Speaker 2: Hail the folk, and hail everybody in the chat that
Speaker 2: tuned in. God bless all of you and all of
Speaker 2: your wonderful, beautiful families. May the springtime bring endless just
Speaker 2: fruitful gardens and beautiful angel babies for your tribes. Thank
Speaker 2: you again, mister j God bless you, sir and your
Speaker 2: wonderful family. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I would say in closing that I think that the
Speaker 1: neo pagan movement is a reaction to reaction to things
Speaker 1: that are degenerate, that are problematic obviously across not just
Speaker 1: the Western world, but eventually and as we're seeing now
Speaker 1: global degeneracy and toxicity. However, I don't think it is
Speaker 1: ultimately the correct solution. I think that Orthodox Christianity is
Speaker 1: what is the right solution and has been there is
Speaker 1: the right solution for the last to millennia. I think
Speaker 1: that the collapse of the Roman Catholic Church, which you
Speaker 1: said you have come out of, signifies this. I don't
Speaker 1: fault you for questioning the Roman Catholic Church and looking elsewhere.
Speaker 1: I think that's a very logical approach, given the corruption
Speaker 1: and degeneracy in that institution. But in our view, there's
Speaker 1: a specific reason for why the Roman Catholic Church kind
Speaker 1: of fell into that degeneracy, and it relates ultimately to
Speaker 1: theology and the terms. They're the theological terms that we
Speaker 1: make very precise and have definitions for. They're not just semantics.
Speaker 1: They actually have a very important point. I think what
Speaker 1: I wanted to stress in this debate was I believe
Speaker 1: that the position that you're presenting is relativistic at root,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't have a philosophical justification, which is needed. Certainly,
Speaker 1: we can be overly rational, but I think the orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: if it's practiced correctly traditionally, it actually has a good
Speaker 1: balance between the mystical, the existential experience that you have
Speaker 1: in the liturgy, in the practice of Hesekia, and the
Speaker 1: realm of what's logical and rational. So all the fathers
Speaker 1: did apologetics that they did these kind of debates, And
Speaker 1: if you are interested in the stuff that I've said,
Speaker 1: I would say just watch my video and I got
Speaker 1: a drone on. I would say, watch my video that
Speaker 1: deals with the prophecies of the Old Testament being fulfilled
Speaker 1: in Christ. And then I would say watch my video
Speaker 1: on Saint Athanasius and his critique of paganism, because he
Speaker 1: has a lot of the same arguments I made there.
Speaker 1: So thank you, great debate, great discussion. I'm really glad
Speaker 1: we kept it civil. We got heated, but we didn't
Speaker 1: get hateful.
Speaker 2: And this is a shining example of how we can
Speaker 2: get together and we can speak like gentlemen like in
Speaker 2: the West. This is what the West is based on
Speaker 2: is guys coming together and having your battle of wits
Speaker 2: and intellect. And even a guy like Jay who is
Speaker 2: a philosophical guy. Man, I'm just I'm beering the porch nationalism.
Speaker 2: I'm just a blue collar guy. The fact that he
Speaker 2: would bring me on and let me talk is just
Speaker 2: an example of how we can act civilly and be
Speaker 2: gentlemen and and in our quest to defeat the generacy.
Speaker 2: But real quick before we end, uh, may I give
Speaker 2: a plug to where people can find my content, mister Jay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I've got your your your link there below,
Speaker 1: but sure go ahead.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you guys can find me on Twitter at Big
Speaker 2: Dave Martell, Gabin Minds at Dave Martell. You go subscribe
Speaker 2: to my YouTube channel which is called Dave mar Tell.
Speaker 2: You can also find me tonight on verbo timpestus YouTube
Speaker 2: channel with the Conduit, where we dig into all kinds
Speaker 2: of crazy esoteric conspiracy theories. And also find me on
Speaker 2: Wednesdays at a pm Eastern on Roffen Folk channel where
Speaker 2: I talk about all kinds of other heathen pagan context subjects,
Speaker 2: have all kinds of awesome interviews. Or you go to
Speaker 2: Amazon dot com pick up a copy of my book,
Speaker 2: The American Loyalist Proclamation of Moral Insurrection. Our founders selflessly
Speaker 2: flung themselves at God's Grace's feet in the name of libertey.
Speaker 3: Now they look down from their heavenly thrones and disgust.
Speaker 3: Pick up your father's swords on the Republic and reclaim
Speaker 3: what is yours. God wills it conquer or die. I
Speaker 3: am big Dave Martell. Thank you everybody for tuning in
Speaker 3: Hail Victory.
Speaker 1: It's like the Viking. Alex Jones there all right man,
Speaker 1: Thank you good talk and yeah, so his links will
Speaker 1: be below. Thank you guys for the super jazz. Thanksverybody
Speaker 1: for watching checking out Jay's analysis. Be sure subscribe to
Speaker 1: my stuff if you haven't, And until next time,