Speaker 1: So in.
Speaker 2: So insane, it's so insane.
Speaker 3: Bunker bunker, bunker locker.
Speaker 4: I got married. I got married to a funko who.
Speaker 5: We got wedded, come joined in the subway, he shocked.
Speaker 4: I am married, I'm married.
Speaker 3: To a funco. But do we get joined?
Speaker 4: Go watch the singer subway? Who shot or.
Speaker 6: Specimens and biscuits and minerals they come to me to
my whole life is spent?
Speaker 7: What to h.
Speaker 3: M hmm, what of.
Speaker 5: I'm married to a longer who but we got wedding,
but we got joining in the subway?
Speaker 8: Shut over the roads and minerals they come to you
to listen, and minerals they come from this year too,
dot for for.
Speaker 6: Fuck.
Speaker 3: I got married, I got married to my fult goober.
Speaker 5: Oh we got waded, we got joined in the subwhere
he shut.
Speaker 7: The sight?
Speaker 6: What should I do with the first sight? Put it
in my head, throw it on the ground.
Speaker 7: Who knows?
Speaker 6: Just what would I do?
Speaker 3: Sweet enjoyed the subway? He shut the lover.
Speaker 9: The human guinea pig stuff in Africa. It is so insane,
the human guinea pig stuff in Africa, it's so insane,
is so.
Speaker 10: Inc so insane, it's so insane.
Speaker 11: Funker Funcker boo fuco fucker bot.
Speaker 4: I got a fund.
Speaker 3: Come joint.
Speaker 6: All right, welcome to another open debate today. Uh I
decided to postpone my music industry stream. I know that
everyone is concerned. We all hope the best for Diddy.
Speaker 3: We're all.
Speaker 6: We've all got our fingers crossed. We might have our
hands a little bit like this when they're crossed. But listen,
as a VG comby said, my favorite brother out there,
we all know this is what all the elites do.
The only reason that they're going after Diddy is because
of his skin color. And look, I know everybody's interested.
They want to know what is j Loo up to?
Why if j Lo and Baffleck split, were they seen
kissing again? Those are the issues that concern us, I know.
But listen, I'm gonna have all the hot scoops, all
the hot goss, the hottest gossip around available for you tomorrow.
But because Francis seemingly doubled down, and we're gonna look
at the responses and no, no, he's not doubling down.
It's all misunderstandings. He's talking about diversity amongst Christians.
Speaker 7: Is he.
Speaker 6: There's stacks of books five feet five feet high. So Jamie,
Jamie doesn't know where to set things because there's so
many books everywhere. Okay, well that's gonna fall over if
you put it up there. Thank you. She brought me
a plate of treats. She brought me a plate of
treats to calm my beat us rage in case I
get mad. So she may be a homemade keto bite
and a ginger chew for when the beat us attacks,
when I get angry, beat us to the callers that
call in. So I got the sugars.
Speaker 12: I got a bad case of the sugars. This old
Francis over here gets me a little angry. I get
bad cases of the sugars. That starts shaking, and I
get really angry and screaming and cussing up a.
Speaker 13: Storm of people. Mama wouldn't be happy about that. So
Mama told me to eat much sugars. Make sure I
calm down and not get hungry. I'm drinking too many
express Oh I gotta calm down. Oh man, So let's see.
Speaker 6: Okay, I'm not gonna play the video because I think
it's in a foreign language. My nose hair isn't making me.
It's like crazy. Do you two snort cocaine? He snorts cocaine.
You get him exposed, exposed? Clip it, clip it, clip it.
Speaker 3: He's exposed.
Speaker 6: Now the explanation once again, we have Francis here. Let's
see to read the quote. Now this is the official
Vatican uh whatever. This man is Vatican man here with
the beard and whatnot. And doesn't he look like the
ultimate trade cat with his tie and his little thin
little beard. Man Michael Heenes, I mean, I don't even
know how he talks.
Speaker 14: But senior Vatican correspondent with Michael Heenes, now he's the
one that's really been championing this latest information about Francis.
Speaker 6: Unity is not uniformity. The diversity of our cultural religious
identities is a gift from God. Unity and diversity. Now,
the cope to today's apparent doubling down is, oh, this
is just within the Christian sphere. Wait a minute, there's
not religious diversity within the Christian sphere because that's the
same religion. There might be cultural diversity within the Christian sphere.
So this whole cope is preposterous. Every cope is preposterous.
It's always the same word games to try to make
it mean anything other than what he clearly says. And
what's what's ironic is that what he clearly says is
also clearly weaponized ambiguity. So there's a bit of a
catch twenty two there. I admit it's a paradox. But
how do I know what he quote clearly says. Well,
I'm gonna show you how I know what he clearly says,
because he's referencing back to and by the way, the
fact that he says, well, he talks about Mary's, so
he must only mean Catholics. This is what every Roman
Catholic does when there's these problems in their documents. They say, well,
here's this other quote over here that is not saying
what the first quote says. Oh, well, that's a contradiction.
That doesn't mean that the quotes harmonized. That just tells
me that he's saying double speak. The Vatican has been
masters at this bureaucratic double speak for probably many centuries.
To be fair, to be fair, to be clear, here
we are all pilgrims of hope walking in search of
the truth. Now here's another problem in this quote, in
this statement, which was in the other gaff heresy. Gaff
the other day, I think he says in here we're
all children of God or something like that. Let's see. Well, No,
he says God loves every man and makes no difference
among us. No, that's not true. Some of us are wicked,
and some of us are sons of devils, sons of Satan, etcetera.
Spiritually speaking, so no, it's not true that there's no
differentiation amongst human beings. That's not true. And in the
gaff the other day he said that we're all sons
of God. No, that's not true. You're a son of
God through baptism. You're not a son of God by
merely being a son of Adam. In fact, those who
are sons of Adam or under the spirit and influence
of the wicked one. Now you're potentially a son of God,
but you're not de facto a son of God by
being a son of Adam. And so there's always this
ambiguous language that goes on here. And he goes on
to talk about it sounds like his typical worship illegal
migrants type speech. But notice if it was merely a
case of my nose, there's crazy. It's because the ragweed
in this area is like at a level seven right now.
He says, the richness of God wants us to be
diverse through different traditions, different religious identities, is a gift
of God. Again, if he's speaking to Christians, there's not
differences of religions amongst Christians or amongst Catholics. Maybe in
Francis's mind there actually is though, because you know, to
be clear, you can be a Uniate and deny half
of the papal dogmas and still be a quote good
standing Catholic, or you can be a trad cat who
thinks that all the things that the Uniates believe are
heretical and damnable heresies, because it's the same position of
the Orthodox in terms of Palmism. So maybe he does
mean there's a lot of different religions within rogue Thalicism.
So that's another option too. And of course, ever so,
Michael often says the patriarchs have the humanism amongst them.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I know that.
Speaker 6: How many times have we addressed this argument? I've addressed
it in every stream this week, every video. And why
is that a two quoque way, Because if I'm doing
an eternal critique of his system, it doesn't work to say,
but you have accumunist bishops too. If the argument was
the true Church is the one with no ecumunist bishops,
then Michael Watton's reply would work. But nobody has made
the argument that the true Church is proven by quote
no ecumenist bishops or impeccable bishops, or bishops that have
no errors or no sense. That's not the argument. I've
figured out that these people are literally incapable of an
internal critique. They don't understand that. After that, in almost
twenty years of debating with Thomas off and on, and
it being a Thomas, I don't care if Sam Schmun
wants to come after me. We had a conversation, a
friendly conversation about this, and he wants to do a
roundtable where me and UBI and others come in debate.
And I said, of course I'm down for that. But
what I'm saying about internal critiques, I think that they
just don't understand what that is. And they think that, oh, well,
if you some problems in my system, you have problems
in your system too. But not all problems are the same,
Not all problems are created equal. Some problems are systemic
or so fundamental that they demonstrate the incompatibility, the incoherency
of the system as a whole. For example, if you
remember when I debated tomorrow, I said, what would it
take Eric, and he said, if you can produce a
papal dogmatic contradiction, that would be enough. Yeah, exactly, it
only takes one dogmatic contradiction to invalidate this system, because
the system claims that for this entire system there are
no papal dogmatic contradictions. So the burden of proof, by
the way, is on those who have the extraordinary claims
that the Church always taught the Vatican one views. That's
what Vatican one says, that's what Leo the thirteenth stat
is called mutum says. So actually the burden of proof
with their outlandish claim is on them, I would say,
and we've seen over and over that they're actually ever
demonstrate that what they demonstrate is reading into various quotes.
So how do I know what Francis meant? Well, Francis
is repeating what he said in the Document on Human
Fraternity from twenty nineteen which he signed with the Grand Imam.
Do you see that? And it was a big scandal
at the time because Francis said, God wills all of
the religious diversity, all the pagan religions, God wants them
to be there. And what did all the Roman Catholics
say at the time, Oh, he doesn't mean in terms
of his intentional will. He just means it in terms
of lying providence. Interesting. So now when Francis says the
exact same thing, and he clearly says that God wills
religious diversity, now they're admitting that he is saying religious diversity,
but it just means amongst Catholics. So well, wait a minute.
When he said religious diversity back in back here in
twenty nineteen, it didn't mean that. It only meant God's
permission of many different systems, not of the wanted many
false religions. So you see how they will the same phraseology,
the same terminology is given a totally different sense by
the Roman Catholics to fit the needs to make the
system work. So their system is unfalsifiable. But the problem
with unfalsifiable systems is that that's actually a demonstration of
its tremendous weakness. Why would you have to be constantly
propping up all of these blatant contradictions, all these blatant,
compromised papal scandals that aren't just scandals of sin, they're
scandals of doctrinal error, contradiction, and absurdity. Why would you
have to keep doing this if this was such an
obviously true, manifest, globally universal, unified system. It's like Luigi
said the other day when he was debating with somebody,
he said, you guys have dogmatized so many things that
it's too difficult to keep up with and make the
whole thing work. That's the problem. And just think of
the Prima Fassia absurdity of a thousand years ago calling
crusades against Muslims, and I'll grant that it was a
defensive posture versus now signing joint declarations and documents that
God wills Islam and Catholicism and the other religions and
then building the Abu Dhabi Faith Center as a result
of this document. Did you know that this document that
he signed with the grant Imam was signed as the
basis to build the multi faith center where there's a mosque.
Speaker 7: And a.
Speaker 6: Wait a minute, I've got it right here, synagogue, the
cultural landmark of the UAE capital, which includes a synagogue,
a church, and a MoMA is meant to be a
beacon of understanding and peaceful co exists, bra coexists, brah
bumpersticker theology inspired by what the document on human fraternity?
What's the document on human fraternity? This thing right here
where Francis says, God wills all the religions, he wants
them to all be there. Now again, he just said
two days ago or three days ago, that they're all
paths to God. Like there's many different languages. Now, that's
a false equivalence. The fact that there's many different languages
and many different religions does not mean that they all
get you to the end goal. There's only one way
to have it, according to the New Testament, according to Christ,
and according to even the Roman Catholic teaching all the
way up until Vatican Two's no Strataute in Lemagentium sixteen,
which again I argued, clearly implies that the plan of
salvation includes Muslims. Okay, well, that's kind of ambiguous. Does
that mean that Muslims can be saved?
Speaker 15: Well?
Speaker 6: First of all, who doubted that Muslims could convert and
be saved? Nobody? Well, the interpretation that we're supposed to have. Well,
that just means that they can be saved. The plan
of salvation includes Muslims. Did anyone ever think Muslims couldn't
convert to Christianity. That's a preposterous, absurd, you know, non
necessary statement. In the first place. Amongst those who can
be saved are those that acknowledge the Creator. So wait
a minute, now, Jesus, isn't necessary Muslims profess to hold
the faith of Abraham and along with us they adore
the merciful One, merciful God. Now that says that they
do adorn it, and every romancality will so. But it
suys profess. That doesn't mean that they do. Oh but
this isn't the only Vatican through document. There's also no
stratate which qualifies this statement and goes even further to
say that they do have the faith of Abraham. No
sratat III. The Church esteems the Muslims. Imagine this language.
Imagine telling Hillar Belook, the famous Roman Catholic writer and
a Paulist from a century prior who wrote famous essays
calling Islam antichrist. Think about the medieval popes who called
it the wicked, demonic religion of Mohammed, the anti Christ
religion of Mohammed. Now, according to the dogmatic teaching a
Vatican through the Church esteems Muslims, oh, we esteem Antichrist.
Now we used to go to war and call defensive
crusades against the wicked Mohammedans. Now we esteem them.
Speaker 15: Just that.
Speaker 6: Right there is enough to tell you the spirit of
Vatican two, it's not the Holy Spirit. Muslims adore the
one God. Well, actually they don't, because every Muslim who
knows the first thing about Islam will tell you Allah
has no sons. So that right there totally destroys the
lie that will.
Speaker 16: As Trent Horn says Joseph, Christians worship the sabe Old
test of but God because they believe it.
Speaker 17: What God.
Speaker 16: I'm tritt Hord. Look at my curly haired by triple chit.
I'm trit Hord. I know a lot about theology. Look,
I don't know what the word triad beads. I think
it's a word that beats at Trinitarians will, even though
it's the most Covid used day of bebokes.
Speaker 6: Greek Catholics for the Trinity. But I don't know what
that word beads, a tride horne, no trent horn. The
fact that they believe in one God is not even
the Old Testament God because Jews, maybe you could make
this argument about Jews that they worship the same Old
Testament God because they call him Father, He's the father
of Israel. Jew Muslims explicitly say no, it is Allah
has no sons.
Speaker 4: Alaiah is no father.
Speaker 6: It's Islam one oh one that Allah is not father.
So this statement is false. They adore the one God
that lives and subsists in himself. Okay, guess what are
you familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctor
of the Trinity is not Unitarianism, that there's one divine
person who lives and subsists in himself. Now, if you're
a monarchical Trinitarian, you can say, well, that's true about
the Father. But the Father did not live and subsist
only in himself, as if he was there from the beginning.
And then there's later on this second thing known as
the Sun, and then there's this third thing spirit. No,
there was always an eternal triad, eternally begotten. So you
see how absurd from the outset this is as if
there's a common religion between Muslims and Christians. Because here's
the reasoning. Well, Muslims believe that there's some attributes that
overlap with Christianity, So what a Satanist could believe there's
some attributes that overlap, and so you can get well,
but what about the sense and the reference they intend
it to be. It doesn't matter what they intend, and
it doesn't matter what the reference is ultimately, because every
Catholic that I ask, I said, do you believe that
a Mormon worships the same God as you? You understand
they linguistically profess Father, Son, holy Spirit, and that Jesus
is the Son of God in some sense. Does that
mean because of the linguistic similarities, that we have the
same God as the Mormons. Every Catholic tells me no
when I ask him that, And then these goofballs turn
around and tell me that Mormons don't have that Muslims
have the same God. I mean, if anything, a Mormon
might have a closer linguistic grammatical sense than than a Muslim.
I mean, I think Mormonism is ridiculous, it's a stupid heresy,
But I mean they at least say Jesus is divine.
I mean, he's one of many gods. And they at
least say God is the Father. I mean they think
God has a body, and I mean it's all stupid, right,
just nonsense. But like, on what basis is a Muslim
closer to Catholicism than a Mormon. It doesn't make no sense. Oh,
because of monotheism. It is Monotheism. What does that mean? Oh,
it means, as Trent Horne argued, the Old Testament Unitarian God.
There is no Old Testament Unitarian God. Why can anyone
not fathom this? Do you know why they can't fathom it?
I'm gonna shock you because in the mind of the
Roman Catholic there's two conflicting positions. When I was dming
with Tim Gordon the other day, we had a long
back and forth basically the entire morning we were dming
and voice messaging back and forth on Twitter. And I'm
not knocking Tim. This is my analysis of that conversation.
There is, on the one hand, the Tim Gordon, who
wants to be in line with what obviously divine revelation
says Moses and Abraham knew the Son of God directly
through the Theophanes and thus had a worship of the Trinity.
It doesn't matter that they knew the word trinity. If
they knew God, the Father, his angel, a messenger who
they ate with face to face, and that he had
a spirit, which is all over the Old Testament, that's
sufficient to know that that three person unity in the
Old Testament is the Trinity, whether they knew the word
trinity or not. And I can prove this again against
the stupid Trent Horne thinks, how do.
Speaker 16: They know the Trinity when the word trinity wasn't used yet,
so therefore they didn't know the Trinity.
Speaker 6: Do you understand how dumb that argument is. That means
that the New Testament doesn't teach the Trinity because the
word trinity wasn't used. That's so stupid. So Justin Martin
wasn't arguing for the Trinity against Trifle the jew because
he wasn't using the word trendititass Yet, this is so silly.
This is the level of argumentation and debate that we
have to use with these people that we're dealing with. Now,
we're going to open this up to debate. It's not
just about Catholicism today because obviously this topic relates to
the Muslims. Well, again, let's go through the rest of
the statement again, because this statement, which qualifies limagentium statement,
makes it clear that Vatican too is saying, no, they
do have the faith of Abraham. They adore the one
God living in Saint himself, creator of having an earth,
who has spoken to men. Now, if you listen to
many of the streams of Sam chamun Uh, and if
you listen to what Islam itself says about Allah, that
he is the greatest of deceivers, and that he wills
and creates evil, and that he duped his followers by
tricking them about Jesus on the cross, on and on on.
Does that sound like the one true God of the
Old Testament or does that sound like another spirit that
Jesus talks about. Jesus said that Satan was a liar
from the beginning. If Islam says there, God is the
greatest of deceivers.
Speaker 3: Who does that sound?
Speaker 6: Oh, that sounds more like Satan, doesn't it? According to
the biblical perspective. Now, remember Mohammed had said Allah has
no sons in a spiritual or in a literal sense.
That means that the God of Jesus, whom Jesus calls
Father a zillion times over in the Gospels, is not
the God of Islam. That's an immediate disqualifier for them
being the same reference or the same intended intentional context
because of romancatholical Say, well, here we go. This is
ed Faser's explanation. Muslims have the wrong idea, but they
intended to reference the right thing. Okay, but you just
if I asked you about Mormons, Mormons don't worship the
same god. Oh well, you see, there's basic characteristics of
what monotheism constitutes. How do we know what the basic obvious,
self evident characteristics of monotheism are. Oh well, we don't.
Now doctor Khalil, for example, and I said this to Tim.
I said, Tim, watch this stream by doctor Khalil, because
doctor Khalil says, if I begin with natural theology, which
Muslims do, and then I reason to what the self
evident principles of metaphysics show me about what divine simplicity is,
I don't get a triad. I get an absolutely simple
Islamic deity of Shia Islam, which is neoplatonism. Now I
don't believe that there are these self evident metaphysical principles
like that. But what I'm saying is that here you
have doctor Khalil and Tim Gordon with the same presuppositions
about what divine simplicity is when it is in terms
of it self evidence and the type of absolutely simple
God that it demonstrates without any reference to scripture or
divine revelation. And doctor Khalil comes to the conclusion of
Islamic Shia neoplatonism. But wait a minute, Tim Gordon comes
to the conclusion of Aristotelian tomism. What I thought that
there was a self evident, obvious Unitarian monotheism that we'd
all agree on. Then we could later down the road
downstream from that argue Trinity in the deed of Christ.
The whole thing is false. That whole thing is wrong.
There is no one Unitarian God that you reason about,
and then Trinity down the road, there is only the Trinity.
So the whole problem with all of this is the
natural theology, the assumptions of Unitarianism, the belief that is
patently false that Abraham worshiped a generic Unitarian God, which
Trent Horne constantly repeats, which Jesus refutes when he argues
with the Pharisees, you have neither seen him nor known him.
I knew him. Abraham worshiped me. Moses wrote about me.
If you follow Moses, you would believe in me because
he was talking about me, because I ate with him
face to face. Roman Catholics don't read the Old Testament.
They are idiots about Biblical commentary. I'm not talking about
their jesuit liberal hierocritical scholars who specialize in making the
Bible fak and gray. They're very good at that, because
they're faking gray. I'm talking about the pawp apologist who
don't even know the Old Testament. And so when I
asked him that Tim, there's the Tim Gordon that believes, Hey, wait,
the Bible clearly is teaching the Theophanes and that Jesus
is clearly saying that he's the one eating with Abraham,
and he's the one on the mountain eating with Moses.
Have Romcalich's read Exodus? Do they know what's in Exodus
thirty three? I don't think they've even read it. Who
is being who?
Speaker 7: Oh?
Speaker 6: Is it's an angel? Does the angel? The angel does
eating Theophanes. The angels. Oh, okay, so now you believe
in created angels that are called Yahweh, that are redeemers,
that forgive sins, and that are worshiped, and that Jesus
identifies himself as so are you an arian? Is Jesus
a creature now? Because he's the one that was eating
with Abraham and Moses? Are you arians? I actually think
they are becoming arians. They are becoming Muslims in their theology,
because that's more consistent with their stupid natural theology presuppositions.
The Church regards with esteem the Muslims. Although in the
Middle Ages we call them wicked Muhammedans, we call them demnable,
heretics and anti christ, now we esteem them. How do
you esteem Antichrist? I mean, I understand how because Francis
is not at all they are Christian in any sense.
He's a complete apostate herotic. But imagine the insanity of
trying to smush all this together. Imagine Sam Chamount after
all the years of talking about how the Allah of
the Muslims is Satan, and now he wants to go
in the direction of this. He's gonna have to throw
out all these apologetics that he's been doing for so long,
which are so effectual. I'm not saying he's a heretic.
I'm saying if he goes in this direction and he
adopts these positions, that's where he will end up. So
do you want to give up all that previous apologetics?
And remember every Roman Catholic God I've asked, I've asked.
So wait a minute. Is a Mormon worshiping the same
God as you? When it's the same terms and same words?
Oh no, Well, what does it count? Because you see
they're not really mono theos and blah blah blah blah blah. Okay,
but what why does that not apply it with a Muslim? Well,
because they do acknowledge one God. Oh but when I'm
a Satanist, a theistic Satanist, and I say there's one God,
does that count? No, that doesn't call because I'm still
talking about the wrong glow of God. Yeah, that's the
thing in question. I mean, it's arbitrary, is the point.
There's no self evident idea about what the monotheism God is.
If you read the Garybee paper, the first five pages
point this out. He destroys Swinburne for making this stupid
argument that there's self evident principles as to what tell
us what lowest common denominator monotheism is. There is no
lois common nominator Unitarian monotheism. It just doesn't exist. And
by the way, when you realize that, guess what that
cuts off? Judaism, Islam and all this nonsense. All of
this goes out the window. There is only the eternal Triad.
There is only the monarchical Trinity. That's it from the
very beginning. Do you see now why it's so crucial
for them to deny Theophanes? And again, some Roman Catholics
are better than the theology. They realize that this is
a powerful apologetic, clearly as Church fathers argued against the
Eunomians and the Jews and the Unitarian heretics by using
Old Testament Theophanies. So maybe I try, I kind of
want to use that apologetic, but my dumb idiot Vatican
has told me no, they actually all worship the same God.
It's not that difficult. This is just the same arguments
I made against Trent Horn in our debate. So do
you do you see that all the stuff I argue
to Trent Horn is manifesting through Francis himself and what
he says, and these idiots double down, triple down. I
don't know why. I don't know what is it about
this ridiculous system that anybody even wants I mean, unless
your skittles, I don't know why you would even want
to be in this system. What are you getting out
of this? I mean, do you enjoy going to have
some big, fat sixty year old woman on a liturgical
council telling you what to do in a church? Do
you enjoy altar?
Speaker 7: Girls?
Speaker 6: I don't know what are you? Do you enjoy the
skittles pre trying to give you spiritual advice? What is
in the system that you find so wonderful, beautiful, convincing.
I don't get it. I don't get it. I mean,
do you guys not understand how weak this is on
the part of Lofton. This has been Lofton's response for
the last seven years on this topic. All he's ever
said is they got a bunch of acumenists too. Dog.
If I look at the patriarchal whatever, he's the ecumenists too. Look,
you got the same problems, dog. But the argument was
never Which system has no problems, which system has no ecumenism?
The question is which dogmatic decrees and teachings contradicts such
that the system is not true. Now again, Islam takes
pains to submit to God's inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham,
who with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure to
link itself submitted to God. So notice here they do
submit to God, and it is the faith of Abraham,
just like Abraham. Now everybody who's a Christian knows that
the first thing you would do in a debate or
in talking to a Muslim if you loved a Muslim,
would say, listen, I understand you think you have the Abraham,
the faith of Abraham, but you are deluded. You do
not have the faith of Abraham because you have a
generic anti Trinitarian unitarianism. Do you see? This all comes
down to whether Abraham believed in Jesus and worship the
Trinity or not. All of this hinges on that point.
And if you go in the direction of Vatican two
and it's a humanism, you must surrender that, you must
give up the Theophanes. That's why the Roman Calloty Church
stop teaching Theophanes in the Middle Ages, in the confrontation
with Palamas, Barleam and Acandinos explicitly reject these positions. They say,
it is not the uncreated light at Mount Tabor in
Matthew seventeen, it is a created light, and by extension
that Theophanes have to be created angelic beings and not
the son of God himself. Thus, the Old Testament religion
is a unitarian religion. That's the logic of Attican two.
That's the logic of Roman Catholicism's natural theology. That's the
logic of Islam. The same argumentation, the same presuppositions the
doctor Khalil has in his lectures on Islamic natural theology
lead to the conclusion of Islamic unitarianism and Neoplatonism. So, Tim,
all you other Roman Catholics, when are you going to
become a Muslim? Because they're natural theology presuppositions. Clearly, it's
self evident, isn't it. Why wouldn't you conclude with Shia
Islam on the basis of natural theology, they find moral
life and worship God. Especially, they value the moral life
and worship God through prayer, alms, giving, and fascinating. This
clearly says again proving my point that when voti continue
uses the word adoration, the Muslims adore the One True God,
they mean worship because it's restated. The Muslims worship that is, God,
accepts the Islamic prayers and the Islamic attributions of who
God is, even though again they don't believe he's a father.
Allah is not a father. How in the world are
we going to link this to the supposed God of
the Old test when one of the most obvious facts
about the Old Testament is that the God of the
Old Testament is God the Father. Even if you're a Unitarian,
even if you're an anti Trinitarian, even Unitarians and Jews
can recognize that the God of the Old Testament is
God the Father. So this is how stupid Islam is.
They think they have a commonality with the Old Testament
while being so foolish as to reject the idea that
God is the Father. That immediately cuts you off from
the most obvious name of the God of the Old Testament,
the Father. This is so preposterous to me, And yet
Vatican two says Muslims worship God through their prayers and
their alm giving, and they're fasting. But that is not
the God of the Old Testament. I mean, imagine me
saying I explicitly reject God, God the Father, and a
Catholic says, brother, don't worry about it. We all worship
the same God. Again, the point has proven with Mormons.
Every Catholic I've asked says, no, I don't worship the
same God as a Mormon. And yet they turn around
and say, but it is the same God of Islam. Again,
why is a Mormon actually not closer than a Muslim
if it's based on the terms that are used. A
Mormon says the terms father, son, spirit, and Jesus is
divine and is the son of God. Those are terms
that's grammar closer to you. Oh, it's not about the
words and the terms of what they mean. Oh, it's
about what they mean. Oh exactly. So then Muslims don't
have the same God because they don't mean a God
who is trinitarian. You see how either way they go
in this argument, they collapse, They destroy their own position.
And again, why isn't Vatican too simply saying what the
traditional trade cat teaching always said that Islam is Antichrist.
Why wouldn't it just say what supposedly had always said?
Why are we having all of this weaponized ambiguity, which
here at least is not very ambiguous. So when I
read these statements and then I go over here and
I see Francis saying the Document of Human Fraternity that
God wills all the religions, why wouldn't we think that
it's the same meaning as what's in Vatican two. I'm
trying to find this specific statement in this document because
it was it was a famous fussed about thing in
twenty nineteen. So remember this is the joint declaration with
the Imam. We who believe in God, Well, we don't
believe in the same God as I mom, though, So
how is it? How is the document starts out with
a ridiculous position. The first and most important aim of
religions is to believe in God. So what I'm trying
to get across to you, I think, which is the
key point here, is that if you don't understand that
the Old Testament teaches the Trinity, and if you don't
understand that Jesus is saying that in John five, no,
I can't understand or fathom how you could call yourself
or be a Christian. It doesn't make sense to me
because these are mutually exclusive positions. It cannot be the
case that the Old Testament teaches the Trinity and that
Jesus says that, and that the Old Testament's unitarian. But
those are mutually exclusive. But it can't be both. I'm
trying to find this statement in this document where it
says that God wills all the religions. Maybe it's religions.
Let's try that, Okay, Let's see. Freedom is a right
of every person. Each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression,
and action. By the way, that was actually condemned proposition.
Formerly the Ron Macalliy Church used to condemn the Protestant
doctrine of the freedom of conscience and freedom of worship.
That's something that Vatican two contradicted on. And yes, I
know they have a million copes to explain how that's
not a contradiction, but I mean, flat out, I mean
Martin Luther's positions on these were condemned a the time
of the Reformation. There are statements in the Syllabus of
Errors that condemned the idea of the freedom of conscience,
freedom of religion. And now this is a vaticant too teaching,
and it's restated here. So that's one dogmatic contradiction right there.
The pluralism and the diversity of the religions, the color,
the sex, the relay, race, and language are willed by
God in his wisdom through which he created human beings.
There it is so, God, through creation willed there to
be various religions. So notice the cope that they used
on today's statement that when Francis says, where was it?
Speaker 7: Oh?
Speaker 6: Oh, when Francis says this, you see, this just means
the diversity of the Catholic traditions. That was one of
the Catholic apologists copes today. I saw, Oh, really, why
if he's speaking the Catholics, does he call it multiple religions?
Are there multiple religions amongst Catholicism? I mean, actually there are,
which is funny. Unity is not uniformity, and the diversity
of our culture, religions and identities is a gift from God.
It's unity and diversity, religions plural Well guess what, that's
exactly what his twenty nineteen document with the Grandy Moms said,
God wills all of these different religions. So again to
highlight be I want you to be clear and understand
the argument I make it because a lot of you
are not going to understand the argument. When this document
came out in twenty nineteen, their explanation was no, no,
this just means God wills it in a general providential
sense and that he passively accepts. It's not that he
wants it. So the language here is interpreter to mean
not diversity, not a real diversity that he wants. The
same language over here, Oh, it's a diversity that he wants,
you see, but only amongst Catholics, even though it says
various religions plural. So they've contradicted themselves in interpreting the
same language to fit to make it work. Do you
see what I'm saying?
Speaker 7: Do you?
Speaker 6: That's a very specific, precise argument. Here, various religions does
not mean actual religions. It just means God permits it. Oh,
but over here it does mean God wills different religions,
meaning different Catholic traditions. That's their code. So the same
phraseology is given totally different meanings to make this dumb
system work, which means it's an unfalsifiable system, which means
it's a weak system, because any system that is constantly
propped up with unfalsifiability with Kazustri is a totally weak system.
But remember, this was supposed to be the rock of Peter,
the rock of the papacy that would stand firm until
the end of time, as the visible testament to the
unity of the true Roman papal faith. And that's why
I wrote my essay and I made it public. You
can go read all the actual quotes that also deal
with the copes from a couple of days ago. I'm
not going to repeat this. We already covered this in
two live streams on a video. I'm not gonna again.
They don't read Vatican One. They don't know what Vatican
one says. Because Vatican one says there will be popes
as the attesters too and the protectors of this visible
global unity until the end of time. So no great
apostasy where there's no pope for fifty years or a
hundred years. That's not there because it's until the end
of time. There will be shepherds until the end of time.
This is talking about the Petrine Office. This is Vatican
one that institution will be permanent and will retain its
nature that it has until the end of time, not
until the end times, giving this out for them to
have a vast apostasy. Even if there's an apostasy in
the Roman Catholic system, it has to still be the
case that the Roman Sea maintains the faith until the
return of Christ. So let's say, if we wanted to
have an apostasy that fits with the Vatican one view.
It means that all the let's say, all the bishops fail,
but the Sea of Peter cannot fail. That's the Vatican
one position. You can't go with apparitions to Trump. Vatican one,
Vatican one, Trump's apparitions. In the Roman Catholic system, you
follow the dogmas, you follow the teaching of the Roman
Sea in Catholicism. You don't get to take an apparition
and say, oh, well, Lasilette says that there's going to
be an apostasy in Rome. Yeah, but Losilette was prior
to Vatican one and Vatican one. Trump's las Lette. I
kid you not. When I was scrolling through Roman Catholic
comments the past couple of days, what are they all
turning to a vast clump of them are turning to
Marian apparitions. This is the foolishness of this religion to
turn to goofy contradictory Maryan apparitions and not even go
with their own freaking Vatican one dogmas, no wonder their
skittles in effeminate. They follow a woman's apparitions that they
think are merry, which they can never proves Mary, by
the way, because every time they try to argue that
it's really Mary, and I bring up Mary appearing to
the Coptics, Well that one doesn't count. That one doesn't count.
What about Mary appearing to Orthodox churches, Well that one
doesn't count.
Speaker 1: That's not Mary.
Speaker 6: Get out of here. We're not gonna have stupid Christian
identity heretics in here. Get out of here. Remember that
rom Akelloching a month ago, he literally sat here for
two hours trying to figure out how to make the
Maryan apparitions work as proofs when he wouldn't accept the
married apparitions of the Coptics. And then eventually he was like, Okay,
well maybe the Coptic a versions are true, and Mary
is saying that Coptics are also Roman Catholics. Okay, well,
thank you for admitting that Mary is telling us now
that we don't need the papacy because the Coptics haven't
accepted the papacy for centuries. So it's like everywhere they turn,
the whole position, the whole system is canceled out and
they can't get it wide because they won't think about,
or listen or understand critiques at a system level. They
cannot grasp this is what I figured out today. They
can't grasp an internal critique. Lofton cannot grasp this, Ibarro
cannot grasp this. That's why I Loten thinks that it's
a sufficient reply to say you go to a Cumanists too. Yeah,
but if I thought that the patriarch of Alexandria was
what Vatican One claims, that might be a good argument.
Like Snack always says, well, there goes my faith in
the infallible, indefectible see of alexand Andrea. It's like, why
can they not understand an internal critique. It's baffling. Remember
when I was debating a barrow, it's the same situation.
If you could show a contradiction between paopal dogmas, that
would be enough. Okay, all it takes is one contradiction, right, supposedly,
isn't that enough to I mean, the nature of I'm
beginning to think they don't understand the nature of the
Roman Catholic system is such that if there's a dogmatic contradiction,
the system doesn't work. It falls apart. That's all that's
necessary for an internal critique to disprove the system at
a systemic level, and for Michael often to say, but
you have the same problem with a Cumuinus bishops dog
it doesn't work because he's importing his system on the mind.
I mean, this is such a low level response. It's
baffling to me that, And I think really Lofton has
kind of retired into just going for the lowest common
that like the lowest tier of converting people. He's just
going for like super low tier numbers because there's no
way he's ever going to debate anybody of anything. He's
never debated anybody.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 6: Uh, he challenged you to a debate, you wouldn't do it.
He challenged me to a written debate, a written debate
in twenty twenty four. Don't nobody do written debates? Dude?
Get out of here with that boomer crap. That's the
same thing that Lecoutis did. I can't debate you. I
have hiccups. That was his excuse. I'm not joking by
the way. He then went and debated. Didn't he debate UBI?
So he can debate UBI? But he wouldn't debate me
because he has hiccup disorder? What hiccup disorder? And then
he said, I'll debate you written for him written. I'm
not writing a book against romeccality's. I can just refute
this in a live stream. Nobody does book written debates. Dude.
This is not two thousand and seven blog warfare. Oh bro,
I'm gonna get on my zanga and I will destroy
you on my zanga tonight. Do people they don't even
know what zanga is. In two thousand and six, dude,
all of the warfare was zanga. You gotta go where
the battle is. This is a two thousand and six man.
Nobody's on zanga. Nobody's writing twenty page blog responses anymore.
This twenty twenty four. Bro, all right, I've been yapping
long enough. It's open topics, man, and I want if
you disagree, you want to come debate. You come, you'll
go to the head of the line. Please don't ask
me orthodox FQ questions. Please don't. I'm asking, I'm humbly
requesting you to not do that tonight. If you want
to answer your Orthodox FAQ questions, guess what you should do.
You should go to your Orthodox church and learn it.
Enough of this internet stuff, too much time online. Go
to the real church, the actual, living, embodied church, not
the abstract one in the internet sphere, because that's the
only one. If you want the basics everybody needs to
get Orthodox dogmatic theology by Palmazansky. You can go watch
FDA's lectures. He's been working through this book for months.
Go to his channel Patristic Faith. You can go through
his lectures. If you don't have a priest or anybody, right,
that's where you get your catechisis. Don't get your catechisas
from debate streams. If they help you out, that's good.
But the more that I've read this book over time,
I think it is a really good catechism. And most
of the controversial topics within Orthodoxy that come up, he's
got pretty good accounts of how to deal with those,
whether it's Augustinianism or you know, Philly ok Way or whatever.
It's treated very well overall in this book. So remember
you need to get the basics before you try to
get into the nitty gritty of Oh, I'm gonna jump
right into the eternal manifestation of the movement of the Energies.
Get the basics down first, Okay, before you try to
get into that stuff. Too many people, twenty year old
people try to immediately go into the most difficult Orthodox
doctrines and that's usually ends up in disaster and then
they'll mess up and they miss some basic thing that
they should have laid the groundwork first. So remember what
Paul says, lay a strong foundation. You gotta lay the
foundation before you try to jump to the THHD doctor
Bradshaw level stuff. So if you need Kateakisis, read the
Pomazansky book. Don't ask me about your marriage problems, don't
ask me about your fasting questions, don't ask me about
your canon law questions. None of that is me. I
don't do that, and it's not appropriate for Internet nerds
to be doing that. Anyway. We got a couple of supertests,
then we're going to open it up for debate. I'm
a list of topics for you. If you don't listen,
if you don't come with the topics, it's immediate boot.
We're not going to listen to your poetry. I don't
care about your slam poetry. I don't care how good
you think your bars are. I bet I spit better bars.
I guarantee you that I don't care how good you
think you're sing. I don't care about your What else
is there storytelling? Your gnostic ancient alien storytelling? Actually that's
pretty entertaining. So if you're a Gnostic and you want
to come tell me about ancient aliens and all that stuff,
you go to the head of the line. Chris JD.
Three dollars. Is it not exhausting if you're a papist
or a papal lawyer to continue covering for this system.
It's crazy. It is exhausting. And I did it. So
to again stress this point, all the stuff that you're
seeing everybody go through right now, I did all this.
I went through all this in the year of two
thousand and four or five, six, seven, eight nine. I
was doing all I struggle with all this, and that's
why I know the Roman Catholic doctrines and documents like
Sam Schmoun knows the Hot Deaths and the Qur'an. I
know Denzinger. Let's go to Denzinger. You guys have seen
my Denzinger. It's all sticky notes. I live this, I
breathe this, the Roman system, and that's why for years
their excuse, well, he's you mean bumblebee three dollars. Do
you think this is shaping up to be a religion
of Antichrist? It certainly could be. We don't know if
it's the end of the world. It could be. I
do think there are certain prophecies and the Orthodox tradition
that we clearly think have to be fulfilled to have
me fulfilled. So I wouldn't rush to say, oh, this
is the end of the world. But you know, it's
also possible that those prophecies could happen quick For example,
the conversion of the Jews, the conversion of the world
in mass those could happen within a small frame of time.
So perhaps, but then again, we may have another thousand years.
We don't know, but it does look like given the
topic that we look at quite often over here on
this channel, which is the geopolitics of the papacy and
the geopolitics of religion in general, including within the Orthodox Church.
So this is another falsehood, the Rome mecaloicy. So you
won't talk about ecumenist bishops and the Orthodox Church. Yes
I have for years. Not true, but if you don't
listen to my streams, you wouldn't.
Speaker 7: Know that.
Speaker 6: Where was the loss of the super chat But that,
by the way, is why we have for many years
covered the close connection between the Vatican and the world
power of the geopolitical power leader the West, the Atlantis
power block, et cetera. And remember when we started, you know,
really hammering that home, especially during the Kouf. Remember that
Lofton and Trent and probably still have this. They act
like this doesn't exist. Trent and Lofton have consistently says
this about twenty twenty, maybe twenty nineteen. There's no such
thing as a push for world government. That's all crazy conspiracy.
Imagine thinking that these people who have absolutely no discernment
about the times and where we are, no knowledge whatsoever
of a real push for a global governance world in
comy form, Davos, all this stuff. They have no knowledge
of this. They still deny it, but they're going to
tell you about through their discernment the papacy, Francis and
all this nonsense. How are they going to do that?
They can't even what does Jesus say to the Pharisees?
Do you not know the times? Are you so ignorant?
You can't understand the time? Meaning that they didn't understand
that it was the time of his coming, So they
had no discernment the Pharisees and the Jews of his day,
according to this critique, and I'm saying this same principle
applies to Lofton and Trent Horne. They have absolutely no
discernment or knowledge of global governance or the push for
any of this. They're still acting like this doesn't exist.
These people are completely clueless. And that's why, by the way,
I also challenged all the Roman calics. I went out
looking for academic Roman Catholics historians to debate me on
the geopolitics of the papacy. None of them will do it.
I've asked probably a dozen of them. None of them
will do it. I put out multiple public requests with
hundreds of likes, hundreds of shares. None of them will
do it. They don't want to talk about the wim
Hoff book. They don't want to talk about Gladio, they
don't want to talk about any of this stuff which
I've read countless books on, and maybe they know that
they would rather retreat into.
Speaker 16: Oh, that's a bunch of Jack chick track stuff.
Speaker 6: That's crazy conspiracy stuff.
Speaker 18: Ha haa.
Speaker 16: I'm so smug and so I'm so pious and knowledgeable,
and I just still act like it doesn't exist. And
my audience is so stupid they follow me thinking that
it doesn't exist.
Speaker 6: That gets a hand fart, that's what that gets, Dree
one dollar. Sam Shimun did a series in the Turn
of the Old Testament. I know I saw one of
the videos. I didn't see the whole series, and I
did a series as well. I did one video on it.
We did a three hour a total of almost three
over three hours of just Torah Torah Trinity. Sam said
that the Angel of the Lord is clearly Jesus. He
covered all the theophanies. Of course, He's used that argument
a million times for a long time. Has he given
any thought to the Essen Centner distinction? How Roman Catholic
doesn't Romantholicism doesn't affirm this. I don't know. That's a
good question. I don't know that he has dealt with that,
Daniel ten dollars. Mormons do all the same stuff. Once
they see that their prophets contradict their teachings and their
theology and that they're weird epistemologies all over the place,
they then turn to the testimony of Joseph Smith that
he quotes saw God the Father. They are cults and
they rely on a lot of mental gymnastics. I think
that that is eventually a sign that it's a cult
thing is when you start to see people double down
and use a lot of mental gymnastics. And think of
the commonalities here between Mormons, Muslims, Roman Catholics, who else
like you see? You notice the same patterns here, Dance
Commander fifty dollars, thank you for these apologetics at a
strengthen my faith. Do you know about roma Manian Saints
of the Prisons? Yeah, I think Father Deacon has told
me some of this. I've actually met Father Julian, who
was very kind to me. And Father Julian was in
a Romanian prison for a while. I think I think
or he was persecuted and fled here, so he's a
pretty well known Orthodox person. But and I've heard him
tell the stories of Romanian saints of the prisons, there
is a certain commission that is blocking their canonization because
they spoke out against the liberalism of the EU. Well,
that doesn't surprise me, and I believe that that makes
perfect sense. So justin we're going to open it up
right here. Please please do not weigh me down with
your questions about fasting and those kinds of stuff. Please
don't please. And it never fails because every time we
open it up, half of the people just want to
ask me questions about what about the jurisdictions of the
EP versus the MPU. What's going to happen If I
don't know what's going to happen. If there's a ex
communication of those two, there'll be a giant split down
the church. That's the best I could tell you. But
by the way, that's happened in the history of the Church.
There have been patriarch its excommunicating one another. That's happened
in church history. So how would that if that is
in itself a defeater for the church, then do Roman
Catholics not understand that If the Roman Catholic Church is
the church of the first thousand years, that's a defeater
for your system. Dummy. If you're arguing that patriarch it's
excommunicating each other is a defeater for the system, then
the excommunications of patriarchs in the first thousand years of
the church are a defeater for your sistem. You don't
see how silly that is. It's such a it's like
they're they're actually I think they're blinded to these things.
I really think you can't. You're blinded to these things.
You don't see these things unless there's a kind of
humility and a willingness to to think maybe you're wrong.
Jay did a three hour Torah stream on the tour
the Trinity in the Torah with who with myself. Literally,
just go to my channel. You lazy people that constantly
ask me where is this? Will go to my channel
and scroll down the Trinity in the Torah. It's right there.
Speaker 7: By.
Speaker 6: You see, I end up, I end up ranting for
an hour.
Speaker 19: Yes, hi, I'm learning to ask you about it. I
just saw a clip I think it got posted today.
Debate you had with the more Men and he had
asked you how you know the Bible true, and I
believe you said it was the transcendental argument, and that
because the the Trinity is necessary for knowledge and the
Trinity is only revealed in the Bible.
Speaker 7: Is that correct?
Speaker 13: Uh?
Speaker 6: Pretty much, that's the route I would go, Yeah, okay.
Speaker 19: So then I mean, how does that argue for say,
the validity of Ruth chapter two or Second Samuel chapter five.
Speaker 6: Hold on, you're spitting these things out. What specifically is
in Ruth two that's supposed to be a problem.
Speaker 7: Oh well, I don't know. I mean, I guess the
point is, you know.
Speaker 6: What I mean, you don't know? Why are you signing
rod too? If you don't know why?
Speaker 7: Well, the point is it's irrelevant what's what's in there?
Speaker 19: The point is, how does that? How does that prove
that the whole Bible is true? Every part of the Bible.
Speaker 6: Because part of the worldview includes that the wholest it's
a wholestic arguments and arguing for the entire worldview.
Speaker 19: So you would need all every every book, every version
of the Bible to be true for the Trinity to
be true.
Speaker 6: Well, God didn't have to reveal himself in the Trinity
but that's the means that he chose to use, right,
is divine revelation in scripture and tradition. So in the
sense that because that's the means he used, yes, but
it's not the Bible wasn't necessary, right, I mean God was,
God had a relationship with Adam and Eve before there
was anything written down, and the Trinity was there in
Genesis right before anything that was recorded or written. So
there's not there's it's not like it has to be
written or something like that. It's just how providentially within
history it came down to us. So what I'm saying
is that there's a fixed body of beliefs, and it
would still be true even if it wasn't written down
because the early Church, many of the many of the
members of the Church in the first few centuries, they
couldn't read, and they didn't have access to a complete
canon of scripture, and yet they still have the faith.
So the written version is just another kind of attestation
that helps demonstrate that it's true. It's not like it's
it's the religion is dependent upon something being written down
per se.
Speaker 7: Yes, Okay, I really understand that.
Speaker 19: I just don't see how the Trinity being necessary.
Speaker 7: For knowledge proves the entire Bible is true and in
every job.
Speaker 6: In till them, because it's an argument not just for
the Trinity before the entire Christian worldview, and part of
the Christian worldview is that the Bible is true and
that it's necessary for faith, et cetera. So I think
you keep thinking of it as an argument just for
a trinity. There's no such thing as trinity in isolation
from incarnation or trinity in isolation from what Jesus teaches
in the Gospels. It's a package deal, is the argument.
Speaker 19: Okay, So when you say trinity, that's what you're referring to,
is that the whole Christian.
Speaker 7: Faith, orthodox Christian faith exactly. Okay.
Speaker 19: So, so you need all of Christian teaching that as
a foundation for any knowledge, and if any one of
those points is missing, then than then justified true.
Speaker 7: Belief is not is not founded properly.
Speaker 6: Basically, Yeah, really sure. I mean, in other words, it
wouldn't make sense to say, well, I believe in the
Christian revelation and I can ground my my epistemology in
that revelation, but I don't believe in the incarnation like
that that's a key piece, right, So you wouldn't be
able to ground it anymore.
Speaker 7: And so I couldn't. I couldn't affirm.
Speaker 19: The fact that A and not A can can both
be true at the same time, the same in the
same sense, unless I believe the virgin birth.
Speaker 6: Ultimately that would be the case.
Speaker 7: Yes, could you like flesh that out?
Speaker 6: No, because because the principle behind the law of non
contradiction requires some kind of metaphysic and some kind of
reality to ground it. Namely, I argue and we demonstrate
that it is the Christian worldview and the Christian metaphysic,
and that's the package deal that includes the virgin birth.
So it's not directly the case. It's not. It's an
indirect reference to the whole of the of the religion.
But more directly speaking, it would be grounded in the
type of God that you're using or arguing for, and
that God also says that the vergin of Earth is
a crucial part of this paradigm.
Speaker 19: Okay, So if if one verse of the Bible were true,
or yeah, let's just say one verse.
Speaker 7: Of the Bible were not true, it's made an incorrect.
Speaker 19: Statement, then then no one would have any any foundation
for logic.
Speaker 7: For a reason.
Speaker 6: I mean, this can get a little technical with the
specific verses per se. I don't think that every verse
has to be I mean, because there are scribal errors.
And that's why I argued a minute ago that it's
not a matter of whether everything that's written down is
perfectly written down, because we're not Protestants, We're not worshiping
a book. You could have the religion with nothing being
written down. It could all be or it could listen, listen,
it could all be oral tradition. So I could be
a Christian in the year three hundred who can't read
and doesn't have access to the whole Gospel. Right, It's
not I didn't fart, it's my feet are sweaty. People
think I'm working over here. My feet sweat on this thing,
and if I scoot it sounds like it farts. We've
had this come up many times. But anyway, if I
do fart, I will let you guys. I'll let you
guys all know, and I'll just fart freely anyway. You
back to your question. Ahead, back to your question.
Speaker 19: So I guess what I'm I'm saying is so you
said that you believe that the Bible is true in
the way you can know that is because the Christian
worldview is a foundation for all truth claims.
Speaker 6: In other words, the world view, the worldview, and the
argument could be the same even if nothing was written down.
Speaker 19: Yes, I understand like the Bible didn't hasn't existed for
all eternity, but truth in God has yet, so if
we were to so I'm just trying to like take
that argument and apply it to a specific verse of
the Bible. Let's pick a verse that's not content there.
Let's say there's a verse that has no textual variants.
All manuscripts agree in the rendering of this verse. I'm
sure there are many like that that are just exactly
the same and there's no no variation in the manuscript tradition. Okay, So,
and let's say that that verse had said something wrong
incorrect in it about the location of some you know,
village and.
Speaker 7: You know, in in the period or something like that.
Speaker 19: How would how how So you believe that every verse
of the Bible is true, right, and and you believe
that because of the Christian worldview as a foundation for knowledge,
So how would you how would you deal with that
if there was a verse that was was not true
or was contested like.
Speaker 6: That, Well, if it's contested, that doesn't really mean it's
That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true because it's contested.
But the fact that I mean, you said, if there's
no scribal variations in this in this example, then why
would why why what would the presupposition be that it's false? Like,
how would I why would I know it's false? How
would we know it's false?
Speaker 7: Well, you would know it's false by.
Speaker 19: I don't know, by his historians telling you that that's
not possible, that you know this is that this place
didn't exist until later in history or something along.
Speaker 6: Those world I mean, that's where it comes down to
presubpositions that why am I going to trust unbelieving historians
to tell me the truth about my book when the
questions are more fundamental that unbelieving historians can't give an
account for their worldview, Right.
Speaker 19: I understand that, But so so your presupposition is going
into it is the Bible is true, this particular verse
is true.
Speaker 7: Even though people say it's it's wrong. It has an error,
And I know that.
Speaker 19: Because the Christian worldview is the foundation for knowledge, and this.
Speaker 6: Your whole argument is just yeah, this whole argument is
just hinging on a Protestant view of scripture, like like
that that we're book worshiper. It's like a Muslim idea
about the Quran. But that's not the orthodox view of
what our divine revelation is.
Speaker 19: Okay, so you're okay with with a verse here they're
just saying something incorrect.
Speaker 6: No, I'm just simply saying that I don't think that
there's incorrect versus. I think there's variant manuscripts and there
are scribal errors, but that doesn't that doesn't mean that
there's erroneous theology.
Speaker 7: Okay, Yeah, all right.
Speaker 19: I was just trying to use your your epistemology to
try and think of like a thought experiment.
Speaker 6: No, I'm sure it's it's a fair question. Yeah, it's
a fair question to say, Well, like, if it's a
package deal, then does every piece of the package have
the same necessity? And I would actually argue no. In
other words, obviously there are there are some doctrines that
are more fundamental than other doctrines. So even though it's
a package deal, that doesn't mean that I have to
know every aspect of the package to have a justification,
because that would be the that would be impossible for
any worldview. Nobody could have all of the facts of
their worldview if that was what was needed for justification
of a worldview. Does that make sense.
Speaker 19: Yeah, there's different tiers of facts, so obviously, like the Trinity,
the incarnation, these will be a top tier type of thing.
So you said that you have made that argument where
you where you go through the full argument of how
the Christian worldview is needed as a foundation for knowledge.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I've done it many many times.
Speaker 7: Okay, do you recall offhand a title or a video?
Speaker 6: Well, I mean, how about I just do it right
now because everybody always asks this question. So anytime you
say predicate at all, if you make a sentence, that
requires a certain kind of metaphysic, a certain kind of world,
a certain kind of construct to where there's universals, there
are particulars, there's identity over time, there is a self,
there's a nowhere like, there's objective knowledge, there are laws
of logic. You understand that all those things are necessary
to make a sentence, and so that kind of world
is the world that they're just so hops the Christian
God creates the universals are grounded in him. It's a
form of divine conceptualism. Therefore it's Christian theism. That's I mean,
there's more to it. But how's that for a short summation.
Speaker 7: Uh, yeah, I'll have to listen back to that.
Speaker 19: It's kind of a lot fast, and I'm not familiar
with a lot of those terms, so I appreciate you
for me.
Speaker 6: Yeah. No, I mean they're great questions. I welcome those questions.
Speaker 7: Cool. Thank you.
Speaker 6: X X cyber shout out to fifteen hundred. Uh, this
is more than my usual audience, so I'm glad to
have fifteen hundred live. That's a little bit more than usual.
So the last two live streams have had more than normal.
You got to immune x X see why I'm mute.
Speaker 7: Thank you for the mic. Well, this is my whole issue.
Speaker 20: So my entire life, I identified as being a Christian,
and I always felt there was something off with the
Bible because it was written by man. I do understand
that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I
went through a really hard time and after sitting there
and identifying, up till.
Speaker 7: The age of thirty six, I had this.
Speaker 20: Thought pop in my head, and it was, what if
I pray to my father God in heaven and asked
my father God to allow my brother to feel the
shame of the guilt.
Speaker 17: Of allowing his pride to get the best of him.
Speaker 20: And what if my brother forgave me for hating him
my entire life without ever getting to know him, because
it's all I knew, because it's all I was taught.
And then what if he accepted Jesus as his Lord
and savior aka has check in balance.
Speaker 15: To ensure he could never do what he did before again?
Speaker 20: And then what if he took accountability and responsibility and
went to his father and asked for forgiveness and his
father forgave him.
Speaker 17: And then what if his father asked for his forgiveness?
Speaker 20: Because there's no manual on how to be a perfectly
perfect parent, because we're.
Speaker 7: All made perfectly imperfect.
Speaker 20: We're all pieces of God's creation and He loves us all.
Speaker 7: So in that moment, I thought, we've all talked about
world peace. Why can't there be world peace?
Speaker 6: Was there a question in that somewhere? I'm totally lost?
Speaker 21: Yeah, Why why does it say that there's no salvation
for Satan.
Speaker 6: Wait, how what he's about world peace and forgiveness?
Speaker 7: Not? What?
Speaker 6: How are you at this? I don't understand.
Speaker 20: Right, Well, most most religions have different views on you know,
Jesus and whether or not Satan can be forgiven, and
Christians they're hung up on Satan will never be forgiven,
and I don't understand how that is.
Speaker 6: Well. I think the God holds humans less responsible because
of the exceeding gifts and higher place that the angels
were given. So they're a lot more accountable than Adam
and Eve were because of their sin. And so we
also believe that in the Christian view, Christ was always
going to become incarnate, even whether there was a fall
or not. The fall is not the reason who became incarnate.
And so one of the reasons that Satan was motivated
to hate mankind was out of envy, because the son
of God was going to raise human nature, and that
made the angels that rebelled with him envious that man
would be raised to that status. They didn't feel like
man should be given that. So the the envy and
the greater responsibility and accountability is why the demons cannot
be forgiven. Hello.
Speaker 21: Yes, So I'm wondering if a linguistic.
Speaker 6: You're what you're cutting out.
Speaker 7: I'm wondering if.
Speaker 6: Can you start over your cutting?
Speaker 7: Is that better? Ahead?
Speaker 22: I'm wondering if linguistic experts ever got together and translated
the original doctrines.
Speaker 6: I mean, I think every translation is some group of
linguistic experts. So what do you mean?
Speaker 20: So it's like in the Bible it says at the
beginning was the Word, and the word was God.
Speaker 17: And that means so much more than we were loized, because.
Speaker 22: Words can be either the greatest weapons or the greatest inspiration.
Speaker 6: Do you do you know in the in Genesis one
what that Greek word is in the in the Steps?
Speaker 7: I do not.
Speaker 6: Yes, it is phronsia. The Greek term when God creates
is phronsia. And then if you go down a couple
more verses, you'll see uh Cabernet Sauvignon, and you'll see
uh sweet Valley Red to quote Steve sweet Cherry Red.
Did you know that?
Speaker 21: I didn't do that, But I will tell you I
have been looking for, you know, Jesus' words in this
and have you been to archive dot organ like the
Jesus in his own words.
Speaker 6: Uh, no, tell me about that, because I'm going to argue.
You can see where I'm going to go with this, right,
If Genesis one is using uh, Cabernet Sauvignon and someone
on blanc and Phronsia, I'm gonna automatically argue that in
the Book of Matthew, the actual Hebrew translation of those
texts is the is merlou. And I forget the barefoot
because that's another key brand you have to be aware of.
Are you aware of barefoot? Yeah? But logos in Logos
in Hebrew is actually Merlou. See, people don't know about
the Hebrew translation of Matthew. Everybody thinks, oh, Matthew is
written in Greek. No, no, no, no, I'm talking about
the original Hebrew, early Hebrew roots Jewish Christians of the
first century who translated correctly the Book of Matthew to
include Merleau and Cabernet Sauvignon vic. I forgot. Yes, that's
a great point, sir. Eclipse a lot Shiraz is also
a key a key component as well. Now some say
that there's variant texts that include Virginia Slims. I actually
think those are false. Manuscripts. Those were Gnostic additions to
include the Virginia Slam variant VIC.
Speaker 17: Hey, just a quick question.
Speaker 23: I've been reading some of Greg bond Sin's work, and
I was curious as to do any of his Calvinists
like positions or views influence his apologetic in.
Speaker 7: A way that we as Orthodox should.
Speaker 17: Be aware of.
Speaker 6: Yes, I think the inconsistency about the notion of total depravity.
I had a long email back and forth back in
the day with John Framan about this, the idea that
total pravity is always affecting our noetic understanding, including after
we're saved, such that we could never really have a
certain interpretation of any text, and thus the Church could
never actually after the Apostles infallibly state or believe anything.
But the problem is that, well that's the case, then
what did the same thing apply to my knowledge of
the Trinity and my interpretation of the text or my
deriving the Trinity from the text. So that seems to
be me to be kind of an insoluble problem for
total depravity believing Calvinists. If you're if you believe in tag.
Greg Bonnson has a position kind of similar to James
White that he thinks that there's a plain meaning persepecuity
of the texts. The text just mean what they say,
and they say what they mean. And yet at the
same time he believes that you have to have a
holistic canonical view that harmonizes all of these things. And
so once again, I think that's a really problem, a
real deep problem for a Protestant, because, I mean, the
Doctor the Trinity is in scripture and the Saints believed it,
but it also requires a lot of these patristic terms
and argumentation to solidify it and to make it clear.
And so I think there's a there's a back, and
there's an inconsistency when Protestants think that the text clearly
teaches the Trinity, and yet they go into all this depth,
with all this metaphysics which the Church Fathers explicate to
help understand the Trinity, which are not immediately apparent in
the texts. So how is he how are you gonna
ground your epistemology in the Trinity if total depravity is
true and if the Trinity isn't actually explicitly taught in
the way that the New Testament, or excuse me, that
the Church fathers teaching in the Bible Bonson teaches an
absolute divine simplicity, which is the Augustinian view, which ultimately
would collapse nature in person. It would result in a
neoplatonic monad. And that wouldn't work to ground that your
knowledge because there's no essence inary distinction. Van Til said
the essence of God is a person, which is obviously heretical.
I don't know if Bonson ever rejected that or if
he ever talked about it, but obviously that's not true.
So I mean, it's funny because Van Till has the
right idea about making the distinction between nature and person,
and he was obviously confused and was grasping for monarchical trinitarianism,
but he didn't know about that. So what he's his
mistake is hitting upon what's missing, one of the things
that's missing, which is monarchical trinitarianism. Anyway, I mean, there's
you could keep going, but those are I think good.
You could argue too that their version of tag is
because it doesn't have the essence centery distinction. It would
be like the way William Lane Craig argues for divine conceptualism,
which ends up being platonism. And so if you think
universals are God. Now you got a problem because are
they divine essence is a universal the divine person? How
is a universal God? I mean in the Orthodox view,
their logi or well, the universal are creative, but they're
they're based on uncreated logi. So if you don't have
a logos, logi doctrine, I don't think you're gonna be
able to make it work. Beacon. Those are elements that
come to mind.
Speaker 17: Hey, j.
Speaker 7: So I have two very short questions.
Speaker 24: So I'm in the Protestant apologetic The three that you
arguments you see get wheeled around a lot, cosmological, teleological, moral,
Did you cover any of those three in your debate.
Speaker 7: With Trent Horn?
Speaker 24: Because I'm trying to find some good resources because I've
heard you say that even Bertrand Russell pointed out that
the cosmological is a uh non sequitur makes this infinite?
Oh sorry, they to my apologies. Do you do you
have any good papers or past debates you've done refuting these.
Speaker 17: Arguments.
Speaker 6: Just read the doctor Gary p paper Theistic Fallacies. That's
got it one of the best right here, and we
have multiple live streams that we've done for years. If
you can scroll down here to critiquing papacy, critiquing the
classical arguments Matt Dill Hunty dire debate aquinas in classical
theism critiqued right here on the front page of my channel.
There's two This is four and a half hours on that.
You can go down here to my traditional metaphysics talks
the one, two, three, four right here, Law and natural
theology don't exist, God's existence, natural revelation, and logie right there,
those all cover that. Well, thank you for those questions,
but yeah, go ahead, go ahead. We just hit eighteen hundred.
That's crazy. Go ahead.
Speaker 7: And me go ahead. I just told you I forgot
my own questions that.
Speaker 6: Oh I thought you said I have one other question.
Speaker 17: That's fine, Oh I did. I just forgot it.
Speaker 6: Okay, that's fine. What's up that boy, that boy in
the house. I'm about the foot fart on your face? Boy? Then,
and I box wine that Virginia slams is giving me gas. Baby,
my uncreated foot had according to the classical traditional sahi
hadeth of foot farting. My perfect look. Isn't a foot
that farts more perfect than a foot that doesn't fart?
If your foot they didn't fart, it would like inflate
and pop. So a foot that farts is actually more
perfect according to the logic of itment.
Speaker 7: To me, what's up that boy, Hello, Pastor Randy.
Speaker 6: I'm great. By the way, it doesn't an uncreated farting
foot fart perfectly.
Speaker 7: H Yeah, I was just gonna say, my foot does
not fart.
Speaker 25: Wish it did, because it looks like I have elephantitus
of the Achilles heel.
Speaker 7: At the moment.
Speaker 6: So that's gallop, buddy, that's you've got some gollop over there.
Speaker 7: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 6: If you put your hands on the screen, I can
heal your gallop.
Speaker 7: Oh okay, I'm actually putting my foot on it.
Speaker 6: Oh it's getting dirty up in here. Hey, go ahead.
Speaker 25: So my wife and I recently became catechumen in the church,
and one thing that's come up for us is the
not just the veneration of the Cross, but the worshiping
of the cross and praying to the cross. And it
seems I guess it's probably maybe obvious why that would
be weird for a Protestant.
Speaker 7: To see that.
Speaker 25: And you know, I understand praying to saints, venerating saints
worshiping through the icon of Christ.
Speaker 7: But what's up with this worshiping the cross?
Speaker 6: Well, again, worship is veneration. It's not the same worship
that's given to the uncreated. So we honor the cross
because it's the instrument of our salvation. Uh, it's the
and so as John Damascus says, the honor given to
the type passes to the prototype. So we're honoring Christ
by honoring the cross. It's not that we worship a
piece of wood.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 25: So I guess why is why is their prayers to
the to the cross if the cross is not sentient
you know, I mean it's a cross.
Speaker 7: I mean at the end, it's it's still a cross.
Speaker 6: Like well, I mean there's like there's there's adulation to
this instrument. I don't know that anyone's asking the cross
to do things like it's personal. But if there is
a statement like that, the assumption is that the one
who died on the cross is it's that it's passing
to the prototype.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 25: So when when worship or prayer is done toward the cross,
it's being pointed towards Christ.
Speaker 6: Not yes, not the cross itself. And no one thinks
that piece of wood in itself does anything.
Speaker 7: But the.
Speaker 6: Form of the cross is what burns the demons, because
it's the instrument of our salvation.
Speaker 7: So the let God Arise prayer to the Holy Cross.
Speaker 25: It's the prayer speaks to the cross and then makes
the distinction between the Cross and Christ. I don't have
it pulled up in front of me, but it's I mean,
it's pretty simple to find it. Like the first thing
that pulls up and you type in let God arise, I.
Speaker 6: Mean it's so. Let God arise, and let his enemies
be scattered. Let those who hate him flee from his
face a smoke vanishes. Let them vanish as wax melts
from the presidents of fire. So let the demons pairs
from the presidents of those who love God and who
signed themselves with a sign of the cross, and say,
with gladness Hell, most precious life, giving cross to the Lord.
You drive away the demons by the power of the Lord.
So it's not the wood that's doing it. It's the
power of the Lord through the Cross that does it.
For it was Christ. It was cruticified on ye, and
you went down into hell and trampled on the power
of the devil his honorable Cross for driving away the enemies.
So you understand that we believe that created things can
be endued with this power via the divine energies. This
is the whole idea behind icons and why icons are holy.
It's not because they're just because they're creatures. It's because
they're creatures who have been endude with this power via
the uncreated energies.
Speaker 7: Okay, so I guess it.
Speaker 25: It would be fair to say it's a poetic or
you know, some sort of poetic language to speak to
the Cross, but like in the spiritual.
Speaker 6: Reality, Yeah, I mean it's poetic language you you drive
away the power of the demons speaking to it, but
it literally does that.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, okay, cool, Yeah, that's a I think that's
all I get.
Speaker 6: That's okay, that's a good question. I've actually I've actually
never had that question. So that was an interesting question. Dallas,
what's up, dude, Globe?
Speaker 26: Yep, Yeah, I would just argue that the Virginia Slim
variant should be there.
Speaker 6: Okay. I mean, you're gonna have to give me at
least two or three wine moms that have actually within
the history of the church back that up. I'm not
going to just accept your arbitrary accusation that the Virginia
Slam variant is valid unless you give me proof of that.
Name three wine name three wine moms that prove that.
Speaker 7: Well, think Bud the Wise are actually quoted it.
Speaker 6: Okay, that's one. That's one.
Speaker 7: And if you actually look in.
Speaker 27: The verse before, we also have the variant reading of
Paul maul menthol.
Speaker 6: And actually, okay, I mean that's contested, but I'll grant
you that's only two. Dude, I give you. I said
give me three exactly exactly. You can't do it. You
can't do it exactly. I mean, you understand the sonoticon
excommunicates you for that, right, you understand that. Yeah, I'm
nation exactly. So again, the whole chat is laughing at you.
You just got refuted, You just got burnt. What's up, man,
what's up?
Speaker 28: I don't I don't have an organ I just can't
believe some of the questions.
Speaker 3: People as well.
Speaker 18: You know what?
Speaker 6: That makes it a fruitful cornucopia of a wide Look,
as Francis says, God wills the various religious expressions of
all of the wine moms, all of the dostic, ancient aliens,
all of the slam poetry people, God wills, all of that.
Did you not listen to Francis? It's part of the
diversity of the human experience.
Speaker 7: Bro Listen if I listened to Francis being haled tonight.
Speaker 10: Well just put it that way.
Speaker 6: Look, the question really is which are the fart hadiths
that we're supposed to follow? I mean, my foot's been
fart and since the beginning of this live stream is
that sahi? Do I need to do an ablution?
Speaker 7: Is it? What?
Speaker 6: Was it a perfect fart?
Speaker 7: Do we know?
Speaker 18: Was it in prayer? Because then you have to total
he again?
Speaker 6: Right, that's what I'm saying. Does the stream have to
start all over? We gotta start all over. I just
dirtied the stream by my foot fart and against this
sweaty ass chair. So you didn't have a question. You
just try to argue with me over the Virginia slim variant. Well, look, man,
you gave two arguments and not a third. So you're
you're refuted, You're defeated. Context Saint Fransia is one of
the most famous Latin saints of the early Renaissance period.
She does have a lot of key argumentation. She's got
a lot of wise things to say, but look, I
just can't accept that she's a saint. I'm sorry, context,
what's up again on you? What's it's called? She's called
Saint Fransia the Woozy.
Speaker 7: I have a question about orthodox.
Speaker 6: Okay, brother? What does your question? Yeah?
Speaker 7: Why there's so many gropers in Orthodoxy online?
Speaker 6: There's not. The gropers are almost always trad cats. What
do you mean.
Speaker 7: Now? I see a lot of jew hating gropers in
the authosphere.
Speaker 6: Well, I mean that's the minority. So I don't know
what you're talking about. I mean, literally, they're all tradecats.
What are you talking about?
Speaker 29: Go check an account called Conscious Philosopher one hundred k followers.
Speaker 7: It's not a small account.
Speaker 6: I mean, I'm not. Okay, So there's one. I mean,
but what about it? Do you have an argument? What's
your argument? Yeah?
Speaker 29: Well, my argument is that it seems like Orthodoxy is
a gateway into anti Semitism.
Speaker 6: Oh sure, And what's your worldview.
Speaker 7: Christian?
Speaker 6: What kind of Christian?
Speaker 7: Non denominational?
Speaker 6: Uh huh? And why so we're supposed to believe in
no denominational Christianity. So you're a social justice for you. No,
not really, get out here, magic, Mike, what.
Speaker 18: How are you doing?
Speaker 6: My foot's farting NonStop? And I need to start the
stream over why I in no way?
Speaker 18: So I wanted to talk a little bit about the
Old Testament and the Trinity. I mean, I've heard you
say that there's trinity in the Old Testament and Abraham
believed that that God was a trying God. But I mean,
how do you justify any of that because, like, for example,
when he goes to the Old Testament, right, you see
God saying that, you know, if there's a prophet coming
along saying that you should worship, for example, a different God,
you have to stone that stuff less profit, you know.
Speaker 6: Hold on, before you start spitting out these verses. Have
you watched my three hour livestream going through all the
verses on the trinity in the Torah?
Speaker 7: Okay?
Speaker 6: Have you read any Have you read any of the
Jewish scholars nowadays like Sommer Barn and others that admit
that there's difference in persons in God in the Old Testament? Okay, fine,
and hold on. I asked you a question, are you
aware of it?
Speaker 18: I haven't.
Speaker 6: Okay, are you aware of the basic text where we
make these arguments.
Speaker 18: From a little bit of familiarity.
Speaker 6: I think, okay, so like, what's what's one or two
of the what's one of the two of the verses
that we go to.
Speaker 18: I think Angel of the Lord Exodus three, that's one. Yeah, yeah,
so there. I mean, I can't think of on top
of my head, but I do know, okay, that you
talk about a few. So for example, I mean, okay,
you can, let's say that there is a little bit
of multiplicity within the God had the Old Testament, But
how do you derive I mean, that's not doesn't happen
to be the Trinity explicitly?
Speaker 6: Okay, throughout the Old Testament there's only three that are mentioned.
There's the Yahweh, his Angel, Covenant, Messenger, and Spirit. Those
three are mentioned. So how many how many more would
there be?
Speaker 18: So for okay, sure you can say that there's three.
Why is the spirit?
Speaker 6: Well no, wait a minute, you just said why would
you just said why would hold on? You just said
why would it be trinity? And now you're saying, okay,
there's three, So exactly.
Speaker 18: I can see I see your point that you know
that only three are mentioned I get that, But for example,
why does the spirit of God has to be interpreted
as a separate person instead of.
Speaker 6: Just because he's spoken of as he. He's spoken of
as a he who does things.
Speaker 18: So why wouldn't the spirit of God, for example, just
be like God the Father? You know, just one?
Speaker 6: Why do you have to make it because of what
I just did? You not hear what I just said?
Speaker 18: Your boys could offer.
Speaker 6: It's he has spoken of as a he, a person
a subject to do or an actor who does things?
Who is not the Father?
Speaker 7: Can he?
Speaker 18: Can he give an example in the Bible or in
the Old Testament.
Speaker 6: This, let's see, I'm pulling up the text. So just
one second. So Moses went out and told the people
the words of the Lord. And he gathered seventy men,
men of the elders and of the people, and placed
them around the tabernacle. And the Lord came down in
the cloud and spoke to him and took of the
spirit that was upon him and placed that same spirit
upon the elders. And then if you read the rest
of the text, it goes on to talk about it
being the spirit of the Lord. The Lord would put
his spirit on them. The reason it can't be the Father.
Is that the Father is not in time and space
in the sense of being incarnate or manifesting. No one
has seen the Father at any time according to Jesus
in John five. There's no image, there's no manifestation of
the of the Father in this way. And so the
Lord that came down is putting this spirit upon them.
So it has to be a third It cannot be
someone else. It's not the Father in this passage. Now
there's about hold on to say one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen,
sixty seven, eighteen, nine, twenty. I've got and this is
not all of them, but I've got twenty two passages
of the Holy Spirit's actions and work in the Old Testament.
So we can go through as many of these as
you want. I can keep going. We go to Psalm
one O three, I think, and what we notice from
all of these passages, we can't just we don't just
take one passage and say, well, that could be the Father.
I mean, it's all he's spoken of as this differentiation,
and he's spoken of as having a personal relationship, and
that he does certain unique things do you want do
you want to keep going through the passages?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 18: I get that point. S For the only reason I
was making that argument is because, for example, I wouldn't
say that the spirit of Jay is something that's separate
from from from you. It's like a second person.
Speaker 6: That's a false analogy because I'm a single person, and
my soul or spirit would be aspects of my person
that would be parts of me. The Holy Spirit is
not a part. God doesn't have parts. He's not composed
or put together. He always was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
So it's an eternal triad. So that's that's why it's
a false analogy to a creature.
Speaker 18: So is it possible for God to be that? To
be a minitarian god or be a quaternity? Is that
possible or is it always?
Speaker 6: Well, you just admitted a minute ago that it's three
in the Old Testament, So how would it be a
quatternity if you admitted those three?
Speaker 18: Like I'm just like, I'm asking, like, why does God
have to be a triune god?
Speaker 6: Because he's revealed himself to be that way. That's wine
It's that's what his revelation is.
Speaker 18: Okay, Okay, I'll get your point. So what about the
Old Testament? For example, when the Muslims say, you know,
the Bible is corrupted, right, And then even when I've
taken some Bible courses at a university and even the
professors are talking about how the Old Testament and even
the Torah it's put together by Jewish rabbis and they
have edited some stuff out, or you don't.
Speaker 6: Well, those are that's all assertions. So by the way,
Psalm one four in the Mesoretic text, you sent forth
your Holy Spirit and they are created. You renew the
face of the earth. So here the Holy Spirit is
being called a creator. So if the Father and the
Son send forth the Spirit and the spirit's creating, then
the spirit is divine. Now that there's I mean, we
can keep going. There's like plenty more examples. There's like
twenty more.
Speaker 18: Yeah, I know, I get that. I was talking about
the Old Testament, for example.
Speaker 6: And I'm reading the Psalms. You don't think the Psalms
are the Old Testament?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 18: Yeah, it's the Old Testament. Both Torah for example. Do
you think it's a bit edited by Jews, Jewish scribes
and the priests. No, it's so who's the author of.
Speaker 7: Torah Moses and Joshua, so they both are the author.
Speaker 18: There's so that you don't think that there's like there's
no part of the Old Testament that's edited out. It's
just written perfectly on what they.
Speaker 6: So what's the basis to believe that those are just assertions?
Speaker 18: Well, I'm just going off of by what the let's
say this.
Speaker 7: My Bible scholars is saying, what the okay?
Speaker 6: Again, those are assertions? So do you want me to
cite you conservative scholars that don't agree? What is that?
What does that?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 18: Can you name some books too on the Old Testament
reliability where you have Moses as the author, and you know, uh,
each book having its own author. And for example, even
I have an Orthodox Study Bible, right some of the
authors are unknown. You don't even know who kind of
like put it together. I think some of the introductions
for the Orthodox Study I don't have it with you
right now because I'm on in the car, but it
says that it was kind of like compiled together by
Jewish scribes or priests and the authors.
Speaker 7: Kind of unknown.
Speaker 18: I think you can some of the books are also
the Wisdom books that says that the authors are most like,
where's the reliability of any of this?
Speaker 6: Well, I mean it's reliable because it's the tradition of
the Church. You can't separate the tradition of the Church
from the authorship of the text. And what we I mean,
the Matthew doesn't tell you that it's Matthew the disciple
of Jesus. It's the tradition of the church that says that.
So bound up with the text is the pre supposition
of the church. So no, you're not going to like
just go to texts and like figure out the religion
per se just from tax alone. You can't. You can't
divorce the text from the community which has passed these
texts on.
Speaker 18: Yeah, but the community is thing that they don't even know.
Speaker 6: The author, And no, it's not that's not the no
you're citing. First of all, knowing the author is not
necessary for us to say whether it's part of our
tradition or not. I mean, the text cite extra canonical
books with true tradition.
Speaker 18: Like the Book of Enoch, so the yah, yeah, it
doesn't cite those books as scripture. But for example, if
you have a book that's considered divine from God right
at least you should know who's bringing that message about
who's the author, who's writing it down, Like, for example, was.
Speaker 7: It a prophet?
Speaker 18: Who it was?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 18: It doesn't.
Speaker 6: No, So you're talking about wisdom text like cyric or
something like that. They don't have to be necessarily from
any specific person to be commonly used wisdom text amongst
the Jews, like the pi k a vote, which is
a it's just like proverbs, but it's a later collection
of proverbs. We don't have to know necessarily who wrote
every proverb to know whether it's true or whether it's
part of tradition or not. Why would we have to
know that?
Speaker 18: So, I mean, how with that book to considered that's
it inspired without you citing your like saying that, oh yeah,
that the church, you know, your tradition Orthodox Church accepted that.
Speaker 6: Well, but I don't know. I don't say you can
divorce inspiration from the from the Church. You can't. That's
my point. So you're approaching this like a Protestant or
like a like a Muslim. That's not how we view
the text and divine revelation. We're not book worshipers.
Speaker 18: Okay, I get that, But what's let's say what is
the justification in the Orthodox Church for accepting a book
without knowing its author.
Speaker 6: There's no reason why something like the Proverbs you mentioned
an example of wisdom texts that we have to know
the author of the Proverbs to know that those are
true proverbs or that they have a historical attestation amongst
Jewish communities.
Speaker 18: No, what I'm trying to get at is like, what
is the mechanism for example, Like you know you have
a certain book, right, let's look at.
Speaker 6: The mechanism is tradition. There's no academic mechanism.
Speaker 7: That's my point, Like, what's the crisis because.
Speaker 6: The tradition of the church is the criteria. That's what
I'm trying to tell you.
Speaker 18: I don't know, because the thing is that in the
in the New Testament, right, they have certain criterias that.
Speaker 6: Are laid out like again noa, NOA.
Speaker 7: Doesn't Yeah, I mean that's what the canon or like
it has to know.
Speaker 6: The New Testament doesn't give you a canon. It's only
from the tradition of the Church. You're just asserting all
the church, even from.
Speaker 18: The tradition of the church, right, like the Church Fathers
for example. That's what I learned in my class that
there was at least a little bit of a criteria
for a book to be accepted as scripture.
Speaker 6: For example, it happen, and do you know it, Okay,
do you know any of those criteria?
Speaker 18: I know, I know, I don't know like every single
one of them. But it had to go back to
the apostles or their associates, and then for example, it
had to like match up to what you know, they
already believed.
Speaker 6: So there was a little all along. So so so
that's not actually so, did the church fathers in general
accept the Deutero canon?
Speaker 18: Did they accept that? I think there's a there's a
difference in there in every one of their canons. I
think one church father accepts some of the other one.
Speaker 6: In general, did they accept the Duro canon? The answer
is yes, they did so. And the Deuero canon is
not from the Apostles. Now, Paul utilizes and cites it
quite a bit. The New Testament cites it quite a bit.
But even citation of the New Testament doesn't necessarily mean
that it's canonical, because the Book of nich is not canonical.
So again, all all of the things that you're talking
about are really just a lot of like Protestant or
Muslim sort of arguments that are spat out and they're
based on presuppositions that are Muslim or Protestant. That the
only way that we know what the text is is
if we do or whether it's true is if we
do a bunch of textual scholarship and historical research to
find out. And that's not the way that we go
about it. It's it's the church is the presupposition. The
Church is the pillar and ground of true Paul says,
not the texts.
Speaker 18: So you do you take that words, for example, what
Paul is saying to interpret that the church's infallible. That
can't be wrong or what not.
Speaker 6: It cannot be wrong in dogmatic universal teaching.
Speaker 18: So it's infallible and it's dogma right, yes, So how
do you even how do you come to that conclusion
without let's say, committing to the fellows to circular reasoning
or you know, you know, because it's like the Bible
is infallible.
Speaker 7: You go to the Bible, and then you have.
Speaker 18: To go to the Church, which is also infallible.
Speaker 6: And you know, because all world views are ultimately recursive
and self referencing and so it's inescapable at the most
fundamental level. There's no way around that. So there's that's
why I argue tagged.
Speaker 18: Okay, I see. So do you think Jesus in your review,
do you think he believes in the Judo canon books
of the Bible.
Speaker 6: Yeah, he cites them multiple times.
Speaker 18: He cites can you give me one example.
Speaker 7: Where he sides.
Speaker 6: He's well, he's prophesied in the Book of Wisdom, for example,
he's the righteous man. That's why the church fathers included
Wisdom in the canon is there's a significant prophecy of
the person of Christ there. But many of the parables
Jesus is alluding to or citing the parable of the
guy who hastily wants to build his barns and retire.
Jesus says that that will going from memory here because
I haven't looked at this in many years, but that
is an allusion to something of this in the dudocononical texts.
There's many you can search online just New Testament references
to the Duro Canon. There's like sixty of them.
Speaker 18: Okay, I got you. And why doesn't Jesus, for example,
I know he makes claims of divinity for example, why
doesn't he explicitly tell his audience that he is God?
For example? When he has the opportunity to do so, he.
Speaker 6: Does it many times. So this is just your ignorance
of the Old Testament and of the Gospels. He does
this countless times. I mean every chapter, every chapter of
the Gospel of John includes references to the deity of
Christ and or the Trinity.
Speaker 18: So I mean, why doesn't I know he makes his
claims of you know, Divinity for himself, but why not
just mentioned the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit altogether?
Speaker 6: Have you not read the Gospel of John? He does
this all the time, especially John fifteen. John fifteen to
seventeen he does this constantly. What are you talking about?
Speaker 7: Hello?
Speaker 6: Yeah, John fifteen to seventeen he does this constantly. So no,
because okay, I mean no, yes, have you read John
fifteen to seventeen.
Speaker 18: I've read that, but I don't know which is exactly Like.
Speaker 6: Those three chapters are constantly him talking about the relationship
of the Father and the Son to the Spirit. It's
the high priestly prayer. You don't you don't know this,
You've not heard of this. It's like one of the
most famous things in all the mind.
Speaker 18: I've heard, I've heard of it, I've read this in
the Orthodox Study Bible.
Speaker 6: So but you just said, why doesn't Jesus openly talk
about stop talking? You just said, why doesn't Jesus stop talking?
Stop talking? Shut up up? Didn't even mention that you
are you going to shut up or not? Why are
you yapping over me? At every point you get refuted
and you just keep yapping. Okay, you're blocked. Are you
listening to me? Are you listening? All right? Maybe he
can't hear. But like everything I respond with, he blows
past to the next thing. It's like, did you not
want to go through the twenty plus text that I
have about the relationship the Holy Spirit of the Old Testament?
They angered him at the waters of Strife so that
it went ill with Moses on account of them, and
they rebelled against his Holy Spirit. So I start going
into this and he blows past, wants to go to
the next thing. Well, what in Jesus talk about the Trinity?
He did John seven fifteen to seventeen, and like three,
you can't go read three chapters? Oh well I don't
have time for that, And okay, well whatever like, literally,
the entire chapter is the relationship of John stepping between
him and the Holy Spirit and the Father. Like the
whole chapters are about that. What are you talking about?
John sixteen, The entire section about the sending of the
Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. It's called
the High Priestly Prayer. It's all about the Trinity. I
read all that. Well, then, what do you mean he
never talks about the trinity and the relationship of the person.
It's like, Josh.
Speaker 17: Out of sheer necessity.
Speaker 7: I thought I'd riff on the Fhronsier mom debate there.
Speaker 6: Well, bodied, so.
Speaker 7: You definitely did.
Speaker 27: I also think you should maybe press the cross up
against your foot.
Speaker 7: It might help to reduce the scent or you know,
the sound. A couple of questions.
Speaker 18: One is, have you ever read.
Speaker 7: The Fire That Consumes?
Speaker 26: No, it's it's in my former Protestant days in my explorations.
Speaker 18: It was like the guy's name is Edward Fudge, and
he's like the point guy.
Speaker 26: Yes, yes, yes, no no joking and uh he uh,
he's like the point guy for conditionalism or annihilationism. It's
like it's like a five hundred page book and it's
pretty interesting, even though it's coming from again more of
a Protestant bent, But some of how he goes about
reading the Ole Testament, like a lot of the.
Speaker 7: Passages that talk about Hell or destr all that stuff.
Speaker 26: So I just was wondering if you, in your previous
Protestant days came across that.
Speaker 6: Yes, and the solution is you need to read the
book On the Brink by Damon Duck. Okay, awesome, I
can only find a good picture of Damon Duck. I
remember finding this book when I was a Protestant. Oh,
here's a good picture of Damon Duck. Here's Damon Duck,
and he will teach you the solution to all Biblical
prophecies with On the Brink by Damon Duck. No, I apologize,
I've never heard of what you're talking about, and I
don't know what that is the point man for annihilationism.
I mean, there's so many passages that pretty clearly teach
that the soul continues on after death, like Jesus talking
about the rich man and the parable the rich man
who dies and goes to Hades and he's there and
he's talking about Abraham's Bosom. I mean, is I just
where do people come up with these ideas. It's not
FAQ day, so we're looking for people to disagree. We've
got a lot of people here we get. We hit
nineteen thousand, nineteen hundred, a Q minist we hit nineteen hundred,
which was a first. So maybe people dumped their chat
into my chat.
Speaker 7: I don't know, but.
Speaker 6: Darkwing Duck is the best End Times theologian out there.
For sure. He's better than John Hagy justin ten dollars
an argument for the honorific language. Saint Cyril is closer
in approximation to ephesis than Pope Saint Celotine. Celestine. Cyril
presides over the council primarily and helps Cyril's Celestine with
his within his jurisdiction as an apostolic. See interesting, Yeah,
there's a lot of examples of this that really conflict
with the Vatican One presubpositions. In fact, again, Sashinsky in
the chapter of the second to seventh century, that's whole
chapter deals with all those, and we did a whole
we did a whole run through of those the other day.
Let's see that got dropped off a qmanist. Are you there, good.
Speaker 7: Evening, Joe.
Speaker 26: So actually the person earlier who was asking about the
relationships when in Genesis won twenty six kind of answer
that when it says our image.
Speaker 6: Our likeness, it would but only on the trinitarian presupposition,
because people always say, oh, that's just the royal we
it's just God and the angels. So they already have
like a patent response. That's why I think it's better
to go to other explicit attacks. I just didn't even
get to them. There's many more. He just blew past it.
I mean there's judges. There's Joel three, Ezekiel one, Daniel
four nine, Exodus fifteen eight to ten, Exodus forty twenty
eight to thirty. Palm won thirty eight seven, so I
won forty two to ten, Joe thirty three four, Joe
thirty eight one, and two judges thirteen twenty five, fourteen
five nineteen. Zech Arie won six. Micah, I can't read
what my note is there Genesis forty one thirty eight.
I mean, there's there's tons of passages about the the
Holy Spirit and the Old Testpent go.
Speaker 26: Ahead, right, and then also this is not necessarily an
argument against you, but I did see Hebrew roots in
the title, and I kind of wanted to ask if
there's numbers chapter or verse twenty seven, eighteen through twenty three,
wouldn't that be a direct refutation of Hebrew roots considering
Moses is laying on hands and.
Speaker 6: Transferring hold on numbers? What number one numbers?
Speaker 17: What numbers twenty seven?
Speaker 26: Verse eighteen through twenty three, because Moses is it's a congregation,
it's inaugurated and giving power, it's giving some sort of authority.
And I don't think they believe in that at all.
So I thought that was their whole thing.
Speaker 6: By the way, here's the Holy Spirit. Again, I didn't
have this one written down, so let me write that down.
Numbers twenty seven and it's eight.
Speaker 17: Eighteen through twenty three.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm just looking for the Holy Spirit reference.
Speaker 7: It's verse eighteen, all right, Yeah, the spirit is there.
Speaker 6: Take Joshua, the son of non in whom is the Spirit,
and lay your hands on him. Right, So yeah, that
has to be that's the Spirit of God obviously. And
so you're saying, well, Hebrew Richs don't believe in any
kind of succession.
Speaker 18: Yeah, like you know, the New Testament with.
Speaker 26: Breathing on the Holy Spirit and then retaining remitting sins.
Speaker 7: I don't think they believe in that for.
Speaker 26: Starters, But if they're going to be following the Old
test Man, that same thing is in the Old Testament
in that scripture.
Speaker 6: Right there with Well, what if they tend to default
to like rabbinic stuff, So maybe they would say, well,
that was what was proper to Israel at that time,
but this is before the rise of you know, the
rabbinical structure, so they would probably say something like now
it's the Israel is governed by the rabbin or something.
Speaker 26: It is interesting because they thought it was their whole
thing to not be like rabbinical Jews, but to try
and reconstruct something that was lost.
Speaker 6: Well that's okay, interesting. I mean I think they will
default to Rabbinic stuff when it suits them. Like in
the debate with Bryson, he would randomly start citing rabbis
and rabbinical stuff, but then he's not into that, but
he is when he needs it. So it's kind of
I think they're just arbitrary. They're there, but that's a
good point. So they're trying to reconstruct something ancient. Okay, well, yeah,
why wouldn't Why wouldn't this be the case if you're
reconstructing the ancient system.
Speaker 26: Right, Well, the church would have been you know, case
of hell would have prevailed, So that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 6: Well, that's true, that's true.
Speaker 7: Yeah, all right, thank you so much.
Speaker 6: No, that's an interesting angle. I would like to see
how if we have any Hebrew roots in the audience,
if you want to come explain to us how it's
supposed to be governed, and where is your where is
your approximation to what's going on here in numbers? You're
welcome to hop on. Michael, Michael, your foot's farting. What's up?
We can hear you, We can hear you.
Speaker 7: What's up out Sidy.
Speaker 27: I've been I've been wanting to ask you. I'm glad
I was kind of able to come on. So have
you heard of Frank Took? I tried to look into
him because I know you you a feuded William Lane craig.
But I'm pretty sure you've heard of Frank Tuk.
Speaker 6: I've heard this name. What is he? I don't I
don't so I.
Speaker 27: Believe and that that's kind of the question, right, So
I believe he's a Protestant, but I don't believe he
believed that William Wayne Craig believes, or kids Roll or
any of the other people. My question is, I've reviewed
your videos on tag and everything, and I reviewed your
videos on why you're not an atheist, a Protestant, a
Roman Catholic, you know why you're an Orthodox. What do
you think of the creation creator argument for like an atheist.
I've been wanting to get your opinion on that. If
you don't know what that is, it's well, okay, So
what he says is, so we know that everything has
a creator, right, Like, uh, you know I have a creator.
You know a book, you know, something wrote this, somebody
built this, right, And so if we know that we
know everything has a creator?
Speaker 6: Oh well, I mean I could just if I was
a smart atheist, I would just from the outset say,
how do we know that? How do we know that
that universal claim.
Speaker 7: Is the case?
Speaker 27: Well, I would say, so, see, that's that's I'm kind
of glad that we debate. So I would say that
you can look around and see that everything has a creator.
Speaker 6: Again, that's well, that's breaking the question. So how as
a finite being looking around, do I know the universal
claim everything has a creator? That's that's the illogical leap
there to get from finite particular experiences to universal state
of affairs as a non sequitur.
Speaker 27: Yeah, no, I get you. I think. I think because
then he goes from well, that has a creator, and
then we know that that thing that had a creator
had to be intelligent, loving like because we know how
we are.
Speaker 6: Well again, all of these arguments that are just variations
on other classical apologetic arguments. They missed the point of
the their They don't even realize how much stuff they're assuming. Okay,
so how do we know, first of all, that that's
the case, And how do we know that all of
this specific attributes that you listed are part of this
so called creator? These are all just they're just arbitrary
like assumptions. There's nothing about if we're remember classical argumentation
and apologetics is assuming neutrality. Oh we're assuming neutrality, then
how are we supposed to Why am I supposed to
accept all these metaphysical baggage claims that you're making about
something that was supposed to be neutral? Those are all
non sequitors.
Speaker 27: Okay, well I kind of so, I kind of just
putting that aside. I kind of watched your debate on
Matt Dilla Hunty and I didn't agree, and I kind
of think he's an a hole. Sometimes, I do think
that you'll argument, and I talked to my fiance about this.
I think you'll argument your orthodox augment pretty much refute
a lot of the points that a lot of people make.
Like you said, well, that's the Protestant like Protestants believe
in solar script. Protestants would believe that as Orthodox, we
don't believe that. Do you feel like as an Orthodox
obviously because you know that it's true, But do you
think that makes it very difficult, especially when you bring
in the tag argument for an atheist to refute you,
because I feel like that's what I've seen a lot.
Speaker 30: Yeah, absolutely, Yeah, Okay, Well, I mean, look, I've debated
a lot of atheists, and there are smart atheists, and
so the reason I don't go with all these classical
forms of arguments is that smart atheists know how to
point out that they're bad, flawed arguments.
Speaker 27: Yeah, no, that's a good point. I will rewatch him
and then I'll come back on the stream.
Speaker 6: Yeah, tell me some more. I'm not familiar with Frank Trick,
but he looks like an evangelical, evidentialist apologist so Hades.
Oh yes, sir, so.
Speaker 31: Saint Phronsie she operated to me appear to me. That
was kind of crazy.
Speaker 6: Did she give you a new public divine revelation or
is it a private revelation? Yeah?
Speaker 31: Yeah, no, she told me that the whole church has
been corrupt, and I got to start the Phronsie at church.
Speaker 6: We got okay, yeah, St. Pronsia the Woozy. I hope
that that that you have a special place for single
moms in.
Speaker 31: It's gonna be it's me all wine moms and there's
only be like one male pastor and he's going to
kind of like, you know, control all the wine.
Speaker 6: Moms the cathedral when you build it. Instead of having gargoyles,
you have pit bulls, right, and.
Speaker 31: They're going to be having like holding jugs of wine
into our fountain.
Speaker 7: So that's gonna be pretty cool.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Well, single, single wine moms are big fans of
pit bulls, so that's that's that's true.
Speaker 31: Yeah, okay, Well, first before I get to my question,
I want to ask, did you did you see that
uh Redeemed Zoomer had a debate with a neo platonic
liberal Christian.
Speaker 6: I did not.
Speaker 7: Well, if you want to get a lot.
Speaker 31: Of views on YouTube, you can. You can do a
scuff debate review. I would call it like cringe cord.
It was like a fun dumb and dummer.
Speaker 7: Debating each other.
Speaker 31: So it sounds fun maybe anyway, So I'm not gonna
I know, I'm an Orthodox obviously, so I know about TAG.
But I was talking to an agnostic and I had
asked them if they had heard of TAG, and they
said that yes, and it sounded unsound, and so I
asked for a reason why, and they gave this reason.
Speaker 7: I was just hoping that you could go over it.
Speaker 31: I did say that they should come and speak to you,
but they said they would rather drag their hand over
a cheese grater.
Speaker 6: They talked to you, what I'm talking about, Well, you
tell him, you tell him. If he comes so comes
and talks to me, he's gonna get the uncreated farting
foot boom.
Speaker 7: You're gonna show him that I'm creative.
Speaker 6: That's where he's gonna get.
Speaker 31: Yes, Okay, So he said that TAG is unsound and
this obviously this is on Twitter, so it's a very
short on it. He says it unhinges on the semantic
tool as five, that possibility can infer necessity something that
is not uncontroversial. It also depends on a quite narrow
restrain of what logic and reason is. So I was
wondering what would be the refutation for that. In regards
to tag.
Speaker 6: It sounds like more of a critique of It's the
type of critique that very Stroud does of transcendent arguments
in general, or contient transcendent arguments, which it sounds like
it's critiquing the fact that the CONTs way of trying
to do or transit arguments assumes a lot of things
that are not yet proven or not that are not
yet demonstrated demonstrated, like the fact that, okay, let's say
that you prove a coherent transcendental system. That doesn't tell
us necessarily that it's working in the world. That's another
thing you have to assume. So I think that yes,
that is a valid critique of bare transcendental secular argumentation.
The difference is that we're not making contient transcendental arguments.
We're making a transcendental argument for God and for the
Christian paradigm. And I think FDA wants to speak on this.
He probably he's he's more skilled in modal logic than me,
so he would probably speak to this part of them.
I would.
Speaker 7: I would like to hear what he has to say too.
Speaker 17: All right, forgive me, because I'm.
Speaker 6: About to leave a little bit.
Speaker 17: I've got to play the bluegrass band called string being.
It's like a mix between Heidegger and uh.
Speaker 6: Beans. This is precisely a string being that will cause
the foot to fart, foot fart.
Speaker 32: Yes, So it's interesting he brought this. Somebody brought this
guy up, wrote me or something. I got a message
about this, and I can't remember. It's the problem with
the internet.
Speaker 4: You've got going to put you on something you can't remember.
Speaker 17: What message right. So from what I remember, I think
the individual.
Speaker 33: Is possibly confusing with the S five modal logic.
Speaker 34: Something that's probably similar to kind of more modern like
gradell ontological arguments that the possible being with these properties,
then it must be necessary.
Speaker 33: I could be wrong on that, but the way that
I construte that argument, and it's not dependent on S
five modal logic, it's just people wanted to see it
done in S five modal logic. None of that stuff
is what I did in that argument is formally invalid.
That all comes from both the k axiom and the
I'm trying to remember the other.
Speaker 17: Axiom that I used.
Speaker 35: With that, So I don't know what he's really kind
of talking about. I know a lot of people might
not be familiar with S five modal logic.
Speaker 6: He might be one of them.
Speaker 7: Too, And so it is confusing.
Speaker 17: How can, for example, just from possibility you move to necessity. Again,
this is quite complicated modal logic. And again I just used.
Speaker 35: The axioms like the k axiom in some various other
thing straight just from.
Speaker 17: The modal logic.
Speaker 35: So there's nothing formally invalid about about that.
Speaker 17: Now, Jay is correct if he is hinting at.
Speaker 35: An objection to trans in and anal arguments itself, such
that they're well, they're fulfilling possibly an epistemic or a
modal condition.
Speaker 17: But that doesn't get you to what's called a.
Speaker 35: Verification principle, that the thing exists beyond the cost space
of reasons.
Speaker 17: That is the Barry Stroud.
Speaker 35: Argument argument, which just misses the whole point that again
we're not system building. And my whole argument is our
argument is premised on the radical dichotomy between an autonomous
epistemology and a revealed epistemology.
Speaker 17: So I think that Barry Stroud's.
Speaker 35: Argument is exactly the argument when we want I accept
and be like exactly like all these So people will
point like, well, what do you how do you do
with Chisholm's problem of criterion, how do you deal with
Barry Straus's army.
Speaker 17: Those are all arguments for TAG.
Speaker 35: They all prove our point that even if you try
to take the form of the argument and do this,
try to pull this stuff off, it doesn't work.
Speaker 15: Why.
Speaker 35: It's not because the form of the arguments, because of
the the it's the pretended autonomy starting from an autonomous position.
Speaker 7: I see, Okay, people miss that because.
Speaker 18: We're just so tall, like caught up in.
Speaker 15: And our own autonomy and these systems.
Speaker 31: Right, Yeah, I think that was a great explanation. I
had it recommended him you because I know that, you know,
you're really good of TAG and stuff. But apparently he
had better things to do, and apparently he thought that
self harm was better than talking to Jay.
Speaker 17: So and I was just like, I saw that someone
saw something. He says, I'd rather crate my hand through
a great.
Speaker 6: I mean when you come over here.
Speaker 15: You brother, that is haram.
Speaker 7: She's greater hand handed, she's greater brother.
Speaker 6: You're going to get the farting foot over here. And
I don't blame people because that can be a traumatic event.
Rash one. What's up, by the way, that's sahe. The
farting foot is saw he. For those of doubt, that
is not daif that is sah. What's up?
Speaker 10: Man?
Speaker 6: Hello? Are you an star seed?
Speaker 7: Brother? Is it okay? If I ask you some things
about council don.
Speaker 6: Yeah? What's what's on your mind?
Speaker 7: I'm to know, just to introduce some Oriental luisidox.
Speaker 6: Okay, Uh, not really the topics, but what's on your mind?
Speaker 29: If if it's if it's not appropriate for this live,
I can read you in another time.
Speaker 6: What what's the question?
Speaker 7: Well, it's uh, it's on the letter of the bus.
Speaker 6: I don't know specifically or have a hard position on
ibs of Odessa and the letters or whatever. I mean, Calcadan,
don't they like reject like they say the guys weren't bad,
but the letters are false or something like that. I
haven't looked so, I haven't looked at this in a
long time.
Speaker 29: Okay, So so you're not sure on the position whether
this letter is Orthodox or not.
Speaker 6: No, I'm just trying to remember that doesn't Calcadan says
something like the guys are bad, but the guys are
okay with the letters are bad?
Speaker 7: Is that? Do you do? You?
Speaker 6: Is that the is that the point?
Speaker 7: I've heard the Oriental argument that the Fifth Council it
says that the letter is Orthodox.
Speaker 6: So the Fifth Council.
Speaker 29: Yeah, like a Constantinople too. Oh okay, so that would
obviously propose an.
Speaker 6: Issue because okay, so the accusation is about Monopstism, not
Thestorianism I thought you were talking about. I'm getting this
mixed up with like Theodore of Cyrus and the idea
that but the idea is that, uh, he was a
supporter of Cyril, right, mhmm.
Speaker 7: So I'm just.
Speaker 29: Because it's important for me to for you to tell
me if the letter is Orthodox or not because the letter,
like it directly attacks Cyril.
Speaker 6: So oh IBus attacks Cyril. Yeah, I haven't read this letter.
I don't remember, honestly.
Speaker 7: Okay, So.
Speaker 29: Is it okay if I talk to you another time,
because because I'm not here, you know, to debate or
to expose you or anything.
Speaker 6: So so wait, so it is about historian stuff.
Speaker 7: Well, no it's not. I'm not accusing you of being
an historian.
Speaker 6: No, I'm talking about Ibis.
Speaker 7: Well, he clearly identifies Cyril as an office.
Speaker 6: So well, aside from all this, like I can tell
you what the position on the actual theology is like
in terms of the Fifth Council?
Speaker 7: Is that do?
Speaker 6: Is that like a would you take issue with that
or would you agree with that?
Speaker 7: If the formula and the Fifth Council's Orthodox are not.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm saying a lot of a lot of Orientals
believe that it is. So are you coming from the
like a Coptic type position or like an Eastern Syrian?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I'm Coptic.
Speaker 6: Okay. So oftentimes you guys agree that the Fifth Council
is correct, that it's stating the fact that the subject
is only divine.
Speaker 7: I've heard that, Yes, I've heard this few.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well that's I mean every Orthodox person says that
if you read Kenneth Wesh's book, if you read the
Gutkans book, I mean, it's that's what he's saying.
Speaker 29: My my argument was, if you, as an Eastern Orthodox
hold that all your ecmmenical councils are you know, insoluble.
Speaker 7: A letter of IBus being Orthodox would propose a huge issue.
Speaker 6: I don't have my book, my book which would cover this,
so I don't know what he says about the IBIS issue.
I don't remember.
Speaker 7: Yeah, okay, that's fine, but we don't have to talk
about it if you if you don't have it right now.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'd have to brush up on this, honest, I
don't remember.
Speaker 7: Okay, will you?
Speaker 29: Will you in the few sure actually do videos on
Oriental Orthodox?
Speaker 7: You're not because you you rarely do something.
Speaker 6: I mean, we did plenty of those with David Rhim
So yeah.
Speaker 7: I've watched his debates with Daniel, but.
Speaker 29: They were mainly on the definitions of hypostasis in all
these words.
Speaker 6: Right, so at the Fifth at the Fifth Council, they
stress that hoypostasis refers to the subject, not the incarnated nature.
And most of the time, most of the time, you
guys are sticking with what hypostasis meant at the time
of Nicea, and so after the Cappadocians and Letter thirty
eight of what's called Letter Basil's Letter thirty eight, hypostasis
becomes more precisely the subject that has the nature and
not just the incarnated nature. And that's why you guys
thought that we're saying, or Calcidon is saying, that there's
two subjects. So my assumption would be that probably they
can usion or the debate about this letter would relate
to that too.
Speaker 7: Well, yeah sure, but I'm my My main point is
that if Cyril is a saint in your church, he
can't be attacked in But.
Speaker 6: If the attack is over the confusion as to whether
hypostasis means an individuated nature or the subject, then that's
what that's the source of the confusion.
Speaker 7: Yeah, sure, yeah, okay, but yeah, I guess your point.
It's just that I don't I don't. I don't really
understand why. For example, I don't understand.
Speaker 6: So according to Orthodox wiki, and this is just like
the standard Orthodox position. Ibs later reconciled with Cyril. Cyril
and during the Fourth Council of Calcedon, he anathematized the
story us both orally and in writing. And so that's
that's what I thought was the case, but I wasn't
sure because I didn't remember. But that's what I was
referring to the getting of this discussion.
Speaker 29: Well, I I fully I agree that the Eastern Orthodox
Church an athematizes.
Speaker 6: No, it's said IBus. Did you not hear what I said?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I understand that I was an athematizes, as.
Speaker 6: It says, reconciled with Cyril.
Speaker 7: Well, when when Ibis wrote the letters through was already dead.
Speaker 6: Though, I mean, well, I guess this will be the
point of contention then, because our position is that Ibis
later reconciled with Cyril, and during the Fourth Council of Calcidon,
a mathematized and Astorias both early and in writing. The
fathers of the council then rehabilitated and declared him to
be Orthodox. So it sounds like you're citing the thing
that is not taking this into account.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 29: But but if your counsels are infallible and they called
this this letter of accusing Cyril asm and office.
Speaker 7: And where is that?
Speaker 6: Where are you getting that?
Speaker 7: Where do I get that? The letters?
Speaker 6: Well, I just read you Calcidon saying that he anathematizes Cyril.
Speaker 7: Who anathematizes Cyril?
Speaker 6: I mean, excuse me, anathematizing stories, not Cyril. Excuse me?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I agree. Here a mathematizes and stories. That's not
my point.
Speaker 6: This is what happens then, So you guys, then this
is what you guys tend to do, which is like
you hinge on like these really legalistic ideas of like
the terms like have you read this first and second
letter to six Census by Cyril?
Speaker 7: Sure?
Speaker 6: Okay? Does he say there's two natures.
Speaker 7: After the union?
Speaker 6: Yeah? Does Cyril say that in the in the first
and second letters to six Census?
Speaker 7: No? Not?
Speaker 6: Yes he does, Yes, he does. He says there's two natures.
This is why you guys typically don't like the two
letters to sucsensus.
Speaker 7: No. If he says there are two natures after the union,
that would be an issue. He doesn't see that.
Speaker 6: Yes, you doesn't say that that's the point of those letters.
Why would it? And but why would it be an issue?
Why would it be an issue to say there's two
natures after.
Speaker 7: The union, after the union, because that would be him
contradicting himself.
Speaker 6: Know what, It would be your misunderstanding and would be
proving that your position is wrong.
Speaker 29: If he uses the words feces to one time only
once after the union, then he says two after the union,
that would be contradicted.
Speaker 6: So you so, so you think that the divine nature
suffered on the cross.
Speaker 7: The twelfth Anathema states the Word of God suffered in depression.
Speaker 6: That's the subject, right, So the divine nature didn't suffer, right?
Did it undergo? Can it undergo change?
Speaker 7: I don't. I don't use the separation of natures.
Speaker 6: It's not a separation. Distinguishing is not separating. That's that's kind,
that's kind. Any well then then there's nothing wrong with
distinguishing even after the union. Sure yeah, sure, Well then
that just contradicts what you just said.
Speaker 7: No I said, I I don't. I don't say the
divine nature died.
Speaker 17: I don't.
Speaker 6: I don't persona No I said, didn't undergo any change
or any alteration in the death. The answer is no, Right,
we don't.
Speaker 29: Speak of it that way because we only believe in
one nature.
Speaker 6: So what died on the cross?
Speaker 7: The Word of God.
Speaker 6: Died in his In what way.
Speaker 7: He died? Is soul separated from his?
Speaker 6: Oh, and that's a feature of his human nature?
Speaker 10: Right?
Speaker 7: Well, he only has one nature.
Speaker 6: Now again, so did the did the human nature become
transformed into the uncreated? So see, you're making the tertim
quid argument. This is why your hair I'm not saying
the human this is why your hare to it. But
then then what you just said is because you said
his death is the severance of his human soul from
his human body. Okay, that's not something that's a property
of the divine nature.
Speaker 7: I didn't say the severance of the human nature.
Speaker 6: From the human No, the human soul from the human body. Sure, okay,
then the change or alteration or death was what the
divine subject experienced in his human nature.
Speaker 7: Sure.
Speaker 6: Well, that's the orthodox position that contradicts what you just said.
A minute ago. You said there's one nature.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we believe in one. Composite nature includes both natures.
Speaker 6: So a composite nature means that then there's still two.
If you say it's composite and that the human nature
experiences that severance, then then he retains what's proper to
those two natures, even after the union. That was the
whole point of two six zerials, two letters to his
sixth census. He says, even after the union, he still
retains those properties to the things that are proper to
those natures.
Speaker 7: No, I'm I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
Speaker 6: In the Death of Christ, do you distinguish nature in person?
Speaker 7: Nature and person? Sure? Okay, do you because I don't
really understand?
Speaker 6: So this is okay. So the whole debate, which is
about nature in person? You say, now you don't understand that.
Speaker 7: No, I'm not saying I don't understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 29: I don't understand what you mean by differentiating the nature
in person.
Speaker 6: How do you do the trinity if you don't distinguish
nature in person?
Speaker 26: Oh?
Speaker 6: Okay?
Speaker 7: So yeah, I don't believe that Jesus has the same
nature as the Father. What are you now?
Speaker 6: You're an area? He doesn't have the same divinity as
the Father.
Speaker 7: No, he has the same essence as the Father and
not the same nature.
Speaker 6: What's how is nature distinguished from essence? They mean the
same thing in the Patristic teaching. No, we don't believe
that this is your whole religion is confused and constantly
just contradicting over stupid terms. What matters is the meaning
of the terms. So is there a distinction in nature
in person? In the trinity?
Speaker 7: We don't believe that the nature of Jesus right now
is the same nature as the Father.
Speaker 6: Oh, then he didn't save anybody, and then you're a
stupid heretic. Exactly like I said from the beginning, How
does he reconcile us to God if he's not both
God and man? He is fully okay, But you just
said he doesn't have the same nature as the.
Speaker 7: Father because we believe that the union.
Speaker 6: So that's a tersham quid argument. So he doesn't save anybody.
He's a third thing and he's not like anybody else.
You just said he's not like the Father, then he's
also not like us, so he's a tersham quid. You're
not aware of the constant common critique of your position.
Speaker 7: No, I understand what you mean.
Speaker 6: I'm just how do you answer the tertiam quid critique? Then,
since you know about it, I know about it. You
just said, all right, you're a liar. You just said
you do. You just said you know about it?
Speaker 10: What do you mean?
Speaker 18: No, I didn't tell you.
Speaker 7: I completely told you that. I don't understand what you
mean by differentiating the nature at I don't know what
you're getting it, because.
Speaker 6: How does he reconcile God and man if he's not
like the do you think so? It sounds like you
think nature is person. What we think person is? You
think nature is? Is that what's going on?
Speaker 7: Don't I don't understand that. I don't think that nature.
Speaker 6: Is First, Oh God, then how is how is he?
How does he reconciles to the Father If he doesn't
have the nature of the Father, he has of the Father?
You just said he doesn't have the nature of the Father?
Speaker 7: Oh my God, I said he has.
Speaker 6: But it's not that You're a confused quack. Get out
of here. I can't take this anymore. This is what
you people do. You you wander chasing your own tails
in your stupid confusion.
Speaker 7: No, it is that.
Speaker 10: It is that it is now.
Speaker 6: You came here with God, which when I read you
our position refuted your gotcha. And then when I start
asking you about what you actually believe, you have no
idea what you actually believe. In your continued I did
because you're an idiot. Hello, everyone heard you contradict yourself
as we actually got into the issues. Hey do you
hear me?
Speaker 7: All right?
Speaker 28: Yeah, all right, So a orthodox I just wanted to
comment on add something for the Holy Spirit texts in
the Old Testament because that was relevant to a bit
ago so there's a very clear one in second Savil
twenty three. This is, by the way, all from sam
chamoun I Binge watched his lectures in the Old Testament,
so this records David's last words. So it goes, I'll
read from one to three. Now these are the last
words of David.
Speaker 7: That says David is Jesse. That says, the man.
Speaker 28: Raised up on high, the annointed of the God of Jacob,
and the sweet saw mister Israel. Verse two, the Spirit
of the Lord spoke by me, and his word was
on my tongue. And then notice verse three, the God
of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me.
Speaker 7: He who rules over men must be just realized.
Speaker 6: So the Holy Spirit is the God of Israel, correct exactly.
Speaker 7: And then there's a very nice passage.
Speaker 6: I love it so much.
Speaker 28: In Isaiah sixty three. There's nine to ten which mentions
the Holy Trinity correct saying in all the affliction he
was afflicted, and the Angel of his Presence, the Angel
of the Father, the Angel of the Lord, and the
Angel of his Presence saved them in his love and
his pity. He redeemed them, and he bore them and
carried them all the days of old verse ten. But
they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned
himself against them as an enemy, and he fought against them.
So mentioning the Holy Spirit here it says grieved his
Holy Spirit. It basically an active force or an impersonal
object cannot be grieved.
Speaker 7: So this person had. And then just a few verses
later verse fourteen. Yes, very interesting.
Speaker 28: So as a peace goes down into the valley and
the spirit of the Lord causes him to rest, So
you lead your people, you make yourself a glorious name.
What's good to point out here is it says the
spirit of the Lord causes him to rest. The Hebrew
word there is Nuah, and the same word as an
excess thirty three fourteen, where God's where God says, and
he said, rather, Moses, I suppose, But and he said,
my presence will go with you, and I will give
you rest. The same word that is attributed to God
in excesses thirty three fourteen is used of the Holy
Spirit in Isaiah Sics three fourteen.
Speaker 6: Yes, great points, thank you. Yeah. My list was not
in any way supposed to be comprehensive. I had only
worked up through the Torah judges and a little bit
of the Psalms, and so I had not yet gotten
to there's many in Isaiah. Thank you for that one.
And Samuel, there's a few in the minor profits, a
couple in job that I mentioned, But yeah, there's more
to be had. I just haven't even gotten to them all.
But thank you for that. Appreciate that, right. Okay, So
to the people in the chat talking smack again, I
keep putting the link there for you. So what do
you mean? Sam does have an X. Sam Shimun is
on Twitter. He wants to have a round table, So
I don't know why you're trying to get provoke him
into debating. I don't care if he wants to come
here and ask questions. He's welcome to anybody on X
can pop in here. I don't care. But we're looking
for people who disagree today review. So if you disagree,
raise your hand, you come to the head of line.
Every time we do this, we get a million Orthodox
people and acquire some cate of cumens who want to
ask a bunch of questions. And what we're looking for
is people who disagree want to debate. The topics are
listed in the top of the stream is the pope,
heretic Islam, Protestantism, Gnosticism, Hebrew roots. You can also bring
up the Qur'an, Calvinism, etc. We just spent freaking thirty
minutes with a Coptic person who literally contradict himself like
five times and said he's not and it was a
big nightmare. Review Dickers, that doesn't your connection isn't working.
Countish Options, what's up? Mm hmm. You gotta unmute, man,
you have to unmute.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sty.
Speaker 1: Listening to.
Speaker 6: What's wanting a lot.
Speaker 7: What I felt?
Speaker 6: I can't You're you're your accident is so thiate bro.
I can't understand half of what you're saying. Man, Beacon,
what's up? Didn't we already go to you? We're looking
for people disagree, so please don't ask me a bunch
of inquirer questions like acquirers. You guys can't be lazy.
You gotta go and read the books and do the
do the research. It's Stephen Cook five dollars. I always
enjoyed reading the Cabernet savignan On translation. It is the
most readable and accessible translation. Snago Beasts five dollars. One
of the things that easy forgets the demons and angels.
They aren't created in the metaphysic of time, correct, They're
in the aon So their choice was in an instant
and that's why they're not given multiple chances. They do
not have a nature that varies from day to day.
As man can go ahead, Are you there, shaba Ranks?
We got a roster man in the chat. What's up?
Shaba rank and file? What's up?
Speaker 7: Yo? Yo?
Speaker 36: Probably don't have too much to debate with you with
although I was talking to a Roman Catholic today and
they mentioned how because I was making the argument with
him about how and you bring this up as well,
how the Pope says that we can.
Speaker 17: Pray alongside Muslims and Jews.
Speaker 36: And he tried to argue that, well, the Russian Orthodox
is doing the same thing by you know, trying to
set up a.
Speaker 17: You know, a shared space for like a church or
templar or whatever.
Speaker 7: It is in Russia.
Speaker 36: Would you be interested in, like, I guess, given your
argument for that, I am inquiring an Orthodoxy and I
think it is different.
Speaker 7: But what would like you respond to that?
Speaker 6: Well, even if it's not different, like a patriarch being
a hairtic is not the equivalent of what Vatican one
says about the pope and the impossibility of the pope
being a hairtic.
Speaker 17: Okay, all right, thank you sir.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean I appreciate that. I mean, again, as
we said the first hour of this talk, it's two
different systems. Man in the chemo hat. They I mean,
they just literally can't understand a system defeater. I think
I I just realized why they don't understand that. They
don't understand why that's a system defeater because they don't
know what Vatican one actually says about the pope. That's
why they don't. They don't understand this. That's I think
that's finally dawned on me. What's up man?
Speaker 7: Oh can you hear me?
Speaker 6: Yes? So to the guy in the chat, Christopher Augustin,
unblocked me and I will join. I need to know
you're handled. Unblock you. I don't know. I have like
a thousand people blocked. Dude, I know idea who you are?
What's up? Yeah?
Speaker 32: So I was wondering, have you heard of a guy
named Grayson Brock I think he is on YouTube?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 24: Uh, yeah, he's a he's a Protestant guy who is
a universalist.
Speaker 17: I guess you could say like he he claims he
read the Bible in one day, the Quran in one day.
Speaker 27: And like a bunch of other religious books in one days.
Speaker 19: And he's like, he's like, well you after I read
all these books, what do you Okay?
Speaker 6: So he's just a retard. No, don't have time for retards. Sorry,
sell By, you didn't read all those books on one day.
Sell Biology. What's your handling? Unblock you? Dude? Aug twenty eighteen. Okay,
what's up? Man? Got on mute? Hello? You got on mute?
Speaker 15: Uh?
Speaker 6: Tradcat traditional Latin mass enjoy or and he's sharing Pope
Benedict Bishopstright when, oh, all right, you're on muted or
you're unblocked whatever your name is, Augie or whatever, Leith,
you're unblocked, dude Leth, I mean Augie Leith? What's up?
Speaker 7: What's up there?
Speaker 37: I just I wanted to see if you could, uh
like clarify your contention with the like metaphysics in Islam. Okay,
So from how I like see it and from how
like I've debated it.
Speaker 38: Would it be that the essence is dependent on the
attributes to define it, and that if they're eternal and
uncreated alongside the essence, then that's why a dependence relationship.
Speaker 6: Well, that dependence relationship has to do with when they
say that if the son and the spirit lack a sayety,
they can't be fully divine because the divinity must have
a sayity to be divine. And we make the same critique,
then well, don't you think that the attributes are fully
Allah even if they're not identical to Allah's essence and
they are other than Allah. So they have the same
type of dependence relationship when we talk about the son
being dependent on the father, that the attributes are dependent
upon a lot. And so hence the critique and the
only school that wouldn't work against like a Shia position
where they don't think there's a real distinction between all
of his attributes.
Speaker 7: Okay, that makes sense.
Speaker 6: Yeah, if you watch the if you watch the debate
between Jake and doctor bo Branson, the whole debate ends
of being that question.
Speaker 17: Okay, sounds good.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's a really good debate too. By the way, Augie,
where are you? I thought you were coming to debate?
If he doesn't come to Bate. Just ban him. These
people are disgusting magic Mike, Yeah, God, Yeah.
Speaker 39: I don't know what happened earlier. I just maybe got disconnected,
but it was a good talk with you.
Speaker 6: Thank you for that.
Speaker 7: I wanted to ask you.
Speaker 6: I don't know what were you. I don't remember what
we're talking about.
Speaker 7: It was like about God and the Trinity and Jesus Christ,
and so I.
Speaker 39: Wanted to ask you something, right, so for example in yogi,
because I'm studying the Bible too, but I didn't Evangelical university.
Speaker 6: So now you're getting on my nerves. I'm ready to
move on every What's up? Everything I said? You blew
past what I said, So that's annoying. Where's Algie? I mean,
he's sitting here saying he's gonna come to Bait. I'm
even gonna link him the freaking chat here he is,
Oh yep, hey Jay.
Speaker 40: Actually, I don't know if you remember this, but the
stream where pinesapp kind of went a wall.
Speaker 15: You and I actually talked for like forty five minutes.
I had to make an old account. I don't know
why he had to be blocked one here because we
didn't actually interact at all.
Speaker 6: Uh, well, I probably black people talk a lot of
shit and other comments and places, so you probably like
some skittles gay crap that I blocked skittles gay. I'm
not on board with skittles, definitely not on Now I'm
saying the positions that you liked were gay.
Speaker 15: I see, Okay, Well, I definitely.
Speaker 40: I also wanted to say I didn't have a chance
last time, but I wanted to say I got a
bone to pick about this.
Speaker 15: Whole funko pop song. Do you know how long that
was stuck in my head?
Speaker 6: Oh that's that's what I do. I fight back in
a lot of different ways with you guys. And then, well, I.
Speaker 15: Don't know that I have to do with with us. Actually,
maybe I missed the point.
Speaker 6: Then, Yeah, you guys are the funko pop. You track
cats are literally my embodiment of the funk Now, I'm
just joking, man, doesn't have to do with you.
Speaker 17: I really missed that.
Speaker 7: Then.
Speaker 15: But last time we did talk about national theology.
Speaker 40: We talked about that for a good while, and uh,
I remember when we were talking about that. You know,
you were running through the argumentation that clearly, Paul, he's
not talking to these people.
Speaker 15: Like deep philosophy, and that's what we.
Speaker 6: Were talking about. Acts seventeen. I kind of remember this, correct, correct, And.
Speaker 40: Now after we talked, I did go back and I
looked at it, and it does mention that the philosophers
were talking to Paul and they were saying like, oh,
this is uh, this doctrine that you're teaching is completely
different from us, is completely unknown to us. And that's
the part that's immediately proceeding when Paul says, oh, you
men of Athens, I see that you are in all things,
very religious, et cetera, et cetera. So I was wondering,
so you said before, you didn't think that he was
talking about this one like a natural philosophy level. But
don't you think that him debating with the philosophers, don't
you think that that kind of points to that?
Speaker 17: Or what's your potential?
Speaker 6: I mean, I mean, what what do you guys think?
What do you think natural theology is? And by the way,
you're saying natural philosophy, I don't know if that means
the same thing as what you believe is that I'm
not natural theologect What do you believe that is in
your tradition.
Speaker 40: Well, as far as my understanding, and by new means
an expert, but as far as I've understood, it's that
we can that there's certain things that we can know
through reason alone, apart from revelation about God.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Correct, that's the that's your definition of it, correct,
that's the John Paul used that definition. Protestants use that
so correct. Just make sure we mean the same thing.
Speaker 40: Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry I spoke earlier, but yeah. So
I think that him talking with the people, the philosophers
of Athens, and then immediately following that, obviously it's you
know whoever.
Speaker 15: It's it's a luke I believe who compiled acts. Correct,
So he's telling the story. Uh, And I think that
the fact that that that narrative is following in such
a way.
Speaker 40: He's talking with the philosophers of Athens and then he's
in immediately saying, are you men of Athens? I see
that you are all, in all things, very religious, don't
I mean, do you see the connection there?
Speaker 15: I'm wondering what your tagees.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but I mean my point has always been on
this passage that he says, the one whom you worship
without knowing is the one I proclaimed to you. And
the whole argument of natural theology is that, well, they
do know him because they've reason to get attributes about God. Correct,
But he says you don't know him. He's the unknown God,
so they don't know him.
Speaker 15: I mean, he says what you worship in error and then.
Speaker 6: Errorlaim it says what you worship without knowing. I proclaim
to you the unknown God.
Speaker 40: So is it not worshiping or I means it seems
I'm not trying to be like, uh, you know, I
guess they were.
Speaker 15: Actually that I say, it says worship.
Speaker 17: It seems to me that that that is important, you
know what I mean?
Speaker 6: Okay, So if I worship a stick and I think
that stick is the one God? Am I worshiping the
same as you as a Catholic because you believe in
one God too, I.
Speaker 40: Wouldn't say, well it I think that when you're talking
about idols and you're talking about it, you know it's
the creator according.
Speaker 6: To Do you not know that this is an idol
where they have an altar to the unknown God. This
is exactly what you just said.
Speaker 40: Yeah, So the way I've understood that is that they're
actually so it's a temple, but there's no idol to
the god because it's to an unknown.
Speaker 6: No, that's totally false, he says later, that you attribute
to the divine nature an idol, a created idle image.
He says it in verse twenty nine.
Speaker 40: Why I didn't necessarily take it that it was talking
about a specific idol in that temple. I thought that
was more of a generic So you people in general,
you do these things in your worship.
Speaker 6: Therefore, here we go with the typical casuistri. Right, So
Paul is again saying, you're in you're all under the
class of people who attribute to the divine nature of
being a created datus. So, no, they're not. They're not
unique idolators who think that this God cannot be imaged
because the altar is an inscription to the unknown God.
And he accuses them of being idol The whole point
of the passages is their idolators. They're not. They're not
pagan non idolators here, which is what you're trying to say.
Speaker 40: Well, I would just say, even in the case of
this stick, I would say that obviously the stick isn't God.
But they're they're just applying divine attributes to the sticks,
and they're correct by the divine mutes.
Speaker 6: No they're not. No, that's a flat out contradiction. So
how can is so if I call this this pen omniscient,
does that mean that well, I actually mean God the Father,
but I'm just mistaking it.
Speaker 17: For this pen And I wouldn't say it in that way.
Speaker 15: I would just say that if you say that, like,
there is this one God, he has this this attribute,
and this God is this stick, what's Well, the part
that is an error.
Speaker 17: There is that that God is obviously not that stick.
Speaker 6: No, there's more error, is the point. And the point
is that there's no one lowest common denominator list of
attributes that tells you the Unitarian God. That's the error.
Speaker 40: I gotta uh, it's it seems unrelated. But there was
a there was on Twitter today there was some talk
about Wagner. He posted something where where he was talking
about how if if like the Pope came out.
Speaker 15: Tomorrow when he said something heretical.
Speaker 40: Uh, somebody said something like, oh, would you just convert
to Orthodox And He's like, well, obviously no, because I
think I believe in Catholicism.
Speaker 15: And if Catholics is more to be proven untrue, I
would I would like go off and I don't know
what I would believe in at that point.
Speaker 40: And I think truly I was in there saying like, oh,
these people, you know, they they would abandon Jesus.
Speaker 6: So you guys would rather than admit that orthodox is true,
you guys would go be atheists. I think that says
a lot.
Speaker 17: I'm not saying.
Speaker 40: What I was getting at though, is is I think
that it's kind of, uh, in a roundabout way. I
think it's almost you're taking like a low common denominator
Christianity where it's like, oh, like the question it would
be like if Orthodoxy was fake, would either be like
a Protestant then like if Abosolic tradition was like you know,
if the Orthodox Church had a council and came and uh,
you know that.
Speaker 6: They what does any of this have to do with
natural theology? Is the lowest common denominator? I don't understand.
Speaker 40: Well, so because it seems like it's like, oh, well,
if if Orthodoxy is not true, well you know, I
still you know, worship this sort of general idea of
Christ according to like a general so it just.
Speaker 6: Has nothing to do with what's true or false. You're
talking about what random Twitter people are saying. How does
this translate to the lowest anything to do with natural
theology's lowest common denominator?
Speaker 40: I'm I'm I was wondering if you had a specific
take on that. I wasn't trying to go completely off topic,
but my point was that it seems like there is
this sort of there was a sort of admission there
that there is this there's like a low and what's
coming down denominator Christianity.
Speaker 6: If my part, I mean, I don't know what Craig
is arguing. I have no idea what you're talking about.
So okay, all right about I just make the clear
point that what are the lowest common nominator attributes? And
how do you know?
Speaker 15: I think that we would have to look to scripture and.
Speaker 6: No, no lowest common nominator attributes means natural theology. That
means no looking to scripture.
Speaker 40: Okay, but you were saying that last time we spoke,
I said, well, it seems like you would have to
say that there are anybody who misunderstands God would would
not be worshiping you out.
Speaker 15: You said, no, that there's you don't have to understand everything,
but there's a certain criteria that you have to you
have to believe in to be to call yourself, you know,
to be truly worshiping God. Is that a mischaracterization of
what you said, No, there have to be.
Speaker 6: That doesn't mean there's a lowest common nominator because it's
a set of beliefs. So there's a difference between a
set and that if you deny one of that set,
that you no longer have the correct reference. That's there's
a differ between that and saying that I'm saying there's
the lowest common nominator. I'm saying it's a holistic set.
So for example, all of the attributes that are hold
to us about God are necessary. So for example, if
I remove one of those, which is an essential attribute
or one of those key components, then I don't have
the same reference anymore. This is why a Mormon and
a Muslim and a Eunomian don't have the same God
in the tradition of the church. That that proves the point,
that's the point of the Garibee paper is that think
about card games, so's there's certain things that are in
common between poker and playing GoFish. They have cards in common,
they have hands in common. Both games have rules, so
the having of rules is something they have in common.
They don't have the same rules, but they have rules
in common. Right, But that doesn't mean we wouldn't conclude
from that because of those overlaps in commonalities that there's
a lowest common denominator card game that is neither go
fish nor poker. Do you agree?
Speaker 7: Uh?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think I okay. So in the same way
Garibi argues in the paper that there's no lowest and
the nominator set of attributes that gets you the deity
that isn't specifically Christianity, Islam or Judaism, but is the
common deity that if that's true, that refutes natural theology.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 15: See, the thing is is that I don't think that
there's like a generic God in that sense.
Speaker 6: Then you're not a proponent of natural theology.
Speaker 40: Well, no, because the last time we talked about this,
I talked about how I thought that Trent the way
he spoke about, for example, saying like it's basically is
like he completely ignore the theophanies. He basically said, like,
oh you know, Abraham, he worshiped with this Unitarian God.
We don't have to hold that position, and that's that's
he happened to hold that.
Speaker 17: But that's not something I hold well.
Speaker 6: I mean, every natural theology proponent believes that. So how
do you not believe that?
Speaker 15: Well, I mean it depends on what you mean. I
don't think that that Abraham necessarily knew every little.
Speaker 6: Now you're confusing that what. So again, remember what you
define natural theology as at the beginning, right, It's what,
for example, uh Aquinas does in the Simil Countridge Telays,
which is that he uses the self evident principles of
philosophy to delineate what an absolutely simple, a temporal, uncaused
essence that is one must be. That's natural theology correct.
Speaker 40: But I'm not saying that there's like that there is
so as a Christian, as a Catholic, I believe that
there is only that there is only one God and
he has the instributes that he has and people.
Speaker 6: So you're missing the whole point again. Do you what
I don't know? I mean, do you guys not understand
like what's going on here?
Speaker 7: Like?
Speaker 6: Do you you don't understand and understand how arbitrary that is.
Speaker 17: Help me out.
Speaker 6: Okay, So did you hear you said that you were
talking about when I debated with Pintsapp? Was that the
same stream or something I don't remember? Is that we talk? Okay?
Do you remember what I was asking Pine Sap or
do you want me to refresh you on that?
Speaker 17: Well?
Speaker 15: From what I remember, you guys were talking about the
papacy if I.
Speaker 6: Remember, No, No, we're talking about epistemology. So let me
refresh you all restate that what I was saying is
that this is what natural theology is ultimately boiling down to, Like,
how do you know what the essential divine attributes are
apart from divine revelation in your Roman Catholic epistemology?
Speaker 40: So I would if I'm just breaking it down as
there's some things that you can know about God apart
from revelation. Right, So if you're if you're mentioning some
attributes of God, if you're knowing things about God apart
from revelation, then you're simply doing that, right.
Speaker 6: How do you how do you know what they are?
List some of them?
Speaker 10: Tell?
Speaker 6: How do you know that those are the ones that
are essential?
Speaker 17: Yeah?
Speaker 15: I guess that I see what you mean in the
sense of that that could become arbitrary.
Speaker 7: I do it.
Speaker 6: It is arbitrary. How do you know?
Speaker 15: So?
Speaker 6: In other words, you have to start with the tonistic, medieval,
scholastic metaphysic of natural philosophy, self evident axioms, first principles.
Why am I supposed to start with those? And by
the way, it isn't your natural theology then relying on
these metaphysical principles, How do we know that those are
the case?
Speaker 15: Yeah, I'm not an expert in that.
Speaker 6: Well, so the whole system is a presupposed classical foundationalist
epistemology that just asserts all these things, and anybody who
calls these things into question, the whole thing collapses. Why
am I supposed to start with that? This is what
I asked Tim Gordon the other day, because Tim and
I were going back and forth in DMS about natural
theology and its starting points, and I'm like, the reason
that Vatican Two, in those documents is saying that Muslims
and Christians and Jews all worship the same God is
because of the assumptions of natural theology and the metaphysical
just givens we're supposed to know, oh well, clearly, obviously,
the one true God is absolutely simple, a temporal, uncreated,
uncaused outside of time and space, non composite. Blah blah blah,
says who I mean, this is so arbitrary, And if
you read the Garabye paper like like, he literally just
destroys swinburn the thumis by just savaging this completely arbitrary nonsense. Like,
I mean, if you can come to the debate and
just assert all those things, what's stopping me from coming
to the table and saying, oh, well, my natural theology
is the opposite of all those things.
Speaker 15: So how do you think that, like, for example, the
law of non contradiction, that sort of thing would play
in here because.
Speaker 6: I had some I mean, I believe those those are
first principles. But that's why we go to tag and
say that, how do I know that? How do I
know what the self evident principles are? So do you
have a do you have a divine list of the
self evident principles?
Speaker 17: I mean, how would you answer that question?
Speaker 6: There is no answer to it. That's why there's no
such thing as naturally This is the point. Natural theology
doesn't work if you can be arbitr or I could
be arbitry. So are you familiar with that? Are familiar
with the criterion problem?
Speaker 17: Now?
Speaker 6: Okay, So the criterion problem is if you think that
you have knowledge whatever it is, let's say it's first
principles whatever, that assumes that criteria of knowledge, right, a
criteria of pistemology. But to have a criteria of pistemology
assumes knowledge, So you can't have knowledge of the criteria,
and you can't have a criteria without having knowledge of
the criteria. So there's an insoluble dilemma for any foundationalist
or any classical foundationalists of pistemology. And the reason for
this is that you guys just haven't caught up with
the last five hundred years. You guys are living in
the Middle Ages as if no one has done anything,
and everything post Middle Ages is all atheist and bad.
There's a lot of atheists. But that's a genetic fallacy.
So when are you, Thomas going to get with the
last five six hundred years of philosophical debate and realize
that people have actually asked good questions. And that's why
you guys don't do very good against atheist and debates.
Speaker 15: So, okay, So if you, for example, when I, uh,
I had some Mormons actually coming to my door.
Speaker 17: Oddly enough, I had been waiting for that for a while.
Speaker 6: Now you want to go to Mormons. We're not going
to tell you what I thought. We're homology, natural theology,
and pistemology.
Speaker 7: I was.
Speaker 15: It seems unrelated. But the point was that the Mormons
were coming to talk, and it's like, well, you know,
They're like, oh, you want to become Mormon.
Speaker 40: I'm like, well no, because I can write off Mormon
immediately because you polytheism is nonsensical, right, So would you
disagree with that, like that that you can't that the
one person couldn't, through reason alone, come to the conclusion
that polytheism is nonsensical, or.
Speaker 6: How I mean, only on the assumption that there is
one cause who's absolutely am Only on the assumption of
all the I mean, okay, maybe it is, but why
and if you're going to start appealing to these other things,
how are the all those things also self evident? So
I think you're missing the point of Like, I don't
disagree with the fact that we can do apologetics and
review positions, but if your argument is well, it's all
built on things that are self evident and that are
just arbitrary. Well, these are obviously the starting points. How
do you know that? Why should I accept your arbitrary
list of the starting points? What's the basis for that?
Speaker 15: I'm trying to understand. So do you arguing I basically
may be the argument from the unmoved mover to them
to try and you know, because.
Speaker 6: You're missing the point like why why am I supposed
to accept that as the starting point?
Speaker 15: Well, I'm asking you where where did I er there?
Speaker 6: How do you know that you can start with the
unmoved mover as your starting point in epistemology?
Speaker 15: Well because of the uh yeah, the first principle is obviously.
Speaker 6: So that's okay. So wait a minute. So that's a
first principle love of causality that I think. Okay, So again,
now you're just asserting the metaphysical positions that are in question.
How do you know that causality is a first principle?
Speaker 17: Yeah, I mean I could. I mean, this seems that
this is sort of a.
Speaker 6: Human absolutely, it is absolutely human.
Speaker 17: Yeah, and I'm not seeing that.
Speaker 15: I know that you've mentioned human before, of course, but
and then CON tries to reason out of that, and
it's just Con has nothing to do with it. He
attempted to come up with solutions, but the CON.
Speaker 6: Has nothing to do with this objection, which is an
objection to self evident first principles from David Hume and
other skeptics.
Speaker 15: So I help me understand how you would how you
would go about it.
Speaker 6: I'm not a classical foundationless. I'm saying that's what this is,
what tag is all about.
Speaker 15: Bro, I'm not like saying there.
Speaker 6: Is no answer to these things. There is no solving
on a secular humanist route. That's why we believe in
a revelational epistemology because these are all dead ends and
you can't avoid the arbitrariness of saying, here's my give me,
grant me these metaphysics and I'll prove you my position.
Why should I accept those metaphysics?
Speaker 15: So what things do you would you say that that
have to be granted to know things?
Speaker 6: There's all kinds of things that there is no there
is no basic set of things that's self evident. And
then you look, I could give you another way to
show this, which is that do you think that some
things are self evident and some aren't.
Speaker 17: I don't even know how I would answer that question, right.
Speaker 6: So the list the answer would have to be if
you foundationalists, yeah, some things are self evident, many or
not many other things are inferential. Okay, Well, is the
differentiation between the things that are self evident the ones
that are not? Is that self evident? You see, it's
another begging the question. It's just like in the trend debate,
like there's just no, there's no it's there's no self
evident principles that you allow you to build a system
that aren't arbitrary. And the point of tag is that
nobody can get out of this. Everybody's systems are ultimately
recursive and self referencing at the starting point. That's why
what grounds a position is the worldview as a whole,
and not some random thing that Aristotle thinks as a
first principle.
Speaker 40: I mean, so obviously we're not completely detached from revelation,
and I think that we're sort of we're ground these
principles are inside.
Speaker 6: But that's not going to get you anywhere with what
natural theology says about first principles. How So, because natural
theology presupposes neutrality, and that you're starting your reasoning without
anything to do with divine revelation. You're beginning with reason alone,
and you're building on self evident first principles. How do
you know what the self evident first principles are without
being arbitrary?
Speaker 17: So I have a question.
Speaker 15: I'm not trying to be a smart ass here. So
the if somebody, so you believe that God has certain attributes,
and if somebody were to somebody somebody's never had some
sort of revelation, if they were to come to conclusions
about anything, if you were talking to somebody that they're like, yeah,
there's this one God and he has these attributes, and
you agree with all these attributes up to a point,
would you say like, basically they just got lucky or
how would you like they arrived at are a proper
conclusion based off of false reason?
Speaker 6: I think, like Paul says in Romans, one God, the Triad,
the Trinity, the Logos is not far from anybody. The
Word is near you, even in your hearts. Every man
has a heart anoetic principle by which he directly relates
to God and he has to reattach that relationship, that
connectivity which happens through divine revelation. But I don't restrict
divine revelation to I mean, the world itself is a theoteny.
That's something that Thomas and you guys don't understand. Like
the the cosmos, is that the oftening of Christ? What
do you think of that?
Speaker 17: I mean, I think that.
Speaker 15: I mean I think you would definitely just push back
and disagree with this, But my thought would be, yes,
I agree, and that's why we're able to know these things.
Speaker 6: That's why we But that's now you're violating natural theology.
The natural theology doesn't tell you anything about the Trinity.
The Trinity is not a principal of natural theology. It's
a principal divine revelation. All natural theology tells you is
the lowest common denominator attributes of the absolutely simple essence.
Speaker 15: I don't think that's necessarily fair.
Speaker 6: No, what do you mean that's not fair that that's
your theology unless you're like departing from Tumaism or something.
Speaker 40: No, I think what's if you're saying that what we're
saying is that that humans can't wouldn't know about the Trinity.
That doesn't mean that we can't recognize it after knowing
it in nature.
Speaker 6: That has nothing to do with the fact that the
trinity and the incarnation, the virgin birth are doctrines of
supernatural divine revelation in Catholic theology. They are not aspects
of natural theology. And what we're saying is there is
notice that this is a false distinction. There's natural revelation,
but that natural revelation is of the triad. You don't
believe that. No, Thomas believes that you're not getting Nature
is not teaching you Jesus and your theology.
Speaker 15: I mean I think that that's.
Speaker 6: Have you read the Semicontures in Tels.
Speaker 15: I've heard quite a bit of it.
Speaker 6: Okay, so volume one, what is it? Is there anything
about trinity in there?
Speaker 15: No, it's it's the first most of the questions regarding
God's nature.
Speaker 6: That's from what from natural theology?
Speaker 17: Correct?
Speaker 7: Correct?
Speaker 6: So there's nothing about trinity in there because trinity and
incarnation are not part of natural theology. They're divine revelation,
they're supernatural theology. This is like Thomas in One on
One Man.
Speaker 40: So again that's why I was asking you before, So
how would you proved God exists to a skeptica.
Speaker 6: Have you not heard me make tags as an art.
I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just saying, like,
you haven't heard me do this argument for like twenty years.
Speaker 15: Come on, if you've had me, you've had me blanches.
I haven't been able to use your content as much
as I used to. Please if you want to.
Speaker 6: I mean, there's a million public YouTube videos. You're not blocked.
It's like you're blocked. You can't watch those?
Speaker 10: What do you mean?
Speaker 15: I just I haven't. I haven't engaged with your content
as much as I used to.
Speaker 6: It's fine.
Speaker 15: I might have seen something like that and for simply
forgotten it. I apologize for that.
Speaker 6: No, it's a I mean, you're in a system that
doesn't allow you for you to understand system theology and
internal critiques because you are in a classical foundation, let's
building block system, and you think everything is proven by
stacking a bunch of evidences. And when I do an
internal critique, you guys go haywiter. It doesn't it doesn't
make sense. Just it doesn't make sense. But I'm not
trying to be rude, but like this illustrates I think
everything that I've been saying like, there, how are you
going to? Let me give you another example. Maybe this
will help hammer it home. The doctrine of if you
look out of the natural world. Let's say we're going
to reason from uh, natural theology principles apart from divine revelation.
When you look at the world, doesn't it include death?
Speaker 15: Sure?
Speaker 6: Would we conclude that death is natural from that?
Speaker 15: You could?
Speaker 6: Yes, right, you could. But divine revelation tells us that
this world is actually fallen and that death is not natural,
it's actually unnatural. And so I can't really understand this world?
Can I The way that there's a predator prey relationship,
the way there's corruption, decay, and death without what's in Genesis?
Speaker 29: Right?
Speaker 6: How can I accurately interpret nature without Genesis in the fall?
Speaker 40: Yeah?
Speaker 15: So, I mean I would say, so you can know
some things, that doesn't.
Speaker 17: Mean that you can know everything.
Speaker 6: Well, how do I know the things that are What
are the some things that I'm knowing when I look
at at the world. And remember we're not going to
reference divine revelation here, We're only going to be natural
theology principles. You just said that, I mean, couldn't I
conclude that death is natural.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 17: That's that's why.
Speaker 40: I'm saying, we're not completely divorce for revelation in that sense,
we would say look to revelation to know the things
that No.
Speaker 6: No, now you're violating the principle of natural theology. So
you're saying, oh, well, we can look to revelation. No,
we're doing natural theology apart from divine revelation. My point
is that you can't interpret the natural world correctly without genesis,
because you're going to conclude, as the atheist did of
the seventeen eighteenth century, that the natural world shows that death, decaying,
corruption aren't natural and part of the process. And if
you're going to say, oh, you're misinterpreting the natural world
because of genesis, yeah, now you're not a natural theologian anymore.
So you can't interpret the natural world correctly without divine revelation.
As the point, yeah, I'm not disputing that that disproves
natural theology. You can't even understand the basics of nature
without revelation.
Speaker 17: I mean, like, for.
Speaker 15: Example, like we would a knit when it comes to God,
that you can't fully understand God of part natural or
a perferal revelation.
Speaker 17: That's the whole point.
Speaker 6: No, you're missing the point that you have two conflicting
systems at work at once. One system is a natural
theology atheistic approach, which there's no logical reason why I
can't conclude on the base of natural theology that death
is natural. And then you're saying, well, but I can
also appeal to divine revelation. Well, now you're not doing
natural theology anymore. So you're admitting my point that you
need divine revelation to correctly interpret a fallen world. Otherwise,
why wouldn't we conclude death is natural.
Speaker 15: Yeah, again, I don't see how that's an issue, because.
Speaker 17: That's the whole point. That's the whole point.
Speaker 15: That's why we have revelation. That's the whole purpose of revelation.
I'm not trying to be as smart, and it just
it seems to me that that's the purpose of revelation
is so we can properly interpret these things.
Speaker 6: Then you just undercut the whole point of natural theology.
When you try to interpret the natural world, you understand,
your whole argument is like, oh, I can look at
the world and I see causation, I see content, agency,
don't you see death too. The point is that you're
arbitrarily picking things and you're relying on your Christian presuppositions
to interpret the natural world when we're not talking about
the Christian revelation. We're talking about natural theology. So you're
if I'm gonna play an atheist to you, okay, as
as I'm playing the atheist, not wortholot so say I'm
playing the atheist guy. Your position is totally incoherent and
arbitrary and contradictory because you're telling me that without divine revelation,
I can look at the world and see causation contingency. Uh,
you know all of these principles te los, all these
things that work in the world, and I can tell
I can just simply respond by saying, I also see death. Therefore,
death is a natural process. And if you admit death
as a natural process, and there's no reason why I
can't say that in a natural theology starting point position,
then you've now undercut divine revelation and refuted yourself as
a Christian.
Speaker 7: M hm.
Speaker 15: Okay, So.
Speaker 6: You don't unders saying what natural theology is, you keep
importing divine revelation into it. That's not what it is
you have to start with your starting points, which are
self evident philosophical reasoning, rational principles. You can't appeal to
divine revelation, your remember, this is your whole process. Thomas
Aquinas doesn't appeal to the trinity in sum Countries and
Telays One. He starts arguing philosophical, self evident principles that
you have in common with unbelievers. You're trying to convince
an atheist. I'm not going to listen to your appeals
to Genesis, okay, And you're gonna say, okay, so you're
appealing to things like causation, te los, contingency, the five
proofs of Aquitas, the things he appeals to, right, yes,
And I'm just simply saying, why are those the things
that you pick out in the natural world as self
evident principles. Why isn't death a self evident principle that's
natural and part of the natural world. And if you
admit that it is, you've undercut your Christianity.
Speaker 15: You could just say that, I mean, obviously that we
provide reasons for that.
Speaker 6: Obviously, what are your reasons?
Speaker 17: Well, I mean, and you could say that.
Speaker 15: It appears that way due to our current fall in nature.
Speaker 6: The fall, So that's from Genesis. Just undercut the whole
argument and prove my point. You have to pill to
Genesis to unterpret the natural world correctly.
Speaker 15: Thank you great again. I'm not so you're separating natural
theology completely.
Speaker 6: I did it separated completely? No, the point of it
in apologetics in your system is to convince unbelievers on
the basis of reasoning principles in common. And I'm an
atheist who's saying you're arbitrary in what you pick out
as the reasoning principles that are true. You're you're arbitrarily
picking on the basis of Christian presubpositions, things like causation
and order in the world and morality in the world.
And I'm going to, arbitrarily, as an atheist, say I
counter that by death, lack of order in the world,
lack of design. Do you see, because we're not you
can't appeal to divine revelation in a natural theology argument.
Speaker 17: Why not?
Speaker 6: Because it's not natural theology. You just defined it like
five minutes ago as not appealing to divine reply according
to you and your church.
Speaker 15: Yeah, so what I what I would say is is
that like speaking to an atheist, Well, then I would say, well,
you know, so there obviously would reach.
Speaker 6: I'm an atheist on an accept divine revelation, You're gonna
argue with me on the basis of your self evident
metaphysical principles and your classical tomism.
Speaker 15: So yeah, I mean, if you want to argue that
divine revelation is impossible, which plenty.
Speaker 6: Of people do, no stop deflecting, has nothing to Maybe
it is possible, But why am I supposed to accept
your self evident first principles of design and whatever that
you see out there in the world apart from divine revelation.
You want me to adopt your common ground, and all
I have to do to defeat you this is just
a simple defeatter for your argument is I pick different
starting points from the appearance of the natural world, namely
that death is natural and that there is no order.
There's a lack of order and design. There's chaos, there's decay,
there's entropy. Those maybe those are the things that I'm
supposed to look to. All this is illustrating is that
your starting points are arbitrary. It's that simple, And.
Speaker 40: I'm not trying to say I'm not trying to say
like too quickly or like you know what about it
is that I'm actually curious.
Speaker 15: So you think that your position or you believe your position.
Speaker 6: No, I'm an atheist skeptic. I don't have to say that.
My I'm saying. All I have to do to defeat
your arbitrary in this is to say, well, my counter
with these arbitraries, why am I supposed to accept that
the natural world is ordered versus disordered?
Speaker 17: Yeah? But I mean you could do the same thing
with a revelation.
Speaker 6: You could say, oh, why do you keep appilling to
bind revelation? You can't do that in natural theology.
Speaker 15: Well, I'm saying even if even was to say that,
you know, we're just we're doing exclusively revelation, if we
were going off of that, I mean.
Speaker 6: Why do you keep appealing to the thing that is
not relevant in natural theology? So you're proving my point
that you can't that you it's inescapable to appeal to revelation.
Why Because guess what, I agree that causation, tilos, order, morals,
all that stuff exists, and it's necessary, but it's grounded
in relation. And the very way that you operate. You
keep going back to that proves my point that it's inescapable.
That's why we do that as a better apologetic than
this dumb idea that there's self evident principles that you
can convince an atheist with. And if a smart atheist
comes to this and says, this is arbitrary, why am
I supposed to accept those things and not the other things?
Can you tell me why.
Speaker 15: I would say that you would be I think that
it would be you would be unable to reason with.
Speaker 6: Okay, maybe we don't. Maybe we can't. Maybe maybe we're
deceiving ourselves and we can't reason. You understand, there's giant,
giant millions of people that believe that.
Speaker 17: I understand.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I'm aware and that you know, I get the
whole the cog two comes out of that, and yeah,
I'm well aware. But well, I think we've uh, we've
probably gotten to all the topics that I wanted to
talk to, especially.
Speaker 6: Well, I mean, it was funny, right, but I think
it illustrates we like when we got to the point
where I said, why isn't death natural? And it's the
act full principle that you usually look to rather than
like causation or two last something like that, And you said, well,
because of the fall. Yeah, but that's a doctrine from
divine revelation. So you're admitting the point that you actually
can't interpret the natural world without divine revelation, and that
destroys natural theology.
Speaker 15: Hold on, I think the whole, the whole, the natural theology,
the whole point is that we cannot fully understand the
world apart from that from divine repoles.
Speaker 6: Okay, you can say that, but I'm pointing out how
you can't even arbitrarily. You can't even consistently tell me
which principle I'm supposed to follow without being arbitrary because
you're saying, no, no, you're misinterpreting. It's not actually death
that's natural, you see, because that's part of the fallen world. Well,
you wouldn't know that apart from Genesis.
Speaker 17: Correct.
Speaker 15: I'm conceding that I don't understand.
Speaker 6: Okay, then then you don't believe in natural theology anymore.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 40: Yeah, Look, I obviously I think that if you if
you read a Quinus, I don't think he's like, okay,
so there's this natural theology thing, and then they're like
they're built.
Speaker 17: Upon a year.
Speaker 6: You're no, that's absolutely what it is. The divine revelation.
Grace builds on nature, SuperNature builds on nature. Revelation builds
on first principles. So you're totally wrong. You don't even
know your tumenism. You don't know that that's basic tumism.
Speaker 10: No I do.
Speaker 15: I feel like I'm struggling to put into words exactly
where I think we're.
Speaker 6: Well, maybe it's because you're wrong.
Speaker 17: So okay, so you're asserting that these things happen.
Speaker 6: Okay, So all I've done throughout the whole conversation is
illustrate that everything that your argument is built on arbitrariness
and ad hoc and these are the self evident principles
and we all just know this because it is. And
all I have to do is simply say why on
what basis? And if you start appealing to other things,
guess what? Then they're not self evident.
Speaker 15: But can you appeal to radical down for any position?
Speaker 6: Say what?
Speaker 15: I just couldn't want to kield a radical down for
any position. I don't see how that that's truly an issue.
Speaker 6: It doesn't even ass necessarily until radical doubts. These are
just defeaters for your arbitra In ess, you.
Speaker 15: Could just say that any any use line of argumentation
is arbitrary. It doesn't it seems like you could.
Speaker 6: No, No, it doesn't mean any any position is arbitrary.
So your answer is that every position is arbitrary.
Speaker 15: No, No, I'm saying according if you want to, I'm
saying it in a radical debt doubt sense.
Speaker 17: You can radically doubt what are we everything?
Speaker 6: I don't know. I don't actually think you can.
Speaker 15: Okay, So what sort of things can't you?
Speaker 7: Well?
Speaker 6: For example, I can't radically doubt the laws of logic
because I would be assuming them to engage in denying them.
Speaker 15: Okay, And don't you think that like the law of
non contradiction, for example, is built on logic.
Speaker 6: It is one of the classical laws of logic. It's
not built on logic.
Speaker 17: It is logic correct correct, so or the like.
Speaker 6: So I think you're confusing, like what a thing is
versus its justification. So we agree that there are laws
of logic. There's a law of non contradiction, but that's
different than giving an account for how it exists and
how it's the case. So those are two different questions.
So maybe you're confusing those two. So we both can
commonly agree that there's laws of logic, But on what
basis am I supposed to believe that Tonism in your
worldview can give an account for the laws of logic?
Speaker 15: Well, so let me ask you this, So according to
Europe if I wasn't okay, so would you say that
somebody who has never received the revelation according you know,
according to the Christian worldview, or I guess to your
world viewing the orthodox worldview? That basically, like I said before,
like if they arrive at these conclusions, like if they're
able to talk about logic and the principle of non contradiction,
the principles of causation, that.
Speaker 6: Doesn't mean they have an account for those things. Using
them is not the same thing as justifying them.
Speaker 15: But you say that they are right, like they're recognizing
things that are real, but they're coming up out it
on their own.
Speaker 17: How are they doing that?
Speaker 6: They're real universal metaphor physical principles in the world. I
don't deny them or doubt them. I just don't think
that your argument's give an account for them.
Speaker 15: Okay, okay, But so you think that they're out there
and that people can recognize them.
Speaker 6: Of course, they're absolutely necessary for the possibility of predication.
They're transcendental categories.
Speaker 10: Okay, So.
Speaker 15: Okay, so people can recognize these things, but they're an
error about other They can recognize true things, but they
might be an error about other particular things.
Speaker 6: They're typically, in your case, in error about how to
give an account for them.
Speaker 15: Okay, so you would just so would you say that
my the conclusion.
Speaker 6: We're using a thing is not an epistemic justification for
a thing.
Speaker 15: I'm not saying. I'm not not even going there.
Speaker 40: What I'm saying is that, Okay, So if I say
I believe that there is this law of non contradiction,
would you say that that's correct or incorrect based off
of how I justified.
Speaker 6: You didn't give a justification. You just stated that you
believe in it. I'm saying that, what do you think
a justification is?
Speaker 7: First?
Speaker 6: Maybe that's the confusion. What do you think everystem of
justification is?
Speaker 15: Well, what I'm saying is how one justifies it. If
I'm saying if they justify it properly, then you would
obviously say it's proper If they justify it in an
incorrect way, you would say it's would you say that
it's completely incorrect.
Speaker 7: Then.
Speaker 6: No, it would just mean that they don't have good
reasons for believing in it. It still can still be true.
Like I mean, I let's say I wash my hands
every day after I go to the bathroom because I
think it'll make bitcoin go up. I mean, it's still
a good thing to wash your hands after you use
the bathroom. But I have bad reasons for washing my hands.
So it doesn't make the washing of the hands falls.
It just means I have bad reasons for it.
Speaker 15: So this this seems to me like when we look
at we look at other other religions, we say, Okay,
they do believe in God.
Speaker 17: They just they do so for wrong reasons, or.
Speaker 6: They do so, No, they don't have the right deity.
They do they they're they're not a on the right God.
Speaker 15: So do you think that I'm that I have like
a different principle of non contradiction than you do if
I justify it wrongly.
Speaker 6: How does that relate to the false theology of a
false religion and not the principle non contradiction. I'm confused
about You're asking one question about the principle non contradiction.
They're saying, but the Pagan's attained to the true God.
These are these are different questions.
Speaker 15: So what I'm saying is that there's Okay, so I
can know that there is I could come to the
conclusion that there is a law of non contradiction. I'm
saying that that's akin to yeah, I could come to
the conclusion ont of the things about the world through reason,
And I'm saying, okay, so you could reason. It seems
like the whole.
Speaker 6: It's a false analogy because saying that there's a law
of non contradiction you believe in it and utilizing it
is not the same thing as saying and I also
believe that there's one God, so therefore it's all the
same God. It's a non sequitor. It doesn't follow. I mean,
do you think do you think Muslims and Christians worship
the same God?
Speaker 7: Yes?
Speaker 6: How I mean everything we've talked about is the exact
reason why that's not the case. I mean, I mean,
all you do you want do you know what Muslims teach?
Speaker 17: Yes?
Speaker 6: What do they say about God or the Old Testament?
Speaker 17: So that they professed how he that. There's this difine.
Speaker 6: What do they say about the Father?
Speaker 15: The Father? They they don't believe in a trinity, so
there's they say there is only the Father.
Speaker 17: Basically, I know.
Speaker 6: So you don't know, you do? You don't even know
the basics of Muslim theology. They do not believe God
is father. They specifically are premised on denying God his father.
So you don't know who you're talking about.
Speaker 15: What I mean to say is that they know.
Speaker 6: Just say you don't know. Why are you acting like
you knew when you said He's father? They do not
believe his father.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I knew that. They don't say that. I understand that.
They don't say that.
Speaker 6: No, they specifically deny that God has any sons and
he is not a father. I are that okay, But
you understand one of the most fundamental names or characteristics
of God in the Old Testament is God the Father?
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 17: Correct?
Speaker 6: And yet you say, sit you saying that Muslims and
Christians worship the same God when they explicitly deny God
the Father. You see how silly this is. It may
seem silly, No, it is silly. It doesn't seem that way.
Speaker 7: It is.
Speaker 15: So all I'm saying is that they have come to
these so they've got me. They're misunderstanding God.
Speaker 17: They don't know God as he truly is.
Speaker 6: They specifically hate Christ or anti Christ, deny the Father,
and you're saying you worship the same God. Correct, Yes,
you're stupid.
Speaker 15: Look, I'm not trying to be not trying to be stupid.
I'm just saying that these people, they are in error.
I'm not saying that those things are.
Speaker 6: They explicitly deny the fundamental name that you that you
recognize as the God of the Old Testament, and you
say it's still the same God. You're stupid.
Speaker 15: They are. I'm saying that they're attempting to worship God.
Speaker 6: It doesn't matter what the attempt is. That people in
acts are tempting to worship God and calling him sticks
and rocks, and that doesn't it doesn't attain. No, this
is how stupid and obstinate you are. Because Paul says
it's an unknown God and you're an idolatry. It doesn't work.
Do you think Muslims have the faith of Abraham?
Speaker 17: No, they did not.
Speaker 6: You just contradict yourself. Because Vatican twos and tates Vatican
two says they have the faith of Abraham, and.
Speaker 17: They claim to Professor.
Speaker 6: No, it doesn't. I'm not talking about Lugentium. I'm talking
about Tat's claim. So this is where you're again ignorant.
Just as Abraham, who with the faith of Abe Abraham
takes Islam takes pleasure in linking itself to God.
Speaker 15: I'm sorry, let me pull that up real quick.
Speaker 6: Tte three, not lumin Gentium sixteen, No Tte three.
Speaker 17: Okay? Is there a paragraph three? Three?
Speaker 10: Is okay?
Speaker 17: Paraph three?
Speaker 40: It says, okay, So they adore in the Church regards
with esteem ust the Muslims. They adore the one God,
living and subsisting in himself, merciful and all powerful, creator
of heaven and earth, who.
Speaker 15: Has spoken of men.
Speaker 40: They take pains to submit wholeheartedly even to his inscrutable decrees,
just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure.
Speaker 17: In linking itself submitting to God. Is that where you're
getting at?
Speaker 6: Or yeah, I missed the passage? Okay, but what does
that say that they It says what it says, don't lie?
Speaker 15: I honestly, I I really I don't. I don't think
your your take on this is is I think you're
you're conflating.
Speaker 6: The whole chat sees what it says and sees you
right here, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of
Islam takes pleasure in linking itself submitted to God. Now
look at the last sentence in that paragraph. Finally, they
have the moral life and worship God through prayer, alms giving,
and festing.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I think that worship is not the same as
having divine faith.
Speaker 6: That's even worst worst because it says they adore the
One True God in Lemgitim sixteen and they worship him. Correct,
that's not true. They don't you're do you know notice
saying your own popes historically called this the wicked anti
Christ religion. How do they worship and serve the One
True God like Abraham if it's an Antichrist religion.
Speaker 40: So, like I said, worship just because somebody's worships like
worshiping something, does not mean that they have divine faith.
Speaker 6: It says the faith of Islam is the faith of Abraham,
just as Abraham. They take pains to submit wholeheartedly to
God and his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham. Do you
think Abraham submitted to a Unitarian God.
Speaker 17: All?
Speaker 6: It's okay, So you're a liar and you have to
reword what it clearly says.
Speaker 15: Again, look, I'm not trying to be I.
Speaker 6: Don't care what you're trying to be. This is because
you're so hard headed and you're an idolator. You think
the stupid heresy is true. You make me mad when
you say this stuff.
Speaker 15: Okay, So the way that I'm from just going through word.
Speaker 6: By word, do you have to yap and try to
make this say something that it doesn't clearly say? How
come everybody else can figure out what this says?
Speaker 17: Everybody else?
Speaker 6: I mean, did Francis sign a joint declaration with a
granty Mom that God wills all the world religions? Did
that happen in twenty nineteen?
Speaker 15: And you know about the distinction between pass if an
active will? Oh?
Speaker 6: Okay, and what was that at work today? When he
said the exact same thing about all the world religions?
Speaker 17: Which which them are? You're referring to exactly.
Speaker 6: The statement that is going all over twitter today from
the Vatican.
Speaker 17: Well, yeah, there was.
Speaker 15: There was two statements that have been going around last
few years.
Speaker 6: Okay, and so it has nothing. No, the new statement,
the new statement that he wills the religions and not
one religion is better than another. It's all diversity. So
he says there shouldn't be uniformity of the religions, there
should be unity in the world religions. So that's an
even stronger statement than what was in the twenty nineteen document.
Speaker 15: So obviously I heard you mentioned earlier. You're like, oh,
this is the code that's going around and and I haven't.
I haven't looked into it enough myself in the last.
Speaker 6: So again, is this the same church that calls the crusades,
the one that says that it is the church regards
with esteem the Muslims.
Speaker 15: Yes, I believe that.
Speaker 6: And you don't see a contradiction there. You can esteem
the Muslims as you call crusades against this anti christ religion, correct, Yeah,
and that's why you're stupid.
Speaker 15: I look, I'm not trying to So what of the
things is that you can you can say that there
are there's positive things even if they're in error.
Speaker 6: Does it say just as Abraham help me open? Okay,
So you and you didn't want to, So what you
wanted to cope and talk around this and you closed it.
Speaker 15: No, I just I just I have I opened up
the Twitter page again. I just have to had to
open it up again like the tab. So they adore
the One God living in, subsisting in himself, merciful and
all powerful.
Speaker 6: The career of the happening is adoration, worship.
Speaker 40: Yes, who has spoken to men? They take pains to
submit wholehardly to us.
Speaker 6: Even what is the One God? By the way, before
we go to that, that isn't the trinity? So you
see this is the point right away. That's natural theology.
Muslims worship the same one God, living and subsisting in himself.
Do you understand that there is no such thing as
the one God that lives in subsists in himself. That's unitarian.
The One God is only trinitarian. The Old Testament reveals
a trinity.
Speaker 15: Where are you saying that you think there's more there's
more than one substance inside the Trinity?
Speaker 6: Did I say there's more than one substance? What the
heck are you talking about?
Speaker 15: Okay, the subsistence is how do you understand subsistence?
Speaker 6: Then it says the one God living and subsisting in himself.
That's a unitarian statement. There is no one God that
lives and subsists in himself. That's unitarian. There's only the Trinity,
the Father, eternally generating the Son and eternally spy reading
the Spirit. That's all. That's the only God there is.
So this first statement is not true.
Speaker 15: So you don't believe that the Trinity subsists in itself.
Speaker 6: The Trinity does not subsist in itself. No, that's heretical.
This is why you're against stupid.
Speaker 15: I'm not trying to try.
Speaker 6: No, but you don't have the Trinity. That's the point.
There's that is false to say that Trinity lives and
subsists in it himself. He is the Father. He is
the Father, I'm he There is no one God. That
is not a reference to the entire triad. It doesn't that.
That's not the case. What does the creed say, I
believe in one God?
Speaker 7: What?
Speaker 6: So that's monarchical trinitarianism. This is saying that Muslims, together
with Christians, worship the one living God who subsists in himself.
That's unitarian. That doesn't exist. There is no such thing
as one God himself. That's Unitarians.
Speaker 15: As I'm understanding, this is just saying that God exists
by an oven like.
Speaker 6: That's not true. The Father does not exist in himself.
He exists with the Son and the Spirit for all eternity.
The whole point of the whole point is to have
a commonality with Muslims, which are Unitarians. So they make
a Unitarian statement and this is not trinitarian. There is
no Unitarian God. And then you tackle on Trinity down
the road. That's your tomistic error.
Speaker 15: No, I don't. I don't believe that there is a
generic God.
Speaker 6: That's the yes you do, and it's right here now
you're lying because you're arguing for natural theology and you,
by the way, you said while back there is a
generic God. What do you mean, don't believe in a
generic God?
Speaker 1: Yes you do.
Speaker 6: Why are you lying?
Speaker 15: I've never said that there's a there's a generic God.
Speaker 6: By arguing for natural theology that is generic lowest common
nominator God.
Speaker 17: It's just the things you can know about those.
Speaker 6: And we saw those were arbitrary. And the things that
you can know are the things that aquinas Lists and
Symagotrid and.
Speaker 17: Chiles I'm sorry, what's you saying.
Speaker 6: The things that you can so called know about God
from natural theology are that he's absolutely simple, that he's
a temporal, that he's uncaused and noncomposite. Blah blah blah
blah blah. That's a Unitarian argument. That's a that's a
generic God, that is the generic God. That's the point.
You think that you can argue God without trinity that
doesn't exist.
Speaker 15: Yeah, So I think the last time we talked to
I think this came out and I didn't really have
a chance.
Speaker 6: Well, now I know why I've blocked you because of this.
Speaker 15: Well we didn't. We did never even I never even
talked on this account before. But yeah, okay, I uh,
I'm sorry if I've made.
Speaker 6: I mean, I just think that you're completely like hard
headed and engaged in the most ridiculous cazustrie. Because what's
the next sentence following which one who has spoken to
man they take pains? Do you think Muslims take pains
to submit to God's decrees just like Abraham?
Speaker 15: I think that they're they're attempting to do so, just
like Abraham. So Abraham was receiving divine revelation. And I
don't believe that the Muslims are receiving divine revelation. I
think that they've taken certain things.
Speaker 6: What does this say? I don't care what you think.
What does this say?
Speaker 17: Oh?
Speaker 7: I mean?
Speaker 6: Does it say that Muslims submit to God just like Abraham?
Speaker 7: So?
Speaker 6: Does it say that? Just read the text, dude.
Speaker 40: It says they take pains to submit whole hardily to
even his inscrutable decrease, just as Abraham, with whom the.
Speaker 17: Fame of HISLELM takes pleasure in winking itself submitted to God.
Speaker 6: What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Say?
Speaker 17: So, just as Abraham submitted to God?
Speaker 6: And Muslims. So you gotta read it for the fifth time.
What does it mean? What is it clearly saying?
Speaker 15: Ye again?
Speaker 6: So yeah, good, get out of here. I'm so sick
of these people. These are the most un dishonest pieces
of trash. Out of here. I'm so sick of it.
Every Well, now I know why I blocked him, and
please go back and block him. I don't know every
want to talk to him again. I just I can't
take these people anymore. I'm mute, all right, he can't connect?
H I mean the pope literally prays in mosques towards Mecca,
and this guy is jumping through every hoop, leaps and
bounds in every possible mental gymnastics, which, by the way,
he never even gave any actual mental gymnastics. It was like, all,
just like, I don't think it's saying that. I don't
think that, dude, I don't care what you think. And again, like,
if you can't see this stuff, like, go be with Fransis,
then go be in your schedules church, Go put stuff
in your butt like all your other guys want to do.
That's what you guys want, that's the religion you want.
Go for it, man. I mean again, if you can't
see this, that this is in your face, like at
a certain point, there's nothing else that can be it
can be said, Is there anybody else? Be sure to
head over to chalk dot com. You're seeing me wear
the chalk dot com shirt. Chalk dot com. Be sure
and have another user go j forty four life to
get forty four all those all those great products, including
the performance stack there that includes the tonk Catale that's
my favorite. I highly recommend that if you don't keep
it on topic, Uh, you're booted. What do you want?
Speaker 7: Hello? Uh?
Speaker 29: Okay, So I wasn't really ready, but I'm gonna go
just because there's nobody else calling.
Speaker 6: You weren't ready. Why'd you request to speak if you
weren't ready, Well.
Speaker 17: Because you're I thought you were gonna leave, and I
wanted to ask you or just say a few things.
So now I got to regain my.
Speaker 15: All Right, So when you said natural theology, I mean,
I don't really know.
Speaker 6: What are you doing? Like, just trash and ship over there?
Get out of here. I can't do it, man, I'm sorry,
I can't. I just can't do this stuff anymore. Tonight.
Dues over there like wrecking his car crash and trying
to talk sounds like a sounds like a comedy comedy routine.
Dudes over there doing three three stooges. Uh is Bromco
J forty to get forty percent off those great products.
Head on over to chalk dot com. I'm not gonna
I'm not gonna do another hour on freaking natural theologoy man?
Speaker 7: What what?
Speaker 10: Hello?
Speaker 7: What?
Speaker 15: What?
Speaker 6: How many people were in here all the way? We
got up to almost two thousands to night. That was
pretty crazy. Anybody have any topics that are not natural theology.
I had nineteen hundred to That was my first unless
somebody dumped into the chat that I wasn't aware. Tonight
was I think our biggest, our biggest organic audience of
hitting nineteen hundred. But you know, I probably should stop
now because I'm getting getting a little too sassy. That
guy was getting me really frustrated because just the constant
of twose sassy, he wasn't actually being that mean. It
was just being so hard headed. Famine, famine, Sam.
Speaker 7: How's it going?
Speaker 19: Man?
Speaker 6: What's up?
Speaker 7: I was op with an argument today talking about God
created evil. I don't know if you'd be willing to
speak on that at all.
Speaker 6: Well, it's an impossibility because evil, in our view has
no substance or being or real real existence. It's a privation,
so it's not a thing. And therefore everything that God
created has being or substance. And God created everything and
declared it to be good. So there's no way that
God could create evil. You would be a Manichean if
you thought that.
Speaker 7: Oh okay, okay, so okay, could you maybe so?
Speaker 25: I hate to ask dumb the argument down a little
bit because I was hit with that from a Muslim today,
and I didn't really know how to combat it.
Speaker 6: But well, again, so if God creates evil, then God
is both evil and good because he's the source of
good and evil, and thus good and evil become relativized.
And that's probably why Islam says, yeah, Allah is the
greatest of deceivers. He's also the best at doing evil,
as he is good relativized as good and evil. It
makes the religion incoherent and nonsensical. And it's equivalent to
the ancient Zoroastrian dualist Manichean position that that good and
evil are kind of these eternal principles that exist. We
don't believe that evil has any substance. It's not a thing.
It's a privation, a lack an act against the good,
but it's not a thing that God created.
Speaker 25: Okay, do you have any I guess anyone you would
recommend specifically to read on it.
Speaker 6: Athanasius, the Church Fathers, they discuss the ontology of evil.
I think in Adgentes, Ethanaians discusses it. The Kappadian Is
discussed it, but I don't remember where else the top
of my head. I would just it got like, uh,
Church fathers on evil as privation or something like that,
and you would probably you probably get some good articles
on that, all right.
Speaker 7: Uh, not the.
Speaker 6: Series of debates that I thought we would have tonight.
They definitely went a different different direction that I expected.
Still very interesting discussion tonight, But thank you guys heading
over to talk dot com. Use promo co J forty
four Life, get access to those great products, and I
will see you soon, maybe tomorrow. We'll go back to
the normal stream.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 6: This was a diversion because because of Francis, so Frank
kept doubling down, so I thought I would open it
up for this. Everybody, have a good night.