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