Speaker 1: Let's keep it on topic.
Speaker 2: One plus one plus one equal free icons are idolatry
j J.
Speaker 1: But Jake, can I talk? But it wasn't Next Catholic?
Speaker 3: Drive?
Speaker 4: God is real?
Speaker 3: Why does he allow evil?
Speaker 1: Why do you pray to dead people? Traditions of men?
Speaker 5: It's a no brainer.
Speaker 6: You're such a tyrannical rainer.
Speaker 1: Is this your first time Ondian?
Speaker 4: Or well?
Speaker 7: Think it?
Speaker 3: These loads? You're slow boys?
Speaker 1: Is this your first time on Dean Well?
Speaker 3: I need a JR.
Speaker 5: Show?
Speaker 1: Was that an uncreated's foot part?
Speaker 5: Unmute?
Speaker 2: Dude?
Speaker 5: Stop repeating my name?
Speaker 8: Dude?
Speaker 5: You goober's callin or I'll boot you.
Speaker 1: Where did we get the Bible from? Have you read
the Canons of Franzia? What are you Catholic?
Speaker 5: Are you considens?
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be me, but do you have
an actual argument?
Speaker 5: There is only one church? You are in a cult?
Speaker 1: You're a goblin, a demon?
Speaker 9: A boomer?
Speaker 10: Quick question?
Speaker 1: Do we have any diddyback venerators in.
Speaker 11: The chatw Is this your first time mom being?
Speaker 1: Or well?
Speaker 3: I need a ginger too, can't take it?
Speaker 4: These loads?
Speaker 3: You're slow boys? Are you? Is this your first time
mom bey? Wh I need a ginger too.
Speaker 12: If you're a wine in front of the.
Speaker 1: Line, I'm you, dude, what is your epistemic justification?
Speaker 5: That argument is circular and you are refuted.
Speaker 3: Is this your first time on me?
Speaker 1: Or were shame?
Speaker 3: I need to change your show. Can't take it these loads.
Speaker 1: You're so boy? Is this your first time on me? Well,
I need to change your show.
Speaker 5: It's you're a lie mom front.
Speaker 1: Of a lie.
Speaker 5: Mute dude.
Speaker 10: How am I hoarding underwater.
Speaker 13: For years to keep me hying?
Speaker 3: There's only one thing that can bring them together.
Speaker 10: Begin with.
Speaker 3: You wouldn't where because you.
Speaker 5: Want to take the world.
Speaker 3: Take half up.
Speaker 12: Bakers, get on the floors, bankers, fea people, poks, Bakers,
give on pain.
Speaker 3: Bakers, give a name, name your name name, I'm gonna
see you'll ask more c os.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I'm talking to you.
Speaker 12: Get more hoes, gim on pe, get more boots, give leave.
I want to see the CEOs more the nights to
the peak. Ruin those slides and one hundred and forty
one bb.
Speaker 14: Oh so cool.
Speaker 3: Your name name name, name your name name.
Speaker 1: Day the day, your day?
Speaker 3: Check to that shake, take that shake.
Speaker 4: All a middle class.
Speaker 3: See egos, get on your toes. You're place, but it
just race. I want to see the banker on the floor.
I want to see your ass boor.
Speaker 10: Make it clap, make it kiak clap shake that.
Speaker 3: Who's reading. I'm gonna chak here. Bankers get on the floor.
Bankers people boors.
Speaker 12: Bankers, you're gonna pay baker you wanna name, make you
read the killer.
Speaker 9: Struct in the.
Speaker 3: Middle class and more Fiat cash if my baker cat.
Speaker 12: Bankers get on the floor. Bankers make some people poor.
Bankers get more pain. Bankers bank my.
Speaker 15: Bang bang, my bang bang bang bang and my wang
bake and my my bank, my bang bank and my
bang bang bang bang in my bang bake, my right bank,
to my bank bank, to my bank bank bank bank,
to my bank bank, to my bank bank bank t
my bank bank do my bank bank bank bank bankes.
Speaker 3: Mhm h.
Speaker 16: H h.
Speaker 3: Yeah h.
Speaker 7: M So last night, Hey Piggy, pay Piggy.
Speaker 10: Don't make me go back to that ninety.
Speaker 3: Five way shock. There's no way to be alive. Don't
make me go to ninety five way shot. There's no
way to be alive. Foot by big.
Speaker 1: Just give me one loss of jacket, Hey, Giggy.
Speaker 17: Just give me one more super Chance Pay Piggy, just
give me one more sage pay Piggy, just give.
Speaker 2: Me one boot with my boot one on one missed
to Danny mixed free gears. We had the baby, she
went the such she won, Gucchie gotta lay down on
my pants and the lambo because she don't like my brother.
She got a damnond crew and a baby day. But
you know I'm not a mattery yelloist and nadi yell list.
I flow with the transcendental.
Speaker 5: I gave me.
Speaker 2: Reading Viggenstein, investigate my girl philosophically.
Speaker 10: Yeah, do you know what?
Speaker 9: I just give me one more chat, Just give me
one more super chems.
Speaker 17: Hey, Giggy, just give me one more cham pyggy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just give me one.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I'll try it up.
Speaker 5: I'll shut a video girl.
Speaker 1: I want my heart once she win my work. I
see you in the souper chet.
Speaker 10: I see you all right? What's up? Everybody? Welcome to
another open forum, another Q and A. And this time,
because every time we do it, people don't call in
about what's listed as the topic, I'm gonna open it
up for the people who have the f a q's,
So bring your f a Q questions and bring your uh,
bring your tongue talking victory. We got any tongue talking
evangelicals and want to set a straight rebucus. Y'all know
how it is. I'm talking about PAULA White. I'm talking
about vibing with Paul White. I got I'm talking about
PAULA White anointing.
Speaker 1: I hear a sound of an abundance of rain.
Speaker 3: I hear a sound of victory.
Speaker 1: I hear a sound of an abundance of rain.
Speaker 18: I hear a victory.
Speaker 14: Is done, It is done, is done.
Speaker 7: I hear victory, victory.
Speaker 5: Now for being right now.
Speaker 3: Shot and I hear a sound of victory.
Speaker 9: I hear, I hear a sound of victory, buckets of rings.
Speaker 19: I hear the sound of the.
Speaker 7: Lord says it is done.
Speaker 1: The Lord says it is done.
Speaker 20: Girl victory, victory in the quarters of heaven.
Speaker 13: In the quarters of heaven, you go, girl victory.
Speaker 10: Who don't sell them orbs coming out of my mouth?
Don't sprayed my I don sprayed my computer. My i'ma's
gonna gonna crash out because I sprayed it with orbs. Dog,
Welcome everybody to another open forum. Dog, y'all, thought that, y'all.
I just blew y'all's mind with just some like just
some low level random be boxing. Not even that ain't
even my real bee boxing. Dude, kim Jong two dollars
usual read on the drips floor, Allan, you five dollars,
keep them stacks fat cash. And speaking of stacks, I'm
not talking about super chats. I'm not talking about weak
ass fiat. I'm talking about BTC baby. Today was a
great BTC day.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 10: Since all of the bills have been paid, today was
one of those days where we got to do a
little bit of some pretty big level stacking today, y'all.
I hope you're listening. And in the near future, because
many people requested it, I did get Sipha Dean's book
we will be covering in the near future seiphieden Amus's
book Bigcoin Standard, so looking forward to that. Also got
in the mail. Because it's good Friday, it's good news day,
it's high level Bitcoin stocking day over here. In terms
of what I'm what I think I think it is.
Shout out to Eddie Bravo, who lists I've never heard
of this book. The last Eddie Bravo podcast I did
with him. When he had me on, he said, you
gotta you gotta read John Stockwell, dude. It was like
John Stockwell. So I got John Stockwell right here, not
John Stockton. I'm currently wearing tight John Stockton ball gazer pants.
If you remember the eighties, you'll remember John Stockton Utah
jazz right to show your balls. I'm wearing those. But
I'm talking about John Stockwell, in charge of the CIA
Angola Desk and all the Angola operations. Well, guess what,
when he left in nineteen eighty whatever two, he wrote
a tell all of all the CIA operations in Angola.
And I don't know much about CIA operations in Africa,
so it's gonna be fun to I've read the first
couple of chapters already. He talks about Kissinger basically deciding
and determining everything that would happen. And we've got also
these two, of course, we're going to do in the
near future, probably from members. We've got other side of
deception and by way of deception, and of course those
are going to figure heavily in the upcoming debate with
apostate prophet. I'm debating a postate profit July Li second
I think it's hot in here. Hold, I gotta turn
the hair on. Who sweating? It's done? Man, got to
order in for double double espresso. That's four if you
can't count. Shout out to Paula White for that hype
dope freestyle she just dropped for everybody. That's me on
the backups. By the way, somebody used a clip that
because I'm gonna share me beatboxing to Paula White. There's
nobody out there in this audience who can deny that
that was straight fresh. You didn't realize that was me?
Jamie is like, that was you? Yeah, I can beat
Bucks shocker duh, of course. Contemporary Commit Companion five dollars,
bring all your freaking questions. Adolfo Ibarra, that's oh man,
I have to I have to send my condolences for
your last name there, Abara, Adolpho a Bara five dollars.
Shouldn't these days be time of repentance, silence and reflection
and you should avoid music, Well, then you don't need
to be over here on my channel, in fact, because
it is a day of repentance and joy, even though
it's a dark day in the sense of the shroud
of our lady we are out of here in a
couple hours to go to the service. So if you
don't want to be involved in open q and A,
nobody's making you be here. That's why I said today
in the chat, in the show description today is open
q and A. We're giving precedents to people who have
questions over the people who want to debate. Did you
hear that most of the time it's open for him
for people who want to debate. And I said, because
it's good Friday, it's open q and A, so ibarra.
You don't have to watch the stream. You can go elsewhere.
Kim Jong un two dollars? How do you take notes
when you read? Basically, as I pointed out, there's not
too difficult of a pattern or of a structure for me. Really,
all I do is summarize what's on that page in
a sticky note. So that's it. So here's my study
Bible Koran. You see the sticky notes. So you just
summarize what's on that page. That's it. Allah is the
author of the psalms you see, according to this section
of the Qur'an. And that would mean that Allah can't
contradict if he said the same thing in the songs
that he says in here, right, So you'll see that
most of my note taking is in that style. It's
just there's no color coded system, there's no like know,
super intricate method. It's literally just summarizing what's on the
page here we have. I think this is discussing the
early Solafi and it ben to mea and these characters.
And I underline a lot because if you're involved in
a tactile way, when you're reading and underlining a lot,
it helps you to retain that I found that may
not be the same for everyone. And so you can
see at the top, I summarize in the sticky notes
what's on the page that's relevant so that I can
find it more easily when I need to refer to it.
That's about it. There's no there's no like, you know,
super crazy, super awesome secret method to doing it for me.
Test tube freak five dollars. They're spraying orbs in the sky.
They're given my five g gingivitis pyramids deep in Georgia.
Hoo ad healer on the earth, sweating it exactly. I
like the way you think Alexander Kane became a member
theosis sends ten dollars. Today, I clicked to talk. They're
in the space to Q and A. Okay, we'll bring
you up here in a second. We got ten people
in line already, eight people. Excuse me? What is the
account for the transcendental argument? Ryan Clancy? Two dollars? Well,
given that the transcendent argument is prior to argumentation, it's
an argument for an entire paradigm, and thus it would
be a category error to think that the transcendental argument
for God is some kind of abstracted conceptual thing that
is equivalent to logical argumentation. It's the precondition for logic
and argumentation. But it uses logic. Correct, It's that's unavoidable.
Every argument uses logic, even metallogical arguments, And that's the
point servant of the almighty two dollars. How do I
start reading? If my brain is fried, I would take
it easy and start small. So don't you know a
lot of times people in a lot of different arenas
and disciplines, you know, they want to take on like
the most extravagant, you know, extreme thing. Oh, I just
bought my first guitar. I'm gonna learn you know, all
of Jimmy Page's solos. Okay, well, you're probably not gonna
be able to do that when you just bought your guitar, right,
You're gonna need to learn the basics, So you gotta
start small. Don't try to Oh, I just decide I'm
gonna start reading. I'm gonna I'm gonna pick up Brothers
Karamatsov can On. No, you don't need to start there.
If you're new to reading and you want to read
something simple theologically speaking, I would say something like God's
Revelation to the Human Heart by Father Sara from Rose.
And if you want to start getting in the practice
of reading fictional texts, I would say start with Narnia. Yeah,
I'm not kidding now. I know it's written for kids,
but it's also written for kids back when kids were
way more educated than they are today. So if you're
new to reading, you're probably reading at a kid level.
And not being to be mean, I'm saying quite literally,
you're probably reading what a young grade schooler was reading
in England one hundred years ago. So take it easy
and you work your way up from that to something like,
you know, a little more advanced reading texts in both
fiction and nonfiction. I would say to be a competent
reader or an educated person. It's not just academic texts.
It's not just you also need to be able to
understand and interpret literature, because guess what significant portions of
the Bible are literature. In other words, if God saw
fit to speak in various ways in literature and in history,
and in gospel and an epistle and in proverb, then
it stands to reason that perhaps we should be well
educated if we want to be educated. Nobody's forcing you.
You don't have to be educated. There's no requirement that
you have to be, you know, an academic or something
like that. Different people have different gifts, and that's fine,
there's nothing wrong with that. But if you are so inclined,
then yeah, I would say start out with reading, you know,
something simple in both nonfiction and fiction, and then working
a way up to more advanced texts. A ten dollars
congratulations to all the new Orthodox that received this lastra Saturday,
and those will be received at postco welcome home. Absolutely,
did you know that we had a guy, Father Deacon.
I don't know if you heard this, if you're still here,
there was a guy who commented and said that in
the UK under one I couldn't tell if he was
saying under one bishop or just one priest under a bishop.
They had two hundred people brought in this last week
in the UK at one parish. Two hundred at one parish.
That's crazy. Luis Toro five dollars. Can you do an
end up video on Pentecostals. There's sixty five million in
America now, supposedly between them in charismatics. We have addressed
it many times. I've done many no new revelation videos,
and I've done many, you know, evangelical megachurch videos which
would include them. But yes, I guess we can do
a whole stream dedicated just to Pentecostals and Charismatics. That's
probably a good idea. Gumstick twenty dollars. Thank you for
all these streams, Jay gob Blis, thank you man. I
appreciate that. Happy Good Friday to everybody, and I want
to remind everybody that we do have a special message
from Father Vladimir. He said to me to tell everyone
to not be caught up in drama and to focus
on the most important thing, which is going to church.
So to all you signalers who are asking me why
I'm talking about this today, it's precisely because he was.
He asked me to talk about these things today and
to remind everybody to not care about internet drama because
in two months, nobody will care about internet drama, but
Pasca will matter in two months, you see. So the
message for the third time from Father Vladimir to me
and to all of you is to make sure to
go to church, especially at this time when the spiritual
warfare is so heavy and the grace is heavy. You see,
the grace is heavy right now, and tonight is the
shroud service. I believe that's right. As browseie ten dollars.
I went to get a haircut, the dude that cut
my hair and brought up that fake ass Kay Perry
astronaut thing, and it turned into one hour of talks
about conspiracy and then it led to the Big Nine event.
That's usually how it goes. One event brings up all
the other events and then you're then you're into discussing.
And look, the public is not uh literate. Remember we
saw this with Jose when he called in and he
was reading out stats that like only half of America
can actually read pool sign instructions and not just verbally
like phonetically repeat it, but actually understand the pool sign instructions.
I mean, that sounds pretty wild, but I kind of
I'm thinking maybe it's not that Well, so we're not
just dealing with a bunch of hard headed goobers, We're
also dealing with illiterate, arrogant people who are all becoming
incarnations of Dunning Krueger Peka knock five dollars. When are
you going to do your next open geopolitics stream? I
have questions and comments on Kosovo. I mean, all I
know about Kosovo is what's in the what Bob Behar
wrote about. I'm not talking about the fake interview with
Bob Bhar. I'm talking about what's in his book, and
what's in Coleman's book on Serbia, and what's in the
chapter in Mark Curtis's book, which by the way, is
going to be very important in the apostate profit debate.
So beyond that, I'm not sure, Like I'm not an
I'm not some expert on you know, Melusavic and the
Serbian situation. I could just tell you what I've read
in those books. Excuse me, all right, we got to
get to the questions here or we'll not get.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 10: Now, if you do have a you know, sort of
Q and A questions, that's fine today. I will go
to them, but let's make them quick and let's get
to the point. If you're here to ask a question,
ask the question. We don't need you preaching. Please don't
ramble on and on on. And if you're here to debate,
let me know and then we'll go into the debate format.
It's up to you, guys. But I am giving precedent
today to people who want to ask the FAQ style
questions because we always get those, and they always call
in when I'm doing debates. So today is for you.
Al Queum project twenty dollars. As a Protestant, how come
pastors and elders become angry when I ask how come
they don't talk about teaching us prayer and fasting and
the interpretation of the scripture's church history, chanting the Psalms.
It seems like a common theme in most churches. Well
that's because Protestantism is a sect. So you know, I'm
not trying to be rude to you or offend you,
but Protestanism does not have the sacraments, it doesn't have
the tradition, it doesn't have the correct canon scripture, it
doesn't have all the things that you're asking questions about.
So that's why your Protestant pastor is not going to
give you sufficient answers. And hey, it's okay, I've been there.
I had all the same questions to my Protestant pastors
when I was asking these questions in two thousand and one,
two three taint enough and five dollars. Demons is a
underrated lcfsky book. Yeah, I would like to put it.
I would like to do it. I've only read Notes
from the Underground and Crime and Punishment, and I've read
the chapter on what's it called Grand Inquisitor. So if
you take lit classes, even if you don't read the
entirety of Brothers Kermonts of you will have a class
on Grand Inquisitor just that chapter. So but anyway, I
want to read Idiot, I want to read Demons. I
want to read the rest of Brothers Karmonts because I
really liked Notes from the under Ground and Crime and Punishment.
We had a whole grad class on Crime and Punishment.
I enjoyed it. Chandler White twenty dollars. I'm a cateechym
and I'll be baptized at Pentecosts as long as as
well as with my four kids. My wife, however, is
dabbling in Mormonism prior to my interest in this in
the church or the our church. She's resistant to joining
myself and the kids. Do you have any advice? Well,
I mean, if she's open to listening to argumentation and critiques,
then go watch the four hour deep dive that Jim,
Bob and I just did on Mormonism. If she's not
interested in hearing the critiques, I'm not sure what you
can do other than to just pray for her and
you know, be kind. Luis Toro five dollars. I'm not
asking or answering those questions because they would pertain to
private issues. Jonathan Kelly health issues. Jonathan Kelly five dollars,
triplely mention you on a Shields podcast in the appearance
he talked about geo politics. Is there an appearance about
geopolitics and the cards? It depends on where they want
to go, because I'm not pro tiny mustache man, so
I don't know how committed he is to his oddball
pro tiny mustache man positions. Brian Ramirez FI dollars, what
are you aposti profit? Going to debate whether the West
Western intelligence agencies, including all of them, have been involved
in funding ISIS and al Kada, funding army and training them.
Lawrence John fifty knocks Happy Paska to you from a
Romanian Orthodox in Norway. Thanks, man, appreciate that same to you.
Whenever I see the Knox currency, which is, you know,
Nordic currency, I always think of North Korea. I don't
know because it's Inokay, and I'm like, how are they
sending me fifty North Korean currencies? Anyway? All right, let's
go to open chat today again. Is to remind you, guys,
precedents given to people who have cateycuman faq questions, because
those people always call in when I'm doing debates. Today
is for you guys. If you do want to debate,
you can still call in. I will still engage you
in a discourse if that is what you'd like. But
let's get keep it quick. We don't need a you know,
fifty minutes of rerambling. Let's get to the point. What's up?
So far.
Speaker 5: I Hey, Drean, what's up man?
Speaker 21: I have a quick question about Christian ethics and specifically
like forgiveness towards others.
Speaker 20: Now.
Speaker 21: I don't know if you've like spoken on this in
the past, and I know it's a bit like political
right now, but with like the Metcalf situation, right, a
man like forgiving someone who murdered his don like remorselessly.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Yeah, So the answer to this is that there's
no discrepancy or contradiction between desiring that there be justice
on behalf of the public and your family and other families,
and you at a personal level, eventually, through God's grace,
being able to at a personal level, forgive someone. So
both of those things can coexist at the same time.
Because if we're think about it, if we're dominated by
the principle of love, it's very similar to when the
Muslims asked Cyril and Methodius, how do you maintain the
commandment to keep Christ's love? But also you fight against
Muslims and warfare and defend people, And the saint Cyril
and Methodias said to give one's life for another, even
in battle, is an action of love, and so there's
no discrepancy between loving and forgiving your enemies on a
personal level and at the same time hoping for divine
justice and self defense.
Speaker 21: So like a judge can love a criminal but still
like justly sentence them, understand that.
Speaker 10: He has a duty to it would be a crime
against justice to not hold to the law. And likewise,
if the father of this guy does not want justice,
then that's actually a crime against the rest of society.
Speaker 22: Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 10: Yeah, So it cuts both ways that people want to
try to use this as some and by the way,
a lot of people are cowards, and cowards will use
supposed forgiveness and tolerance and love for a cloak for
every bit of wickedness, every bit of cowardice, and every vice.
In fact, even some of the saints and elders point
out that a lot of people's piety is a cloak
for their own cowardice and their own vices.
Speaker 4: Jeremy, hey, Hey, my question is in orthodoxy, a is
there certain things that you're not allowed to consume, such
as like pork, alcohol, medicinal cannabis.
Speaker 10: I don't think there's any set law on pork and foods.
Why would we not eat pork? Paul says that every
food is given by is cleansed by the word of
God in prayer. Right, So we're not Muslims. And then
the other issues would be more of an individual situation
about whether you can have medical cannabis or whether that's
a right fit for you. I believe that it is
a medicinal plant, and I don't think there's anything inherently
evil with it, and I'm sure that other substances as well, right,
could be used in medicinal ways. That doesn't mean that
I'm saying that you should get you know, drunk, or
should get messed up, or should lose your you know,
faculty of reasoning. So in my view, you know, it's
not really the substance itself that is the problem. It's
anything that causes you to lose your reasoning faculty such
that you can no longer function in a you know,
rational way that could then lead you to doing something worse. Right,
So it's not like there's some blood alcohol level content
that once you get over this percentage, now it's a
mortal sin. That's like a ridiculous Roman Cavol gratitude. It's
rather that it's not this problem in the substance it's
the problem in you, in a non judicious, wise manner,
using the substance to put yourself or others in danger.
That's where it becomes a problem. That's why people who
you know engage in too much drinking and wreck can
be guilty of manslaughter, you know, in a drunk driving
accident or whatever. So but everybody i think wants to
have this kind of like legalistic attitude of like, oh, no,
tobacco itself is wrong. Oh no, Well, all the people
who argue that pretty much are I mean, they're totally inconsistent.
When you start arguing about something inherently being wrong or
bad and not in other contexts being use profitable, it's
missing the point. Right, all things are lawful, Paul says,
but not all things are profitable. So it's a matter
of how and why and when it's being used. Right, So,
in some cases, one action can be virtuous in another
situation in the case is the same action can be
a crime. And that's why you have law courts that
have to determine and you don't just have everything in
a black or white scenario, because not everything is some
easy black and white scenario. It's just kind of like obvious,
common sense spirit led what's.
Speaker 19: Up, hey, j can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Uh huh.
Speaker 11: So I got a quick question about the relationship roles
between men and women in a marriage and kind of
how would you explain that leadership dynamic and how should
a relationship function in that circumstance.
Speaker 10: Well, I mean it's kind of obvious in the scriptures
or the New Testament right that men are supposed to
be the leader, men or the patriarch. Men have the authority.
Women are supposed to submit to that authority. I mean,
it's pretty much clear as day. That doesn't mean that
a man has the authority or the ability to be
a tyrant or to be manipulative and abusive. Body does
have authority in the same way that in the church,
the priest has the authority. It's not the women's committee
that runs the church, although many churches are run by
the women committee, whatever that is. I mean, I mean,
it's just I mean, I'm not trying to be rude
or dismissive, but like, what what do you mean? Like
it's an I'll say this, like I disagree with Tim
Gordon when he says that Proverbs thirty one is not
about a pattern for women, that it's some sort of
judaic What did he call it? He said, the Proverbs
thirty one is a judaic.
Speaker 5: Queen.
Speaker 10: I'm trying to think how we put it. It's like
the pattern of life for a judaic queen. Why would
God include that in proverbs when that would apply to
basically no one else in history. I mean, it defeats
the whole purpose of the Proverbs thirty one. So I
do not think that it's bad or wrong for a
woman to have their side business, to have their side income,
to do that kind of stuff if it doesn't interfere
with the first priority, which is to be a mother,
to be a wife, to be you know those things
that comes first. B att sales. I guess Jay's getting
a divorce. Yes, no, I'm not getting a divorce. I hope,
I hope you guys are joking. So he's making a
joke because Sam Shamun said that.
Speaker 5: So so what, uh?
Speaker 11: I guess what is the level at which a woman
should say Hey, this isn't right and kind of stand
up for herself versus submitting to authority.
Speaker 5: And how does that dynamic work?
Speaker 10: I guess is kind of what It's just like with
me and a priest. Right, So my priest is my authority,
but he's that doesn't give him the license to be
an abusive tyrant, right, so I submit to him within
due reason. Likewise a wife submits to her husband within
due reason. There's all there's always limitations on authority, and
you can't worship authority. And I would say that probably
in some of the trad circles you even have this
tendency to worship authority because if you think about the
Roman Catholics view, right, Roman Catholics treat the papacy as
the ultimate authority that must be worshiped. Well, we don't
worship authority, we worship God. And there's a hierarchy of
with these authorities where you have, you know, you have
spheres of authority and limitations on it, which means that
they can't go outside those boundaries or else they're violating
the higher authority above them.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 10: So let me I've said this many times. So let's
say my priest comes and says, the bishop and the
church have decided that you must sell your properties and
give them money to the church, and if you don't,
we will excommunicate you. That would be them going outside
the balance of their limitations and their sphere of authority.
Speaker 5: Right, churches that actually do that, by the way.
Speaker 10: I'm sure there are there's thousands of cults and con
men out there. So if a husband said to the
wife something like we're going to join this Buddhist sect
and you're gonna do it because I tell you too,
because you're my wife, well, in that situation, the husband
is going above and beyond the legitimate authority above him,
which is God, and commanding something that is against divine law. Right,
So the woman has a duty to rebel, just like
the early Christians that had duty to not worship Caesar.
So when you understand limitations and spheres of authority, which
I would argue that nowadays only the Orthodox Church has
actually preserved this idea. It's actually abused in the tradcat
world where you have Tim Gordon saying stuff like Proverbs
thirty one doesn't apply today because it's about a Judaic
queen in her life. It's like that, why would that
be in Proverbs? Has no relevance or use to anyone
out else in the history of the Church. When Proverbs
thirty one has been read by the church and even
as Athanatius says, that's for to Cumans. Okay, well, why
would we be reading Catechuman literature in Proverbs thirty one,
which has no relevance to anybody except for five Jewish
queens in history. I mean, it's just this bizarre interpretation
that tim gave to Proverbs thirty one because that doesn't
fit with their idea, which again is based on Augustinians
or remember the Augustinian view the only purpose of sex
is pro creation. Augustine didn't even believe in the unitive
aspect of it, which post Vatican Two popes have actually altered.
They through the Theology of the Body, have rejected the
older Augustinian position and they say, well, there actually is
also a unitive aspect to marriage. It's not like, you know,
they have this attitude like God or that like Satan
is behind the pleasure principle in the sexual act. And
that's why Augustine had a hard time explaining how marriage
could be a sacrament when it includes necessarily some degree
of sin. So every tradcat is in this weird kind
of contradictory position where on the one hand, they want
to have these strict legal positions based on it's not
even based on like divine revelation and tradition, it's actually
based on arist Atilian philosophy of purpose. According to the
Ristitilian theology of purpose or philosophy of purpose, your sexual
organs only have one purpose, which is to produce offspring.
So the only the primary purpose of marriage has to
be the production of offspring, and anything else is either
tertiary or denied. Now post John pulled the second and
the theology of the body, the Roman calicies now admit,
well there's other purposes too, right, units of purpose, pleasure, purpose, right,
all of the things are there now, but they didn't
used to be. So the point of all that is
just to say that there's there's not going to be
an easy, one size fits all answer to something that's
very complex that deals with life in the modern world.
And just because women are raised in a modern feminist society,
it's not their fault that they were told to go
to college and to do all this stuff. So it's
not worth berating and sort of beating them down when
that's what they were raised with and that's what they
were taught, just like I was raised with and taught
that I needed to go to college and get all
these degrees. And I mean, I wasted all this money
that I wish i'd put into Bickle. I didn't want
to go to college. Initially I thought it was a
big scam and it was a joke. But I had
a lot of people prompting me and advising me to
go to college. And I don't blame them, because that's
just like the attitude that boomers had. So likewise, most
girls have been raised with the idea that they're supposed
to go to college and do all the slave queen stuff,
even if it's not the best scenario overall for their life.
And as they get older, when they're PhDs and when
they're CEOs, and they realized that men don't care about that.
Men don't care that you got a PhD and you're
a CEO. So Jay just kind of follow up on
what you said with you, so hold on, hold on,
and to balance that out. That's the nuanced view about women.
And then at the same time, though you have in
the church all these people who are wissas and emotionally led,
and they want women to teach, they want women to
be priests, they want women to do everything that men
do they want women running the church through their stupid
parish committees or whatever. All that stuff is kuckianity, and
it even exists in the Orthodox world unfortunately, because it's everywhere.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's hilarious.
Speaker 11: But so I guess my follow up to that would be,
as a leader in a relationship, it's important for you
to know what God deems right and wrong. So it's
your responsibility to also know as well right as far
as because sometimes women will just say, oh, I feel
like you're being really mean, or I feel like.
Speaker 5: You're being this way or that way.
Speaker 11: And that's not necessarily like abusing authority for a woman
to just simply feel like like you're being harsh, right, So.
Speaker 5: I guess how do you kind of define that and
how does that dynamic?
Speaker 10: I mean, there's such a vague question, like no, of course,
a woman feeling like you were mean doesn't mean that
you did anything wrong. So I just I don't understand
what you're wanting me to answer about, Like.
Speaker 11: Well, it's because in the Bible it says don't be harsh,
So I guess, how how does the Orthodox Church define harshness?
Speaker 10: There's not going to be like scientific definitions of scholastical
definition for every single term when when it's about applying.
So it's like, uh, you know. Father Deacon made this
point a few months ago about one of Andrew's debates
on whatever, and they were trying to trap Andrew, and
they said something like, could what if the human race
was reduced in number in an apocalypse? And I'm trying
to I don't remember exactly, but it's something like, could
a could polygamy be be vindicated in a situation where
the human races aduced in numbers or something something like that,
And I don't remember how Andrew answered it. But the
point of virtue ethics that even Aristotle points out is
that there's not a black and white, like set response
or answer to every single situation. That's why the scriptures
lay out what are called case laws or patterns of
law based on a case. And because life is complex
and complicated, there's not an easy, simple answer to every
single problem. But a lot of Spergs, I'm not talking
about you, but a lot of simple minded young people
they think that the Bible is a rule book where
I can go and find and they do the same
thing with canon law. I scroll through and I compile
together in a bunch of quote minds, all the answers
that are black and white for every possible difficulty or
scenario in life, right, and then they assume that you
just have an easy answer. That's not how law works.
It's not how it works in the secular world. It's
not how it works in biblical law. There's no black
and white easy answers. There's not going to be the
you know, the saint who defines dogmatically for you what
counts as being harsh to your wife. It's it's a
lived experience. The whole point of what FDA's answer was
to the dilemma that they posed to Andrew on whatever
like a year ago, was that it's not a black
and white there's not an actual easy, black white answer
to that, because in some situations, the only answer to
a moral dilemma is the wisdom that a virtuous man
can apply to the situation you see, and that's what
you see. For example, with Solomon, when Solomon is presented
with the two prostitutes fighting over the baby, does Solomon
have a case law that tells him the black and
white answer. Here's what you do when you have two
prostitutes finding over a baby. Oh here's the mosaic. That's
the Talmudic idea that you can have like an actual
answer to every single possible problem.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 10: It just it's silly. So you need wise men with
discernment that like Solomon was a wise man who applied
the principles of the law to the scenario to say,
we will chop the creature in half, and half goes
to one hoe and the half goes to the other, hope.
And that was the means by which Solomon was able
to demonstrate who the real mom was, because the real
mom would be willing to give up her child and
to lose it. See. So there's no case law that
tells you how to handle chopping up horror babes in disputes,
you see.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, no, I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Jay.
Speaker 11: I yield my questions for now.
Speaker 10: Thanks so much for your time, vain. Let's make the questions.
So let's keep moving here, Labor Republican ten dollars, Happy
good Friday. Would you debate a Marxist? I mean, the
only one who ever tried was Hawes, and he had
a meltdown and went crazy. I saw a video where
you're devised against it. I mean, because Marxists don't believe
really in they don't believe that debate is geared towards
arriving at truth. Marxists believed that debate is a way
to further revolution. So have you discussed tag and relation
to Kant? Probably one hundred times. L's w welcome, crisp
g Welcome became members Ryan. Ryan's channel is Orthodox Dogmatics
by Palmezansky.
Speaker 5: Good.
Speaker 10: Yes, it's a pretty standard Catechisist book. What's up, vain, vain?
Are you there? What's up? All right? We can't hear you, man, Lucy,
what's up?
Speaker 5: Hello?
Speaker 10: Hey?
Speaker 13: Hi?
Speaker 6: Uh So I have a question from a friend here.
Oh he's Catholic. Is He essentially believes that the filly
okay is is the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity. And
he quotes specifically the Council of Florence and it says, quote,
we declare that when the Greeks say the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father through the Son, this is the same.
Speaker 10: Yeah. So go read the Tomos against John Becos, which
is a rejection of that position. So no, that's not
the Orthodox, and there's no Orthodox person in the world
that says that we'll double agree that that is our position.
The Tomos against John Becos. You can find it online
and addresses that specifically. I can't read your name.
Speaker 8: What's up.
Speaker 10: I'm you Arabic guy, I'm you?
Speaker 5: Oh, yes, yes, I really liked your input.
Speaker 23: Like in my religion, Yes, a higher key is conditional, you.
Speaker 16: Know, like I think there is a conditions for a
man to be the head of household.
Speaker 5: Sometimes a man can lose I don't know if you
agree with me.
Speaker 16: I think we agree on that a man can lose
his position as the head and the king of the
house if he's like you know, if he's married to
a woman but he's a drug addict, alcoholic.
Speaker 10: Oh yeah, that's actually an Orthodox can of law that, yeah,
you can lose that position. It's not a yes, it's
not like a lot of husbands are not indefectible, right yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 16: So for me, like I have to deserve to be
the head of household, but if I lose it, that
doesn't mean if your wife can make more money than you,
lose it.
Speaker 5: No, you still I still?
Speaker 14: I mean to me to be honest, I never even
if my.
Speaker 5: Woman got for a bit, she makes more money than me.
I will never make it pay the bills. You know,
you lose some of that high because a man should
take care of his family and he should be the
one they look up to.
Speaker 16: But they then a man can lose that position. And
and also you said any authority that's not a worship
authority's conditional.
Speaker 10: Yes, exactly, all of its correct, absolutely great points. All
all authority is conditional. And it's really the sort of
papers mindset where you can infallibly. You know, you're an
indefectible husband. Well, if you become a you know, drug addict, deadbeat,
you know, beating up people, abusing the youth, I mean
you you still have the role, but the wife is
no longer been on to you. She can remove herself
from that situation by other or even Roman Catholics believe
that even Romancalolks believe that they can be separated. It's
just the Romancalous stay that the woman can't remarry it, right,
because they have this extreme lealistic attitude, which they didn't
even used to have in the first seven hundred years
of the church. So what's up man based By the way,
here's Proverbs thirty one that talks about what a virtuous
wife is and you'll notice these are the words of
King le Mule. But that doesn't mean that this only
applies to judaic wives. That's just so stupid. I mean,
I loved Tim. I hope Tim, you know, does to
take this the wrong way. But the idea that I
don't have to listen to Proverbs thirty one because it's
for judaic queens, so an entire chapter in the Bible
that has no relevance to anyone else in history except
for like five people. I mean, that's just silly. And
the woman in Proverbs thirty one is able to put
her children first, right, as well as engaging in having
her own side business. She got a side household dog.
Ain't nothing wrong with that. However, it is true that
this woman also has quite a bit of wealth and
she has servants, right, So not every woman has to
have a business, right everybody sees everything in such like
low iq simplistic either ors. This is so annoying, like,
especially in the delusional religious world where we have, as
I'm beginning to see more and more over the years,
so many just insane, delusional people with personality disorders who
are on meds and people that nobody in the in
their right mind would ever listen to were it not
just for Internet. Right, the only reason they have an
audience is Internet. They have no episcopal oversight, no authority
over them. They're not held in checked or held accountable
to anyone else but themselves. And it's just it's just
insane level of delusion. Right. But I don't see anything
about Proverbs thirty one that would somehow make it irrelevant
to today because it's only for ancient Judaic queen lifestyles, right,
lifestyles of the ancient Judaic queens or something if it's
a reality show. I just I don't buy that. Bays,
did you want to speak? And then we'll go to
father Deacon?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 5: What's up?
Speaker 20: You hear me?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 19: Uh yeah, so uh it's actually funny. It seems like
we've had very similar experiences in life where you're moved
from Protestantism.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I had that college influence on me as well.
I just I'm a Protestant.
Speaker 19: I guess I've always identified Protestant, but I'm kinda with
everybody else with this whole wave of consider orthodoxy.
Speaker 5: And I just had a couple of.
Speaker 24: Questions as I look around, so like as a Protestant
all my life, you know you're.
Speaker 5: Gonna there's so much ambiguity with like.
Speaker 19: Which churches will teach what is actually the truth and
stuff like that, Like you know, New Bible Baptist over
here teaches this doctrine that is completely different from you know,
First Baptist Church over here, but they claim to be
the same denomination and stuff.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I'm not trying to let's get get to the
question because we've got twenty five people who want to
get in here. So get to the question.
Speaker 19: Yep, got to Yeah, So is there any thing I
should be looking out for when I'm looking for an
Orthodox church as far as like which.
Speaker 24: Ones are going to be?
Speaker 19: Like is it a uniform doctrine that I just look
for the nearest Orthodox church?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 10: Look, just check all the ones out and find the
one that's the best fit for you near you otherwise. Yeah,
I mean if they start talking about you know, Mechalolic saints,
so they start talking about skittles stuff, then you know
you got a bad one. Father digging, does you want
to add anything?
Speaker 5: No, I'm just calling somebody hasn't question.
Speaker 10: Could I would you speak briefly perhaps to that issue
of what you were getting at with. Sometimes what's needed
is the virtuous man in virtue ethics versus as sort
of like where is the specific canon law that tells
me what to do in this case?
Speaker 13: Yeah, so, I mean it's just kind of indictive, indicative
of a kind of a modern mindset. I noticed that
people tend to approach ethical questions either in kind of
a utilitarian way or the opposite, like a contium way,
that there's just well, there's just these moral imperatives and
you just follow them. But in antiquity, you know, going
back to Aristotle was a virtue ethics and so you know,
cases are difficult. Now, that's not to say.
Speaker 5: One thing that came up recently that I.
Speaker 13: Was talking to people about is the distinction between objectivity
and absolutism.
Speaker 5: So those are two different categories. So objective objectivity and.
Speaker 13: Ethics has to do with the status of a moral
principle or morality, which we would say is objective. It's
you know, it's not dependent on a group of people
or an individual human being. Absolute has to do with
the stringency how that's applied everywhere at all times. And
the third category add to is something called ethical monism.
A lot of these people approach that. So ethical monism
nothing to do with the issue of relativity, like whether
ethics is reallyative. That has to do with is applying
moral principles only applied in one way.
Speaker 5: And at all times. So orthodox would be.
Speaker 13: What's called ethical plural pluraliss and so it would say
is that, yeah, there are objective moral principles, how that's
applied and how that looks in different situations, cultures and
times will differ. For example, the love of your parents
or something like that, or a neighbor that's objective and
one will appeal to that, but how it gets out
in the details, and a particular culture.
Speaker 5: Might look different. For example, you know, in terms you
might offer.
Speaker 13: A dowry of a cow too, you know, in terms
of respecting your elders or something in marriage or something.
Obviously we don't do that, but the objective principle is
you know, respective ones, elders.
Speaker 5: Or something like that.
Speaker 13: So anyways, on these kind of nuances and difficulties, there
is no kind of formula. It's applied to the same degree.
It's the same way, and so it takes the wise
man who's and.
Speaker 10: This is why Spurgs can't get this and they have
a hard time with it.
Speaker 5: Yes, and I love it too, because.
Speaker 13: The scripture says God hides the wisdom from the wise,
that to get the answer is to become like God.
It's not to get the formula, and that we just
mechanically work through. And so it's actually great that the Spurgs.
It annoys the Spurgs. It's like, yeah, it's not available
to you, Like, that's.
Speaker 5: Not how the world works, and that's not how faith
w works in the.
Speaker 10: Church right well, to placate the piety signalers, We've got
to hurry because I have to go to church. I
know that some people love to teut and do performances
of their prayers and talk about church, but I'm trying
to get out of here before four fifteen. I'm not
talking to you, father Deacon. I'm talking to the people
who are fussing about why I would do a stream
on Good Friday. Well, guess what, I'm going to church.
So does that satisfy all you piety signalers? Do you
want me to do? You want me to take the
live stream into the church with me? Would that make
you happy? Why don't you all go to church and
stop fussing. H Brosey, what's up, man, Let's let's let's guys,
let's make it quick. Let's move through the questions so
that I can get to there's twenty over twenty people
in line. What's up?
Speaker 18: Thanks you good, Jake? Hey, Yeah, I didn't know. I
didn't have a question. I just wanted to add something
because it applies to like another something about the feminism
or specifically like the I guess the marriage question that
guy a couple of minutes ago just asked, because it
kind of ties into the societal problem where having with
the like I guess it kind of is more of
an IQ thing because it gets back to false dielectic.
Speaker 10: So one thing that the feminists, and they've.
Speaker 18: Been extremely clearly, extremely successful with this is is is
like pinning men down with these extreme false dielectics. Yes,
it's either there, there is there is no, there is
no in between. There is no a man is able
to do this in a marriage woman.
Speaker 4: No, no, no.
Speaker 18: If you if you want any sort of authority over
a woman, that's just complete control. Absolutely, there is no submission.
The word submission is like vendom to these damn people.
And so yeah, you have to allow her to choose
whatever the hell it is she wants to do within
the marriage for it to be healthy. But if you
don't do X, Y and Z, we obviously all the
more important things, provide protect care for y'all, YadA, y'all,
then we'll You know, you're kind of a piece of
a piece of shit, man.
Speaker 10: So yeah, there's definitely a double center going on. Absolutely,
and I'm absolutely one of center posed to feminism. But
I think what's happened is you're gonna get this. I
think a lot of this red pill is going to
open the way to Islam, and I think Muslim backers
are pushing a lot of the stuff to open the
door to people in the West transitioning from Look, the
churches are all basically feminized, which is accurate in a
large portion of America, and that doesn't seem to be convincing,
and so you can all these red pill people the
taps come out talking about it, then suddenly they're Muslims.
I think it's going to be this doorway into Islam. Now,
to the guy in the chat who's talking smack about
autistic people, Dan, You're welcome to call in because I
don't know if you are aware of this. Father Deacon
himself has conferences geared towards helping young theology nerds not
be that way. So you're bitching about the very thing
that we address all the time on my channel. The
discord has since its inception, had energy in there directing
people to perishes. It's a complete lie that people say
that all the Orthobros, it's a totally online movement. Nobody
actually goes to church. I go and meet these people
at the churches. It's just not true. It's a lie,
and it's a lie because we don't know. Anybody can
create Twitter profiles, anybody can say anything they want on
the Internet. And then the a bunch of liars and
repeat the lies that, oh Orthobros, they don't even go
to church. I heard diar those that you who go
to church, even though I've had my priest on many times.
It's it's ridiculous. Father Deacon just came down here to
my church and we did a conference. We did an
icon conference at the parish, which is made up and
doesn't exist. Right, fake conference, fake church, fake Ortho bros. Right,
it's all ridiculous, Lord Sidcup, Let's make it quick. What's up?
Speaker 5: Hello?
Speaker 14: What would your advice father diacken and generrapy to someone
who struggles with purpose and meeting in life?
Speaker 10: I mean, go to church. How's up? Go to the
Orthodox Church? Jordan? What's up, hija?
Speaker 5: Can you hear me? Awesome? Let me be quick.
Speaker 14: So I'm catea Cuman getting adaptized on tomorrow. But I
came across there's some Orthodox and he was this Antiochan guy.
Speaker 5: I think it's antioch Is.
Speaker 14: I love him, but he was pointing me to awards
that there are some priests and and such who teach
some things that sound or that aren't.
Speaker 5: Like a P S A P know.
Speaker 14: SOI between teman like Father decided to treat in one
of his catechysical cate of Cuman classes on the Creed
and on the part with on Jesus God.
Speaker 5: And then Daniel saysific.
Speaker 14: In the Law of God speaks about like Christ taking
on like the like, not just suffering, but taking on
something spiritual into something. So my question to you is
is there some sort of like middle ground between PSA
and or like just the orthodoposition.
Speaker 10: Like say, so again, let's be clear here penal substitutionary
atonement is a Protestant Classical Reformation doctrine. Language that's used
by an Orthodox priest or Church Fathers that talks about
the penal aspect or a substitution aspect does not equate
to the Protestant doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. And everyone
is getting hung up on language and word concept fallacies
and reading Protestant baggage into the terminology, and it's entirely
possible that an Orthodox priest can do that as well.
We live in a culture where you've got people converting
out of Protestism into Orthodoxy and they may still accidentally
have some of that baggage. I don't know, because I
have not seen the catechetical talks in question. But it
doesn't matter because we already know that there is no
possibility in Orthodox theology for there to be a commonality
of the penal substitutionary imputational doctrine. That is not possible,
That doesn't exist in the Church Fathers at all. You
can find language that's legal, you can find language about
substitution that does not equate to the second person of
the Godhead being damned. That's not possible, So that should
make it simple for everybody, and go listen to all
the talks and lectures that I've done on PSA, Jack,
what's up? Jack?
Speaker 5: What's up?
Speaker 10: You gotta have your mic on if you want to
chat Seguido. We got a super chat from Tojo Hogg.
What do you think about old calendars? I mean rokor
is old calendar? So do you mean schismatics? Avoid all schismatics?
Odd Harvey three dollars. Additionally, my sister said she consulted
with her reachers. Reachers, what does that mean? We're talking
about Mormons. They conclude that when Paul said women should
not lead, that was only for that time. I mean,
who cares what some Protestant says?
Speaker 18: Hi, J did you hear me?
Speaker 5: The mic?
Speaker 23: YEP, can't take take us so far as to only
affirm the Christian Trinity or all all the way to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 10: There's no such thing as a Christian trinity. That not
the Orthodox Trinity. That's the only one.
Speaker 23: I just converted so from Protestantism, and a lot of
friends keep asking me.
Speaker 10: Yeah, so the Trinity is not a doctrine that's shared
by Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and everyone else. There's a
term that they believe called trinity, and there's some things
that line up, But you don't have the trinity without
the energies. There is no doctrine of the Trinity without
the energies. And if you understand Orthodox trinity and theology,
you know why that's the case. There's no other way
to know the Trinity or experience and live in the
life of the Trinity without the divine energies. So no,
there is no Now, they might be inconsistent and have
partial truth, right, a Protestant could have partial truth about Yeah,
I believe in three persons, one essence, so that's the Trinity.
But that's not the Trinity. There's more to the Trinity
than that. There is only the Orthodox monarchical trinity doctrine
that it has the energies auction. There is no doctrine
in the Trinity without energies. Jose, Guys, remember let's make
it quick. If you have a question, asked the question
so that we can move on to the twenty other people.
Jose was up, did.
Speaker 8: Jay I just wanted to do quick follow up on
the literacy recommendations you gave with Narnia, as well as
what you said about Tim Tim Gordon too, and the propabse.
Speaker 5: Thirty one Woman.
Speaker 8: So I know, in terms of yeah, I agree the Narnia.
Narnia books are fantastic. In another book that read after it,
that I also consider probably one of the greatest works
in English the twentieth century is a Watershipped Down, which
is also a strong recommendation and for adults. It is
made for children, but for adults who've not read it,
you will love it as well. It is it is
it's essentially I mean, it's like an epic but written
for children. So one wants exposure to, you know, build
up the muscles to be able to read and epic
aimed at adults, Watership Down is an excellent place to start.
Speaker 5: And you were correct too on the cosmic based trilogy.
Speaker 8: The second book, it's very heavy in the classics, and
so for those who want to get exposure to the classics,
I thought there's a set called the Junior Classics.
Speaker 20: There was.
Speaker 8: The first edition was in nineteen ten's, the second popular
edition was in the nineteen fifties, and Castolia Libraries publishing
the third edition. Currently there are ten volumes, eight with
the Castalia ones because they haven't published the ninth and
tenth yet one yet, but it's essentially a collection. It's
like a what do you call a collection of the
various excerpts from the classics that are aimed at children. Well,
originally it was aimed at children between six and sixteen,
so for those who don't have you know, for those
who are among the majority illiterate population, that would be
if you're interested in being able to read the classics,
that would be the place to start, because it is
it's literally think there are plenty of stories there that
were where they selected stuff specifically for six year olds.
So it's a place where you can get your teeth
or you know, start cutting your teeth on. And I
would yeah, and yeah, that would definitely help. The one
was to go through the Cosmic Space trilogy. Having gone
through that, you get through the awesome.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 10: I appreciate those recommendations. And everybody check out Jose when
he calls in over on cotail streams. Now, before we
go to this, I want to address the guy who
was fussing about the music. Listen. I don't know if
you guys are new to orthodoxy, but I guarantee you, uh,
you're a priest and your confessor and you're you're a
spiritual father. They're going to tell you the same things
that I'm going to tell you right here. So we
don't have the same attitude that Ruman Catholics, Charismatics and
Protestants and perhaps other groups as well have towards your
good works you're fasting and what you're up to. We
don't need to know that you're fasting from you music today.
We don't need to know what your fasting regimen is. Okay, So,
Adolph Abara, you texted me again. My bad. I was
not judging you. I'm asking from ignorance. I'm a new
Christian because of your loud music intro. I'm avoiding music today.
We don't need to know what you're fasting from. And
I'm not calling you out specifically, but in the past
we've seen many, many people over the years who do
these performative actions of I need to tell everybody how
I'm not listening to music today and why would you
play music? Listen to what Jesus says. Do not do
your charitable deeds before men, Otherwise you have no reward
from your Father in heaven if you do it. Don't
sound trumpets We don't need to know your fasting regimen.
Nobody needs to know your fasting regimen. Nobody needs to
know what you think about other people fasting. In fact,
do not let your left hand know what your right
hand is doing and when you pray. Here's a great
sign of a lunatic. Do not make performative prayers on
your live streams for all to see with your hands up.
Has anyone noticed any other people doing this? This should
be red flag number one. For the hypocrites love to
stand on the set in the corners of the street
praying so that they can be seen by all men praying.
The hypocrites love to pray for thirty minutes on their
live streams in performative prayers. That should be a red
flag number one. Does nobody remember these passages? Did you
not read these passages when you were learning Christianity coming
into the church? Haus ten dollars? Thank you for your work.
Thank you man, Theosi's man. I'm not trying to be
read to you, man, but I don't know how many
times we have to go over this with you. How
can I pray the Orthodox view the Trinity from tag
if I'm talking to an atheist it's not your job
to have to prove the trinity.
Speaker 5: Man.
Speaker 10: You're going to have to work through a lot of
different stages with any specific atheist. So I doubt you're
going to be able to immediately argue an atheist into
the Trinity. All you have to do is show their
worldview doesn't work at all, and you can gradually work
them over to the Trinity. I think you're looking for
a formula that's going to be a perfect argument on
the spot to convince an atheist, and it doesn't work
that way. That's atheists, right. The atheist problem is not intellect,
it's part and pride. What would you say, Father Deacon,
to a person who says, where's the perfect formulation of
the list of tag proving Trinity?
Speaker 5: I'd say that I keep it hidden in a secret
bunker up here.
Speaker 13: At only during Montanica do I bring it out during
the conference and show people.
Speaker 10: Now, you're making a joke, but somebody's going to clip
that and say that you're a scammer, that you're actually
just trying to Yeah, I.
Speaker 5: Know, I think what you said perfect.
Speaker 13: First of all, it's a misunderstanding tag. Second of all,
the easy I like what you said that the easiest
way is just to show that it is defending the
orthodoxy by showing that their role view of accidentalism cannot
make any knowledge, statements or account for anything. Number three,
it's exactly what you said and what you and I
were talking about the other night. These people just ask me, like, well,
I want to see I proves the trend laid out
in the premise format.
Speaker 5: I do that. I even do modi logic, second order
logic and stuff and work this out and all the.
Speaker 13: Details, and it never convinces any of these people. So
that's what this gentleman has to realize. You're not going
to convince them. You can maybe start by just showing
that their worldview is bankrupt, but you're not.
Speaker 5: You're not going to be able to figure out an argument.
Speaker 13: That's the silver bullet that like nobody could object to,
and we just convince everybody. It's it's not going to happen,
even if there is the argument that exists out there.
Speaker 10: Touchtones fifty dollars experiencing my first pasco. I'm a Catechuman.
How can I be a solid lay person supporting my
clergy and be a friend to other lay people? I
mean just continue to be friendly. I mean, I mean
I appreciate the super child. I just don't know how
to answer that, how to be a solid lay person.
I mean, if you're new, I would just take my
time learning the theology and don't get overzealo thinking that
you have to go out and debate everybody. Not everybody
has to do what we are doing over here. Right,
you don't have to debate people. Theosis ten tag is
perfect to shatter atheists world the Orthodox otfers a gospel.
I would love to bridge the categories. Well, then just
learn both and apply what's appropriate at the time.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 10: So it's going to take time for an atheist to
have his worldview kind of broken down and then for
him to like gradually begin to consider orthodox metaphysical claims. Right,
But remember, an it's not an intellectual issue that people have,
it's a heart issue. I would say, just keep going
to church and be friends with people, and support your
clergy as long as they aren't teaching or telling you
to do something wrong. I'm new, I love my faith
in my parish, I'm new to church life. Well good,
you're gonna have a good time. But everybody should be
prepared too, that the church, clergy and people will let
you down. You will be let down eventually by somebody, right,
and you have to be prepared that when you come
to the Orthodox Church it's not honeymoon and there's no
more problems and everybody's saints and everybody's cool. You're gonna
have all the same problems anywhere humans are. So I'm
just telling you to be prepared for that and don't
have unrealistic expectations and then get butt hurt when the
priest lets you down or your bishop says something that
makes you angry. It's gonna happen. You need to be
prepared and ready to deal with that is it will happen.
Alessandro Perez five dollars.
Speaker 5: Jay.
Speaker 10: Some of my church friends said, there's a difference between
heretic and a schismatic. There is a difference, but the
patristic teaching is that both are outside of the church.
So from the vantage point of whether or not they're
in or outside the church, there is no difference. There
is a difference between what a schismatic is that's a
sin against brotherly love, and a heretic, which is a
sin against theology. Whether Orientals are schismatics or heretics, depends
on whether they would agree with the You know, a
lot of them will admit that the Fifth Ecumenical Council
is theologically correct, but if they reject Leo, and if
they reject the Orthodox Church, then they're also schismatics and heretics.
Once again, I mean, the Orientals don't have a consistent
energies teaching because they are confused over nature in person.
So if you don't have a consistent nature person doctrine,
if you don't have the essencenary distinction clearly and consistently,
then you're going to be all messed up in your theology.
And that's why you see Oriental theology all over the place.
Orthodoe one hundred dollars. Hey, j I left a super
chat saying that you're the reason that I left Protestantism
and now going to be baptizing the Orthodox Church. Is
past Pasca. My whole life changed because of what you
did and what your work, what your work was all about.
God bless you, Jay, Thank you man. I did read
your I think you were the Pentecostal guy. We had
a Pentecostal preacher who converted to Orthodoxy. Is that you,
I think it is. Thank you for that comment there, man,
I appreciate it. Yeah, I think you know, we begin
to see, hopefully some Pentecostals and Charismatics coming to understand that, like,
that's an insane heresy. You know, I'm not meaning to
be mean to people. I'm saying the teaching that gibberish
is somehow of God or I mean, that's just it's
just weird. It's it's not at all what exists in
the New Testament, and it never existed until what one
hundred years ago, eighteen hundreds as sestro five dollars. When
is your lecture on Yakubian orbonomics, Well, if you have
the decoder, you would know that all of my lectures
have really truly been about that. But you need a
peepstone decoder, kind of like my boy Joe Smith had,
Jojo Smith and Momo Mohammed they had secret decoders, And
when you get your decoder ring, you can actually decode
all of my lectures to get the secret real gnostic
teaching that I was really teaching the whole time in
s five dollars? Can you explain why the crucifixion was necessary?
I don't have a simple, coherent way to explain it,
to heal our natures. So it was also a demonstration
of love. So it was also uh the way that
how else would death be destroyed? Right, other than to
take on our nature and to destroy death. I did
a whole talk on this called You're in a Cosmic battle,
So go watch my cosmic battle video.
Speaker 13: The way Father Thomas Hopp goes the Word of the
Cross is a good resource for that.
Speaker 10: Okay, Nicolai, what's up?
Speaker 5: P plased my audible What's up? Man? I was struggling with.
Speaker 8: Formulating, putting together in words, how the one logos relates
to the many logis, So.
Speaker 5: Maybe you could help me there.
Speaker 10: Well, logi are just divine ideas, and so there's one
mind in the triad. God has more than one idea,
He has many ideas and every divine energy, and a
logi is also a divine energy. According to Palamas, they're
all from the Father, through the Son and then this spirit.
So they're all triaddic and they're uniquely manifested through the logos,
as it pertains to in this case the created order.
If you're talking about the logos' ideas for creation, So
God created the world through the Sun, as the New
Testament says many times over, and it's based on the
divine ideas that he had for the created order, and
the Sun manifests all those ideas.
Speaker 5: Thanks.
Speaker 10: Yep. Now, guys, remember a lot of these questions. And
I'm not faulting that guy or the people that are
asking the same types of questions right now in the
chat and in the super chats. If you go to
my channel, you can go down to the bottom and
you can see where we've lectured through the entirety of
on the Orthodox Faith. And I'm not trying to be dismissive,
but a lot of you guys call in and you
ask the same questions over and over. And I don't
blame you because I understand that you're new to these topics.
But if you come down here to this playlist, that's
why I made this playlist. There is this entire series
here going through on the Orthodox Faith by John Damascus.
We walked through the entire book. We go through the
essence sentergy distinction down here. Even in Athenasius, we go
through Father Sir from Roses books seven years ago. Right.
We walked through a lot of transcendent argument stuff down here.
So remember there's a playlist that's been up for seven
or eight years with almost all of these questions already
there right there. But if you have a question, that's fine,
let's make it quick, let's move through it. We don't
need I'm not trying to be rude to you, so
don't get mad at me. But we don't need a backstory.
We don't need to know about you, know, all your
history and all that, because I want to give the
twenty five people in line here a chance to come up. Daniel, Daniel,
im you, Hey.
Speaker 5: Jay, can you hear me?
Speaker 10: Uh huh?
Speaker 5: Hey? Can you explain to me the why?
Speaker 19: Specifically, Jesus winn he went up from the mountain to
pass for forty days. Obviously he is God, he is perfect,
He cannot send, though he.
Speaker 5: Could be tempted. What was the actual like, what was
the reason for him going on the mountain the mountain
to pass for forty days?
Speaker 10: For one, he's setting For one, he's setting example. And
number two, he is himself the embodiment of Israel. He
is the new Israel embodied. And so Israel wandered in
the wilderness for forty years Jesus is going into the
wilderness to wander in his own recapitulation of the history
and life of Israel for forty days and for forty nights.
Speaker 19: So it's partly symbolic, partly as.
Speaker 10: A he's setting ample for us, just just like he
said when he got baptized. Right, John the Baptist says,
I need to have need of being baptized by you,
not me baptized you. Jesus says, let it be done
to fill all righteousness. So he's setting an example, just
like when he prays to the Father. He's setting an
example for us.
Speaker 21: Okay, okay, I guess I never thought about it, despite
reading I never thought about it like that.
Speaker 10: Thank you, and most patristic exi Jesus will say basically
that preston, what's up?
Speaker 5: Hey, Jake?
Speaker 25: Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Uh huh okay.
Speaker 20: So I was a fourth generation Seven day Adventist, I
left and I rebuked it. So, coming from a Restorationist background,
could you have explained the arc of the Covenant with
mary kind of theology and orthodoxy?
Speaker 10: I mean, did you watch my forty minute talk on it?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 20: No, I just discovered your videos pretty recently.
Speaker 10: Okay, so I have a I'm happy to address a
specific question if you have it, but I have a
forty minute video specifically on that topic right here. So
do you want to specify like a more precise question.
Speaker 20: Well, actually, okay, let me just think about that.
Speaker 5: I'll hop out them.
Speaker 10: I mean, you can ask a question like what's a
what do you want me to specify about it?
Speaker 5: Well, I guess I'm just.
Speaker 20: Kind of confused because I mean, coming from my previous
like thought and knowledge with it, my thought is that like, well,
the law.
Speaker 5: Like the Ten Commandments, is what's in the Ark of
the Covenant.
Speaker 20: So I just kind of have a problem wrapping my
head around, like, well, Jesus isn't the law.
Speaker 3: He is the law.
Speaker 10: He's the living Torah. So what do you mean It's
not just the it's not just the law that's in there.
It's the Manna and the rod of Aaron that budded.
All three of those things are in the Arc of
the Covenant. All of those things point to Christ.
Speaker 20: Okay, and that's like that's said in the scriptures and stuff.
Speaker 5: I just don't know where's at.
Speaker 10: Yeah, well, if you read the Book of Hebrews, Hebrew seven, particularly,
well four to seven. We'll explain every aspect to which
that is. All right, So now hold on a second. Hey,
what's up?
Speaker 5: What's up? You're not streaming right now? Right?
Speaker 10: Yeah, but what's up? You're live, by the way, But
go ahead.
Speaker 5: Oh. I was just going to see if he had
a debate coming.
Speaker 10: Up with ruband I have a debate June second on
Western intelligence funding for ISIS and al Qaida. Is our
debate June second. But I am live, so be careful
if you don't, you know, don't say nasty words or something.
Speaker 5: But I mean, I usually only call you because I
know that it's okay for me to take.
Speaker 10: Say nasty words, right man, all right, that's all I
want to know. Thanks, Yeah, June second. So when is
your debate two weeks?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's a different topic though. He wanted to debate
me on that, So I'm not trying to conflict with
your your debate with him. That was something that he
wanted to do a long time ago.
Speaker 5: Oh, there's no, there's no conflict. I was just curious,
all right.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 10: Hopefully that didn't shut down the stream. Sometimes when you
get a phone call, it shuts down the x space. Uh,
all right, cleave, what's up man? I'm you so this
Protestant guy has been wanting to come and debate for
a good while. Now cleave to antiquity. What's up?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 10: You may have to walk closer to your router or
go get a signal. Man, it's not connecting. Cleeve, you
want to come out and try again, I'll bring you
up next because it's not connecting, all right, so let's
move through it quick. JP. What's up man? I wonder
if that shut down the stream taking the phone call.
I might have to restart the space. Can you guys
hear me? It's not connecting to him either, Macarius, can
you hear me? I might have to create a new stream,
I mean a new space. It's like it's not connecting
anybody now, father Deacon, can you hear me? All right, Well,
I'm gonna have to, I guess, create a new space
because that shut it down. I should have remembered you
can't take a phone call. What I forgot? Okay, guys,
I'm creating a new Twitter space.
Speaker 26: So come on over here to the new one Catholic, Protestant, Muslim.
Speaker 10: Okay, I made I made a new space I'm gonna
put it underneath the previous space and you guys can
hop in there, because I think me taking the phone
call automatically shuts down the space. So here we go.
It's linked underneath, and uh, let me restart that because
I think this Protestant guy has been trying to get
on here for a while. So let's go ahead and
start the new space and then give it to you
guys here in the chat as a link. Okay, here's
the new space. All right, welcome back to the new
space over here on Twitter, and let's go to jp
against if it works now, Hey Jacon here, Yeah, what's up, dude.
Speaker 25: So I wanted your feedback on a line of argmentation
that I've been thinking about with Catholics, essentially just wondering
why the papacy isn't a sacrament because whenever we look
at their three degrees of Holy orders, they're all differentiated
by different gifts kind of thing you receive, right, Like
the deacons have a certain role and certain things that
they can do, and then the priests have certain things
that they can do, and that the bishops have certain
things that they can do.
Speaker 5: So whatever I look at the papacy the papacy itself has.
Speaker 25: Certain things that only they can do, so I wonder
why they're not included as an extra degree in their
holy orders.
Speaker 10: Well, I think that you could perhaps make an argument
from history that that proves that it's a doctrine that
developed because it would have been a sacrament, you could say,
based on those definitions. So I don't know how convincing
that would be through Roman Catholic because number one, they
may just say yeah, but I accept doctrinal development, so
I don't have a problem with it developing into where
it is. And because there was not a sacrament of
the papacy in the early Church, you know, they might
say something like that, but it would seem like that
would be good for demonstrating the ahistoricity of the papacy. Cleave,
what's on your mind?
Speaker 5: Hey? So first off, I want to see I'm a
fan man, I love your channel.
Speaker 24: Yeah, I'm a protisty. I know you're talking a little
bit earlier about me wanting to debate. So I heard
you talk about anathemas to an inquirer that called in
on one of the previous live streams, and you had
said that anathema's basically correct me if I'm wrong, But
just like a separation.
Speaker 5: From the church.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's a pronouncement that the person is outside the
mystical body. They're excommunicator, much the same way that Paul
tells the Church of Corinth to excommunicate people.
Speaker 5: Okay, would you see that as like a separation from
Christ himself?
Speaker 10: Yeah, the mystical body of Christ is the Orthodox Church,
so yes, okay.
Speaker 5: So the individual that was talking to you earlier, they
were concerned.
Speaker 24: I guess they had like a Baptist family member or something,
and they were concerned about well, you know, I wouldn't
want to become an Easian Orthodox because you know, I'd
have to say, you know, basically all these people are
going to hell because they're you know, separated from Christ obviously,
unless they were pent I mean, what would you.
Speaker 10: And we've addressed this. I'm not trying to be rude
to you, but we've addressed to probably fifty times. So
we don't make the accusation that everyone who is without
the visible bounce Orthodox Church is necessarily damned because God can,
through extra normative means, join people to the mystical body.
But the only way to be saved is for God
to do that. So if people want to try to
risk that and be outside the arc, outside the Covenant,
outside the you know, the temple, all the different analogies
in the New Testament for the single visible canonical Orthodox Church,
they can do that, but I don't think that's going
to be very successful. In fact, Paul talks about risking
shipwreck outside the church.
Speaker 24: Sure, So I mean would you say that it would
be the same as saying that they I don't know,
they're separated from the church or separated from Christ, and
they don't they don't have salvation because salvation is only
found within the church.
Speaker 10: Again, we don't make Paul says. Paul says, what do
we have to do with judging those that are without?
We focus on and judge those within.
Speaker 24: Okay, So still they would have no salvation though, so
that would be something to overcome if you'd want to
become Orthodox.
Speaker 5: Well, we can move on.
Speaker 10: I mean, you're putting words in my mouth because what
I said was that they would be outside the church
and unless by the end of their life, God in
some miraculous, extra normative way joins them to the mystical body,
which he can do. He could He did this with
the thief on the cross. He can do that. But
our job is to tell people to become Orthodox.
Speaker 24: Yeah, I get what you're saying. It would have to
be some kind of extra normative mean means that, you know,
just based on christ mercy.
Speaker 10: We believe that the Orthodox Church is the mystical body
of Christ. It's a visible thing. There is no invisible Church.
It is that single visible thing, one holy Catholic.
Speaker 24: I as thought, Yeah, yeah, I'm aware of the belief.
I just wanted to kind of get that definition for anathema. Now,
I guess question for you when when you talk about
the infallibility of ecumenical councils, right, what do you refer
to specifically regarding the acumenical councils.
Speaker 10: That is impelled the dogmatic teachings?
Speaker 24: Okay, how do you separate between the canons that are
dogmatic in those that aren't.
Speaker 10: No, No, canons are not the dogmatic teachings of the
two separate things. Canons are church law. So that's applying
the principles to the time into the place. Those things
are flexible, they're binding, but they're not necessarily infallible. Because
it doesn't make sense to talk about infallibility for something
that's a temporal decision or judgment.
Speaker 24: Sure, can you like, I don't know, Let's say, in
the modern day, your bishop just completely disregard certain canons
for making medical councils.
Speaker 5: If they want it to.
Speaker 10: So, the bishops are the highest authority in the church,
and so they have the duty the job of applying
the canons and interpreting them. So yes, they can make mistakes,
but I don't think that the general attitude of the
bishops will be to completely discard the canons. They would
be looking at all the canons and then coming to
an assessment or a judgment on particular cases, which is
exactly what happens in the Orthox Church.
Speaker 24: Yeah, I mean, I understand there's the concept of economy
where you can there's a little bit of flexibility and
application as far as like the discipline for certain canons.
But what I've always been told is that you can't
just outright reject the cannon or never use it, like,
you have to find some sort of modern application of it.
Speaker 5: Would that be the case or am I mistaken in that?
Speaker 10: I mean, I don't even think that makes sense, given
that there's canons about places that no longer exist anymore. So,
I mean there's canons that relate to medieval social structure
that that priests can't ride horses because that was a
sign of nobility in the Middle Ages. So none of
that's relevant today.
Speaker 24: Okay, So I mean would you just be able to
I mean, you're saying the canons that are no longer
historically applicable, right, those aren't those aren't really a force anymore? Basically,
how would they be? Yeah, that's what I'm saying, Like
I would, I would agree with that point. But for instance,
within like nice A one, you have Canon eleven that
talks about two classifications of worshippers that no longer exist today.
How would we kind of reconcile that with the modern
practice in the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Speaker 10: What do you mean that no longer exists?
Speaker 5: So it talks about cures and prosper readers.
Speaker 24: They're a separate classification from a catech human they would
be dismissed at the same time.
Speaker 5: But the context of the canon was basically that if
you were an apostle, say this.
Speaker 10: Is people who had given up the Gospels or had
fallen into some you know, serious error at the time
of persecution, right right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, they were apostates and this was an it's a
penance basically. Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
Speaker 10: It's a penance.
Speaker 5: It's a canon of penance and and teaching.
Speaker 13: So h where they're placed in the church, the prostrators,
the hearers is not only a pedagogical lesson of that
one's sin removes one farther out from Christ, so to
use the geography of the church.
Speaker 5: To teach the person that too. But it's a time
of penance, it's a it's a penitential yeah, right.
Speaker 10: So this isn't a example of the church being able
to bind and to loose, and so at that time,
the church decided, if you've committed this sin, then this
is the this is the penance. You're going to come
to church and you're going to do these prostrations and
then after two years you can commune.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm aware with that they would withhold the euchers
from them and things like that.
Speaker 10: Well that still happens in the Northwix Church today anyway.
So I feel like you're looking for the thing that
we actually literally addressed. I'm not trying to be rude
to you, but maybe thirty minutes ago in here, which
is that there's no way that law is intended to
be universally absolutely applicable in terms of canon law or
church law, or even the Old Testament penal sanctions. The
Old Testament case laws were case laws, where you have
the principle and then you apply the principle to the
specific case, as Solomon does. In many instances. The entire
history of the Church East and West prior to the
Reformation operated on the principle of canon law and the
bishops and the priests applying the canons. So I don't
I still don't understand. Your objection is basically, but the
canons are supposed to be infallible, aren't they who said that?
I never said that.
Speaker 24: No, no, no, I'm saying, how do you get away
with just getting rid of these two classification of worshipers
when they're.
Speaker 5: Listed within did I?
Speaker 10: Did you not hear everything I said about it being
time bound?
Speaker 5: I heard what you're saying.
Speaker 10: But do you and if you any Orthodox listen, any
Orthodox bishop you ask about these canons are going to
say that we don't have people who fallen under compulsion
under Roman emperors today. So how would we even apply
this principle?
Speaker 24: Okay, yeah, but the two classification of worshipper do you
think that only applies within that specific context there.
Speaker 10: I don't understand what you're talking about, the two classification.
Speaker 5: Of worshipper hearers and prostraters. I mean they weren't.
Speaker 10: This is a penalty for people who are either catechumans
or people who had committed the sin. There's still this
classification in the Orthodox Church today. You're either a baptized
communing person or you're a catechumen inquirer, or under some
penance that still exists today.
Speaker 24: Okay, I mean we can say, we can say it's
somewhat applied there in that particular content.
Speaker 10: Why do I But we are Orthodox, we know how
to apply these You have an Orthodox cleric on here
with you right now telling you how it's applied, and
you're going back and telling us that we don't follow
our own canons when you don't set the standard for
what it means for us to follow the canons. Your
whole argument is premised on the canons are infallible. And
when I from the outset said, I don't think that
that undermines the entire argument you're making because you're trying
to apply. You're trying to apply what you think is
a contradiction of the canons. And I already said from
the outset that canons are a time bound They're not.
They can't they think that.
Speaker 5: Do you think that was the understanding of the early
Church in reference to the canons?
Speaker 10: Though, of course because they change. For example, the pentarchy
is not there at at uh, the way the pentarchyt
is listed in Canon six of Nicea is not the
same as the pentarchy after Constantinople one and after calclor.
Speaker 5: Okay, so what do you say when the subsequent.
Speaker 10: Do you hear what I said? It's going to blow
past that?
Speaker 24: Well you're saying you're saying, yes, they can be held
in certain context historical contexts if it doesn't exist anymore
than yeah, obviously these cannons.
Speaker 10: Aren't going to be helpful. Well did you hear what
I said? What was my example? Can you repeat it
to me?
Speaker 5: The pantarchy?
Speaker 10: Right is that there in Canon six?
Speaker 5: No, I understand things with historical contexts that are no
longer here.
Speaker 10: The canons have historical contexts. For example, Canon eight is
about the penalties of the cathari the PERFECTI right at
this do we have cathari around No? Obviously notolutly so.
So because we don't apply the canon ad to the Cathariye,
we don't follow the canons, and that we contradict that's
the argument.
Speaker 24: Well, no, the the argument is more than I don't
think the early Church held that kind of distinction that.
Speaker 10: You're you're kind of imputable, what kind of what kind of.
Speaker 5: Distinction between the canons?
Speaker 24: Basically saying that, well, you can hold to some of
them for specific time and then just you know, reject
them later or no longer apply them.
Speaker 10: Who do you Who do you think interpreted the canons
in those centuries?
Speaker 5: I mean the people in the early Church, right, so
the bishops.
Speaker 10: The bishops. Okay, So when Canon six tells you that
there's three ancient customs, or let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libyan,
Pentapolis prevail that the Bishop of Alexandria is second after
the Bishop of Rome and after the second, fourth, fifth,
and sixth econmenical councils. When Rome accepts a change in
the listing of the patriarchts, how does that not prove
my position? I don't care if you you may think
it's inconsistent, but does it not admit my point that
the canons have flexibility, That.
Speaker 24: They have flexibility because there's certain historical details.
Speaker 5: Are I guess different.
Speaker 10: It's not historical details. It's a change in the structure
of how many patriarchates there are from three to pentarchy.
Speaker 5: Right, it's it's in addition to the prior, just like when.
Speaker 10: You're it's a change. No, it's not. It's a change
of the order. The order that Leo fusses about at
Chalcedon is that it violates the tradition for the second
in order, which was Alexandria, because the Canon gave Constantinople
second place. So eventually Rome concedes to that and accepts
Constantinople a second in order after in the pentarchy.
Speaker 13: So what Jay's argument is is that the canons can change,
not just because there's nothing for them to apply.
Speaker 5: To anymore, but even when those things still exist, the bishops.
Speaker 13: Have the authority they write the canons and guidelines on
how to do that. The other one, too, is going
to say, too, is the canons change.
Speaker 5: In the council.
Speaker 13: I see you as far as defining the changing the
role of the deacon too. He can have a different
role prior to I see event, but deacons existed, so
it wasn't like all the times changed. The bishops literally
have the authority to go, we're not going to use that,
We're going to actually change the guidelines and rules on Now.
Speaker 10: Let me give you another example. Not only does the
pentarchy evolve and change in its numbering, structure, and ordering
because Constantinople takes the place of Alexandria a second eventually
because it's a Sonodyl decision. Canon eighty five of the
Apostolic Canons has a different canon of scripture that was
normative in the East that eventually nobody held to, so a.
Speaker 24: Different, a different canon of scripture. So I guess, I
mean I can kind of agree that makes sense as
far as the subsequent ecumenical councils introducing canons that maybe
update things from prior from prior councils, like I can
understand that, like it's been okay, well you know what
we're actually we're updating this.
Speaker 5: It's detailed here.
Speaker 24: The issue is when you come to canons of ecumenical
councils that don't have that kind of decree afterwards, and.
Speaker 10: Then they're just so this is this is an arbitrary
you're just arbitrarily coming up with your own new Protestant
standard that now there must be a specific degree afterwards.
This says the Protestant position here.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean we're having a conversation about it.
Speaker 10: Might so you moved the goalpost, is what you did.
Speaker 5: Well, my particular issue with it.
Speaker 10: But you moved the goalpost, Okay, I mean my particularly
so hold on. So originally it was a specific argument
that I addressed with two examples, and now you've moved
the goalpost that it has to meet another standard that
you've tacked on. Where do you get the idea that
there has to be a specific canon, specifically reversing a
canon that you just interjected here because you move the goalpost?
Speaker 5: Yeah, no worries.
Speaker 24: So we're talking about subsequent acumenical councils and their canons.
I mean canon want of chalsea On literally affirms that
every canon of the prior sentence even until now, should
remain worse.
Speaker 10: Yeah, but who applies and interprets them?
Speaker 5: Sure the bishop? Yeah, based on the principle of economia.
Speaker 10: Yeah, so even that is not a universal unqualified statement
because calciled on itself itself is subject to later revision
in the Canons.
Speaker 24: Sure, I mean I wouldn't necessarily say that under economia,
you can't just hate.
Speaker 10: Okay, But like number one, bro, we were not even
concerned with what you think about it because you're not
in our church. You're not you're you're a Protestant. You're
not gonna tell us what's necessary for the canons. As
if we have to respect what you're saying when you
just move the goalpost.
Speaker 24: Well, I mean, I'm just talking, I'm just citing the
ecumenical councils. I'm not even really concerned with my opinion here.
I'm just we're just having a conversation.
Speaker 5: Is that Okay?
Speaker 10: Again, the statement every ecumenical council usually begins with a
statement that we hold to the traditions and the teachings
of all the fathers in the previous councils. But that
wording in that language is not meant in some sort
of universal exclusion of sense, as if individual bishops didn't
themselves interpret and apply the canons. For example, individual bishops
interpret and apply the canons in the early Church about
how to receive converts, hence why converts were received in
different ways from different groups and from different sects. So
your whole argument just keeps moving the goalposts to show
that there's some contradiction in canons, when the very third
first thing I said to you when you came on
here was that, now, the canons are not themselves universally applicably,
infallibly determined things. They're time bound. And I've given you
two examples, and you've moved the goalpost to salvage your argument.
Speaker 24: Well, I mean, can I can I just kind of
repeat back what you said there so I don't misrepresent you,
all right.
Speaker 5: So correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 24: But you're saying that, well, one, there's the claim of
the move the goalpost, but I'll just send that aside
for now that the bishop has the right to interpret
and judge using the canons, right, so they one, they
interpret them.
Speaker 5: So if they want to move that into a modern context.
Speaker 10: Rather it's Chalcedon, it's not Chalcedon.
Speaker 24: Okay, Well, they can they can interpret and apply judgments
based on the principle of economia they want to.
Speaker 5: However they want to apply them, they can't. Is that correct?
Speaker 10: What specific argument did I give, I did talk about that,
but what specific argument did I give you?
Speaker 24: Uh, you're talking about the your well, or you gave
a couple of different arguments, which one you gave the
Pentarchy earlier about an updated canon.
Speaker 10: M and then I give another argument about what what
am I missing?
Speaker 5: Jake? I'm sorry.
Speaker 10: The second argument was that the Apostolic Canons, which were
the normative church law in the East in the three hundreds,
they have a canon of scripture that was used throughout
the East that eventually is not accepted.
Speaker 5: Okay, okay, and that was not updated in any other
canon later on.
Speaker 10: Well, it's accepted at the Seventh Ecumentical Council and at Trollo,
but it is not accepted in Toto in terms of
its canon.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so is it? It's accepted.
Speaker 10: We have a flexibility that you are not allowing us have,
and you're trying to figure out ways that we don't
have this flexibility. And I've already given you three examples
of flexibility.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 24: Well, I mean this entire argument and discussion kind of
hinges on whether or not we can outright not enforce canons.
Speaker 10: No, yeah, no, it doesn't. It hinges on your uh
moving the goalpost proof of what it means to enforce
the canons and showing a supposed contradiction in that enforcement.
And I've already given you three examples that refute your
first premise, And so you move the goalpost to say
that there has to be.
Speaker 5: Of canons that have been updated in subsequent acumenity.
Speaker 10: That's you. You already asserted something that is your Protestant
moving the goalpost that I don't know where that is
because just saying at the beginning of a council that
we hold uphold the previous canons, that doesn't prove that
every single canon is universally applicable, because Calciton Saddan doesn't
uphold Canon six of Nicia.
Speaker 5: Well, how do you how do you know when they're
no longer applicable?
Speaker 10: If you're talking about the specific examples in the first
thousand years, then they're applied in specific times in specific
cases after the fact, and we would have some record
of that. If you're talking about nowadays, you can simply
go ask the Orthodox bishop how they apply the canons.
And father deacon you're here, could you speak to how
the cannons are applied by bishops? You have a bishop
that applies canons to situations.
Speaker 5: Well, particularly.
Speaker 13: This issue came up just recently on I think a
church thread that the bishop, you're the local bishop.
Speaker 5: That's his area. He knows his flocks, he.
Speaker 13: Knows his diocese, and so he's in the best position
qualified to apply canons and how he would apply it. Again,
it's very much like you know, secular law borrows from that.
Speaker 5: Each judge. So you have the rules on the rule book.
Those aren't binding on the judge that like, well, I
have to do it, and I have to do it
in this way.
Speaker 13: A judge could look at a case and apply grace
and be like, I'm not applying the law. I'm not
following this. I'm I'm going to do this degree in
this way or something like this, or add something to.
Speaker 5: They're the authorities. They're the legal authorities to change a canon. Now,
of course, again if they could do that.
Speaker 13: Incorrectly in terms of discernment, but that's also.
Speaker 5: Why we're conciliar. Like other bishops could address that, that
could go to for example, synod to.
Speaker 13: Address who was a big enough issue or could be
even handled just in a brotherly way of another bishop
contacting and so saying, hey, I don't think that was.
Speaker 5: A good idea, et cetera.
Speaker 13: But they're literally the authorities to change a canon attic.
Speaker 5: You know how they apply it, not apply it. That's
what it is.
Speaker 10: If you look at canon, point out is that.
Speaker 5: That's very different.
Speaker 13: The pragmatic and church etiquette and practical things are different
than dogmatic issues.
Speaker 5: They might relate and overlap at times, but they're the authorities.
They can do that.
Speaker 10: Yeah, to give you an example, Canon one oh two
of Trollo states that various priests and bishops can, at
their discretion titan or loosen the canonical prescriptions.
Speaker 5: Sure, yeah, I mean I don't have any particular issue
with that, and I appreciate that response.
Speaker 10: And eye, what I just said about Canon one o
two is precisely the thing that you have had issue
with the entire time.
Speaker 24: Yeah, Well, the the issue is an individual bish not
applying particular canons.
Speaker 10: Now, this says that they have the ability to loosen
them or to tighten them because they have the ability
to remit and retain sense. They have the office of
the keys. It's not the canons that are the keys.
The bishop has the office of the keys to apply
the law. Just like he said, the judge is not
the slave to the law. The judge applies to the
law and makes a ruling.
Speaker 24: Okay, So in the in the case of individual bishop,
you're saying they get tighten, they can loosen, so they
can basically say that these canons are no longer applicable.
But if that if that's the case, right, what if
it's applied to I don't know every every bishop not
applying a canon for a specific period of time.
Speaker 5: I mean maybe like five or six hundred years.
Speaker 10: I don't even know, don't I mean again, I don't
even know what you're talking about.
Speaker 5: So we're talking about.
Speaker 10: Your whole attitude is the Protestant Sola scripture attitude applied
to canon law. And the first thing I told you
is that we don't have that attitude. You can have
that attitude, and you can go and make this argument
all day long and keep ignoring the things that I'm saying,
but we don't have that attitude. So you can keep saying,
but you should have that attitude because the Canon. You're
arguing that the councils have your Protestant attitude, and they don't.
None of them are Protestant No.
Speaker 24: What I'm arguing is, what do you do in a
situation in which no bishop upholds a canon for hundreds
and hundreds of years?
Speaker 5: Like? What? Oh?
Speaker 10: Bishops like what canon?
Speaker 25: Well?
Speaker 24: One like, okay, let's use Truelo because we've brought that
up Patrolo.
Speaker 5: However you want to pronounce it, right, I know you've.
Speaker 24: Dealt with this canon before in the past, but the
one where it's talking about you can't have familiar intercourse
with a Brazilian right, those particular ones you know I'm
talking about insert.
Speaker 5: The J word, I can't really talk about on it.
Speaker 10: Well, So again, if I had told you at the
beginning that the canons are time bound and not infallible,
that immediately refutes every argument you've met ever since that point,
because your whole argument is premised on that they're infallible.
Speaker 24: So they're time bound. They're time bound and not infallible.
When's their expiration date?
Speaker 10: Then again there is no Yeah, it's the that's what
they said.
Speaker 13: The canons are not over the bishops, that they're not
slaves to the canon law.
Speaker 5: They are the creators of canon law.
Speaker 10: Yeah, are you are you aware that secular law works
the same way the same point you made a minute ago.
Sure so, sure, so let me blow past that. I
don't ignore everything they just said and restatement trying to repeat.
Speaker 5: What you said back to me.
Speaker 24: So you're saying that basically, the individual bishop, he's the
arbiter of when they apply when they.
Speaker 10: Don't write, there is no higher authority in the church
than the bishop. It's not the lay people, and it's
not the it's not you that applies the canons, it's
the bishop.
Speaker 24: Okay, are they so they are the arbiter of when
the canons apply in individual cases?
Speaker 10: Correct?
Speaker 24: Okay, but what about over the entire church when they're
no longer applied, So then there's no.
Speaker 5: They can do that. But that's what we're saying. They
have the authority to do that, not apply any of
all of them.
Speaker 24: Okay, So when acumenical councils confirm all of the canons
of the prior councils, right.
Speaker 10: Again, we just addressed that, and the universal language does
not always mean universally because of the fact that they
actually change over time. So you just keep repeating your
same argument and going in a circle which you've already addressed.
Speaker 5: Okay, I mean.
Speaker 10: I just read to you Canon one O two that
tells you that the local bishop can relax the cannons
and interpret them as he sees fit. And then you're
just repeating your same argument for the tenth time. Okay, yeah, okay,
well but let me repeat my argument again.
Speaker 5: So he has the individual ability to bind or to
lose the canons? Does he have the individual ability to
just say that it? So you're basically.
Speaker 10: Saying that what do you think binding? And Lucy means yeah,
he can say that that doesn't linenymore, a priest can
go ride a horse because we don't live in the
Middle Ages anymore, where it forbade priest from doing what
nobility did that was to show in society. Yeah, we
don't have any Why are you interrupting me? Man, I'm
giving you clear examples that show that we don't follow
every single cannon and your whole argument is just that
you're bound to it like a Protestant would view the scriptures.
Speaker 24: Okay, So you're saying that the bishop themselves can say
whether or not.
Speaker 10: Okay, this is about the tenth time that we've answered
this question, and if you're going to keep being up
to so what's the point of Yes, how many times
do I have to tell you that the bishop can
determine these things? That's what we just said for the
fifth time.
Speaker 24: Yeah, in each individual case, man, in each individual case,
that's the economia.
Speaker 5: Right, but not whether or not you outright reject the canon.
Speaker 10: Uh No, that's exactly what they can do. They can
decide that canon no longer applies.
Speaker 5: Okay, no longer applies in perpetuity.
Speaker 10: Yeah, sure in this case, in this case, they have
that capability to say, right, this is so stupid. We're
not gonna I'm not undone. This is the dumbest thing
I've ever had to deal with. This is so stupid.
Speaker 5: It doesn't need to be document That's how the.
Speaker 10: T that's that's why he's moving the goalpost for the
fifth time. Where is the documented case that a bishop
can actually say that it's not for binding and loosing
means that he knows when to apply or not apply.
Not apply means that it's not bound bound anymore. Go ahead,
last call Bain, what's up?
Speaker 5: Hey? What's up?
Speaker 22: So when I'm having I have two questions, First, too
quickly the best resource that I can go to to
re learn about the photi and.
Speaker 10: Schism mistigougy of photos, okay, mistagogy.
Speaker 22: Of photos and uh so when I'm like debating arguing
tag ver much like at the end, and I've gotten
to the atheist to admit all his knowledge is unjustified
circular and his response to being I can't discount that
I might not ever have a scientific answer in the future.
Speaker 5: And I respond with that premise doesn't.
Speaker 22: Do the grounding work for any knowledge that you have
now in the present moment, And it is there like
a better way to apply this to like, you know,
like round up the argument to say, Okay, so therefore,
because your worldview should result in knowledge being impossible, that
contradicts with you currently having knowledge, and for some reason
that's just not landing, Like, is there a better way
to like phrase this, you know, to like land.
Speaker 5: The argument there?
Speaker 10: You want to comment on that?
Speaker 5: Sorry, I'm not understanding. His response is what again, so
I don't have knowledge right now? Or I can't explain
not go ahead?
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's that.
Speaker 22: After he's admitted that all his knowledge is unjustified in
circular that his.
Speaker 5: Response being, but I can't discount that I might not
ever have a scientific answer in the future.
Speaker 22: After I've already demonstrated that's like a category enter in
the first place. And I tell them, well, that premise
in itself doesn't do the grounding work for any knowledge
that you have. Now, you know, you're just making an
argument from science in the future. And I don't know
if there's a better way that I can phrase this
to like really land.
Speaker 13: The argument of yeah, well, that's why I put it
in terms of accidentalism. It's not that just well, I'm ignorant.
I can't figure out a way how to justify the
existence of knowledge and account for it now on the
premise as an atheist on the assumption of accidentalism.
Speaker 5: There will be no explanation in the future because accident
is precluded.
Speaker 13: From the definition and concept of knowledge. So you can't
It doesn't matter how great your science can.
Speaker 5: It's like you, I'll go to school and I'll learn
a bunch of philosophy and stuff like that in the
future will come up with a good answer.
Speaker 13: It's not possible and principle because you can't appeal to
the thing that the thing excludes in order to explain
that thing.
Speaker 10: All right, Saw, I'm gonna have to interrupt gauzep to
go to church pretty soon, so we got we got
to finish this out here. Santo's human Is ten dollars.
Are there ten books that you recommend for learning Orthodox theology?
I have a video on that, so look up Top
Orthodox books jade ire Z one sixty five dollars. Can
you explain psa versus Orthodoxy? I have multiple videos on that.
Go check those out. Just look up jade ire Comma
substitutionary Atonement, penal substitution, Fish Tank Edit ten dollars. What
are your most fruitful works? Some of your most fruitful
works are about agnosticism and nihilism. Many young people are
so deeply like that that those need to be addressed.
Your review of sur from Rose Nihilism book was excellent.
Thank you you have people can still go check those out.
They're still up. So again, like another Protestant guy in
the chat is saying that guy had a good point.
He didn't have a good point. So the premise was
that you can never relax the canons. Relaxing the canons
means that they don't apply, and so he's assuming that
the ecumenical councils are laying down this sort of like
letter of the law attitude, that's literally impossible. It's not
possible to keep all the canons. It's literally not because
they're based on time bound historical situations. That doesn't mean
that they don't have any authority, but they're not equivalent
to divine revelation. Okay, they're the Church law, and just
like secular law, law has to be applied at the
right time and the right way by a virtuous man.
And every Protestant legalistic type of attitude would assume that
if there's not a written proof for this or that,
then there is no proof for this or that. But
there is no principle. In fact, the principle laid down
in Canon one oh two is the opposite of what
he said, that every single cannon is applicable until there
is a specific canon that makes it non applicable. That's
his own made up standard that he moved the goalpost
to when his original argument was in trouble. And if
you don't know what moving the goalpost is like, go
learn about that. Raziel twenty dollars graduate in law school.
I'm getting baptized Antiochian and I'll be married next month.
God bless you, Jay, you helped me get into the church,
pray as I struggle with pride and a heartened heart. Well,
glad to hear that. Razio many years to you Modern
Tree five dollars. How many times will you sigh when
you're debating not so erudite on the whatever show we'll
have to see? It's going to be a challenge Modo
gear solid five Canadian. God will bless you Jay. That
guy gives you strength. Thank you. Ze Marx's twenty dollars
to the guy who is fussing about the canons Trollo
Canon one oh two gives discretion to the clergy in
the application of the canons. Protestants always try to apply
this papal style rigidity to us, but Orthodox he has
built in flexibility in administrative manners. And that's exactly what
happens when you go to the Orthodox Church locally and
you see that it's applied in this flexible way. So
what he's talking about isn't even the actual reality that
we experience as Orthodox. But he's like, yeah, but the
canons are infallible, but they're not okay, But then they
have to be specifically canceled out by a new canon
that mentions it says who that's his new made up
standard that he just asserted was there. Alexis Valdez does
infant baptism count. I don't know what you mean by count,
but we believe in infant baptism as Orthodox. Gain orzilla
a twenty dollars if you missed my superchat without original guilt?
Why was God flooding the earth? He acknowledged to Abraham
it was unjust, but he was trying. But I'm trying
to forget. So all men are under the effects of
adam sin, and that includes death. So if you want
to say punishment in that sense, that's applicable, because our
death or our mortality is a punishment from the fall.
But that's different from actual sin, right, That's distinguished from
ancestral sin original sin. Actual sin is the specific sense
that you commit by your own will and intention when
you are of age. So again you have to distinguish
ancestral sin original sin, which for us as Orthodox is
not guilt. It's the effects of the fault, which includes
mortality and death. But guilt is only a crue to
somebody when they have an actual sin. So infants are
still liable to being descendants of Adam. But that doesn't
It doesn't follow from that that they are guilty of
actual sin. And even Roman Catholics nowadays believe that raptor
venom five dollars was that guy uh pinesap pretending to
be a Protestant. No, he's an actual Protestant apologist named
Cleeve to antiquity. He's the only other person I've ever
heard it called chalseed on. He's obviously new to these topics.
Charshi five dollars. My brain is alchemically reduced to reptilian
mush by algorithmic dopamine warfare. I tried to read your book,
but I started to hallucinate. TikTok brain rot haha. Will
you do an audible version? I don't know. Maybe Patrick
five dollars. From your lecture on the subject, I understand
that Fabian socialists considered Christianity to be an enemy, mortal enemy.
They wanted to flood the West with Muslims. What is
it about Islam that makes them feel it is more
conducive to their technocracy in Christianity. The inherent characteristics of
the people groups who are Muslim, They're not given to
very rational thought, They're very easy to be controlled, it's
a dumb sect. All of those things could contribute to
why they're a useful chess piece. They also thought back
at the time, the nineteen tens and twenties, the Fabians
themselves thought that they could turn Islam into a kind
of socialism. They thought that you could migrate that into
a socialist ideology. That's at least what I think any Bassant,
bertand Russell, and I think George Bernard Shaw said the
same thing. Now, whether that was true, that's a different question.
Whether it really could be that, but that seemed to
be what they thought. They thought that was better than
Christianity for their phases. Now you have to understand, like
you can't think of this in some sort of low
IQ mindset, like why would they want Islam. Islam don't
believe in technocracy. They're not believing in Islam. They're thinking
about down the road, not just destroying Western civilization with Islam,
but then merging that new glop people civilization that's now
not civilized into the technocracy. So it's a temporal weapon
for a time, then you move it into the technocracy.
So a lot of you guys are oversimplified in your
thinking papahuahwah ten dollars. I'm trying to be focused on
being a better leader and husband and a new father.
Do you have any recommendations on this beside the Bible.
I think Chris Sistom has some sermons that are pretty
famous for married couples. You might check that out. Seam
Ox has five dollars. If you think about a court,
each state court rules in each state in America and
has a catch all rule that given the judge a
discretion applying the court.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 10: And I'm saying this because as because I am a lawyer.
So Zal Maxis is saying he is a lawyer, and
he's pointing out the way that judges and laws operate
in America. Hopefully this helps the Protestants in the audience
who are trying to apply the canons to us like
we're Protestants anyway. So to all the piety signalers, I'm
going to church. I'm going to church. Do I get
Internet points? I'm going. Look, my hands are up, I'm
praising myself for going to church. Look how pious i
am remember to have I'm making a joke. I'm heading
over to church dot com. I'm not actually going to
be a building because I don't actually have a church.
It doesn't exist. All made up, But I'm going to
church dot com. I'm just kidding chalk dot com. Use
the promo code. By the way, Father Deacon, you're just
an AI profile this whole time, are you.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm going to the Buffet Church.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it wasn't that.
Speaker 5: Did you tell me about the Buffet Church? And they
have the monster truck rally to that?
Speaker 10: Well, there's Randy Balls's church, but there's also ver Riverside River.
There is a giant megachurch that has all this, the
monster truck rally and everything.
Speaker 13: Well, I send my friend video because you saw that
one church with the roller coaster. Yes, yeah, so it
was crazy.
Speaker 5: It actually exists.
Speaker 10: Do you saw that? You saw the monster truck rally one?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 5: No, I didn't know that they were joking about.
Speaker 10: No, No, it's true. Wow, they had male strippers too.
You didn't see that.
Speaker 13: It's literally become idiocracy, you know, we're like all the
different things merge into No.
Speaker 10: Last year, Mark Driscoll, the mega other megachurch pastor, was
at their giant Riverside event or whatever they call it.
I'll find it for you, and he got mad and
got up on the stage and rebuked everybody at the
thing for having for having male pole dancers. But that
was the one where they had the monster trucks too. Yes,
they literally had monster truck rallies. In fact, I shared
it uh on Twitter recently. I will reshare it for
you guys again. Remember to head on over to chalk
dot com use promo co j A y four zero
J forty to get forty percent off and hopefully you
all can see look at me, I'm going to church.