Speaker 1: And so it's just kind of an inner experience that
Speaker 1: might be manifested in different ways, but there's no external
Speaker 1: form to it. So you have figures like Schleiermacher, you
Speaker 1: have Julius Bellhausen, but it's really Bellehausen who's the pioneer
Speaker 1: of critiquing the texts. And Bellhausen says, the problem isn't
Speaker 1: really the Bible as a whole, it's actually the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: And what we've got to do is get rid of
Speaker 1: all these judaic ideas of ceremonies and calendars and going
Speaker 1: to some actual building and having some sort of baptism
Speaker 1: or whatever. All that needs to be wiped away. And
Speaker 1: he thought the basic way to do that would be
Speaker 1: to cut up the Old Testament and figure out that, oh, actually,
Speaker 1: none of this is really from a deity. It's actually
Speaker 1: a combination of different traditions. And you have what's called
Speaker 1: the it's called the school that has this idea of
Speaker 1: the documentary hypothesis. And this is where you get the
Speaker 1: idea of J. E. P. D. The Yahwist tradition, the
Speaker 1: Ylowist tradition, the priestly tradition, and the deuteronomous tradition. And
Speaker 1: so anytime you do any textual studies, you'll come across
Speaker 1: all of this, and the idea is that, oh, well, well,
Speaker 1: so what is it? All right, So if it's not
Speaker 1: from God, what is it? Well, it looks like there's
Speaker 1: all these different traditions J. E. P. D. Right, there's
Speaker 1: the Yahaist tradition, and these are the guys who at
Speaker 1: some point in the Old Testament were writing Genesis or whatever.
Speaker 1: They were using the term yahweh. Then there's this other
Speaker 1: group of people. They were the Elohists, and they were
Speaker 1: using the term eloheen. And then there was the priestly
Speaker 1: cast and they were using the priestly ideas, and they
Speaker 1: interjected the levites and the temple and the ceremonials, and
Speaker 1: so it's basically just a big hodgepodge of garbage according
Speaker 1: to Vellhausen. And so what he thought needed to be happening,
Speaker 1: needed to happen was purge all that Old Testament jump
Speaker 1: in his mind, and then you get based the simple
Speaker 1: message in the New Testament in Jesus. And in theological terms,
Speaker 1: this is really just a rehashing of the gnostic theology
Speaker 1: of the Early Church, where you had various teachers like
Speaker 1: Valentinus and other Gnostics who taught that that the Old
Speaker 1: Testament texts were from an evil God and that was
Speaker 1: a source of all problems. And really we just need
Speaker 1: the simple inner message of Jesus. Now. So that's a
Speaker 1: long winded thing, but it's important because this is where
Speaker 1: we're going to get to ecumenism. So I should add
Speaker 1: as well that Martin Luther is important in this because
Speaker 1: he wrote a famous treatise called against the Jews in
Speaker 1: their Lives, and this would be very influential in German
Speaker 1: movements of anti Semitism of the time of World War Two.
Speaker 1: It would kind of have a rebirth, not castigating Germans,
Speaker 1: not saying that the Jews and Zionists are good, just
Speaker 1: trying to state what was going on. So Luther also
Speaker 1: of course shared a hatred for the law for Judaism ceremonies.
Speaker 1: There's numerous statements in Luther's writings where he speaks explicitly
Speaker 1: this way. He says such things such as, I wish
Speaker 1: I could punch Moses' teeth out, you know. He says
Speaker 1: that everything in the in the Old Testament is you know,
Speaker 1: worthy of the trash man literally, and so This is
Speaker 1: where we get in Lutheran theology, the idea of the
Speaker 1: radical dichotomy of law and gospel. Right, So Luther had
Speaker 1: this idea that you go through the Bible and you
Speaker 1: read some textas law, toss that it out, read some
Speaker 1: Texas Gospel thumbs up. That's good. And so this idea
Speaker 1: of everything judaic, so so called needing to be purged,
Speaker 1: actually kind of has a precedent in Luther, and then
Speaker 1: it filters down to Bellhausen. And with Bellhausen and the
Speaker 1: documentary hypothesis, you have this idea that the entire Bible
Speaker 1: could be remodeled, cut up, chopped up. Now fast forward
Speaker 1: about one hundred years and the turn of the century
Speaker 1: you have the extension of that which was, hey, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, the documentary hypothesis is not just good enough.
Speaker 1: We actually need the Jesus quest. And so the Jesus
Speaker 1: quest is this idea that we need to get to
Speaker 1: the real sources of Jesus. And said they said, well,
Speaker 1: the New Testaments the exact same way. It's all from
Speaker 1: a bunch of different sources. It's a munch of gobblygoog
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean anything. It's just a reflection of the
Speaker 1: Jewish Messianism and millennialism of the first century, and so
Speaker 1: it has a whole bunch of competing contradictory sources. And
Speaker 1: these would be things like the enigmatic queue that you'll
Speaker 1: learn about in textual studies. And there is no such
Speaker 1: thing as que. It's very much like Darwinism. It's just
Speaker 1: a hypothesized source for something like the Gospel of Mark. Now,
Speaker 1: curious side note, in textuals this is actually no longer
Speaker 1: even adhere to the cutting edged so called progressive academia.
Speaker 1: If you go to places like Yale University, you can
Speaker 1: clind lectures of the debunking of Q. All right, but
Speaker 1: the Q was actually very popular for many years as
Speaker 1: a supposed source of various sections of the New Testament. So,
Speaker 1: as we see, this is always in progress. There's not
Speaker 1: any real consistency, and you'll still find scholars citing Queue,
Speaker 1: even though the cutting edge liberal scholars no longer adhere
Speaker 1: to it. So it's another one of these things like Darwinism,
Speaker 1: where it's all in the scientific realm of academia, and
Speaker 1: it's just kind of trends, is really all it is.
Speaker 1: It's just waves of trends that come and go, and
Speaker 1: just like with Darlinism, when you get into looking at
Speaker 1: textual studies, you'll find out how much of this actually
Speaker 1: has absolutely no basis whatsoever. All are at some point
Speaker 1: who came up with an idea, came up with a theory,
Speaker 1: somebody probably put monetary backing behind it, some banking interests
Speaker 1: that like that, and the idea goes the viral, I
Speaker 1: guess you could say, and then all the universities then
Speaker 1: promote the documentary hypothesis or Q or whatever, and everybody
Speaker 1: just oh, yeah, well, that's just true. We know that's true.
Speaker 1: And however, I guarantee you ninety five percent of the
Speaker 1: people who will talk or have been influenced by these
Speaker 1: theories have not actually done much textual research. They went
Speaker 1: to some seminary or university that was infected with this
Speaker 1: idea and they believe it because they were told it
Speaker 1: without having actually looked into the problems with it or
Speaker 1: evidence to the contrary. So how do we get to
Speaker 1: acumunism from all this modernism? Well, so modernism in the
Speaker 1: realm of religion and theology in church is an outworking
Speaker 1: I would say of this ideology, this ideology of higher critics,
Speaker 1: because it says, hey, you are foundational documents that you
Speaker 1: believe in this religion. They're not true. So it's time
Speaker 1: to update, buddy, get with the times. Look, we've got
Speaker 1: Darwinism now, and all the higher critics, I should add,
Speaker 1: we're very much influenced by process philosophy, process theology. I
Speaker 1: mentioned Schleiermacher earlier. That's processed theology and manual kant right
Speaker 1: and empiricism. And so you can see how as we
Speaker 1: get into the time of the Jesus Quest, now we're
Speaker 1: getting you know, post Darwin. Oh, everything is subject to change,
Speaker 1: and so certainly documents must be subject to change because
Speaker 1: they don't have any divine source. They must simply have
Speaker 1: some human source, just some guy running them down the
Speaker 1: sociological interpretation of religion or whatever anthropological interpretation. So the
Speaker 1: texts are merely you know, human symbols and allegories. They
Speaker 1: don't have any real meaning. And so therefore your churches
Speaker 1: have to be updated. You've got to get with the times.
Speaker 1: And this is really what you see promoted at the
Speaker 1: time of modernism. And I can even tell you, you know,
Speaker 1: the different responses and theologians in the different churches who
Speaker 1: are promoting this. So you have and for example, in
Speaker 1: Presbyterianism in the US, you have this is a big
Speaker 1: controversy I think in the nineteen twenties with what's called
Speaker 1: the pc USA and it is thornwell foreign, I forget things.
Speaker 1: That guy's name. We've talked about him before in regards
Speaker 1: to Riverside Church, which is the Rockefeller Church, and they
Speaker 1: had a pc USA minister, Charles Henry Thorn whatever the
Speaker 1: guy's I know that the guy's name always escapes me.
Speaker 1: But he was all in that's it, that's it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was all into the and Jefferson Masonry and all
Speaker 1: you know, this is the church that has the statue
Speaker 1: of Moses next to Darawan, next to Thomas Jefferson, and
Speaker 1: it is so you have this. I believe on the
Speaker 1: front of the Century nineteen oh four or five some
Speaker 1: sort of international congress or religions of some sort. And
Speaker 1: I don't think yet that the Rockefellers were intimately involved
Speaker 1: in this, but this was people who had a lot
Speaker 1: of Hindu ideology, and Hinduism is very syncretistic, and they thought,
Speaker 1: what we need to do is kind of move Western
Speaker 1: religions into the direction of Eastern thought.
Speaker 2: No, real, real quick, let me let me add something
Speaker 2: in there, just real fast to stay on what you
Speaker 2: want to talk about. But it's interesting that you bought
Speaker 2: a Hinduism because one of this kind of collides with
Speaker 2: what was going on in California at the same time,
Speaker 2: with the evangelical movement of the turn of the century. Yes,
Speaker 2: I was gonna mention and with what was called, you know,
Speaker 2: the Gospels of Wealth or you know, new thoughts and
Speaker 2: forgetting all were Yeah, the Gospel, all those things you know, Yes,
Speaker 2: and all of those things. Interestingly in us, all of
Speaker 2: those ideas which still today proliferates through Christianity, most of
Speaker 2: those ideas actually come from theosophy. There were a lot
Speaker 2: of a lot of the evangelicals in the beginning were
Speaker 2: into theosophy.
Speaker 1: Yes, this congress of religions that I'm trying to think
Speaker 1: of that is nineteen oh four or five or maybe eight,
Speaker 1: late eighteen nineties, this would include a lot of people
Speaker 1: who would be instrumental in charismaticism. So you're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: And the charismatic movement has its origin around the same
Speaker 1: time in the Azuza Street Revival in California. So you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right. And the reason that charismaticism with factor into
Speaker 1: this is that the idea in charismatic movement would be
Speaker 1: it's no longer about the book. It's no longer about
Speaker 1: what's in you know, New Testament or Old Testament. It's
Speaker 1: now about your direct experience. And this experience is not
Speaker 1: it doesn't necessarily have any consistent content. It could just
Speaker 1: simply be you know, your emotional hype, your reactions to
Speaker 1: the music, you know, and with the drum and the
Speaker 1: bass and all that, and the band playing and you know,
Speaker 1: flopping around in the aisles. Anything is a legitimate potential
Speaker 1: experience of the quote spirit. So this existential phenomena or
Speaker 1: this this existential emotional experience is what takes over from
Speaker 1: any of the older notions, be it Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox
Speaker 1: or whatever of that. You know, believing what's in the text,
Speaker 1: going to a building and worshiping in a certain liturgical
Speaker 1: fashion or whatever. It's now about ecstatic experience in emotionalism,
Speaker 1: I would say. And so you're absolutely right. So the
Speaker 1: charismatic movement would be very influential in spreading a humanism
Speaker 1: precisely because it's all about a individual subjective experience. The
Speaker 1: charismaticism also has its origins in Pietistic movement, which comes
Speaker 1: out of the Reformation. As I mentioned earlier and with
Speaker 1: a Kant, for example, was raised as a Pietist. His
Speaker 1: mother was a Pietistic German Protestant, and Pietism thought that
Speaker 1: it was a count of reaction to what's called Protestant scholasticism.
Speaker 1: So at the time of the Reformation, you had the reformers,
Speaker 1: and then you had the Roman Catholic response with the
Speaker 1: counter Reformation, and then you had as a response on
Speaker 1: the part of the Protestants what's called the Protestant scholasticism.
Speaker 1: And so this would be like Francis Turitan or Philip
Speaker 1: Melancthon Luther's body, and what they would do is try
Speaker 1: to offer a you know, extended academic scholastic response, you know,
Speaker 1: to their opponent, much like medieval scholastics of Thomas Aquinas
Speaker 1: or somebody like that. A response to that arid, dry, technical,
Speaker 1: abstruse perspective is Pietism. And this flourished mainly in Germany,
Speaker 1: and its Pietism that would come to influence the Anabaptist
Speaker 1: so that when you talk about Baptists Baptists actually descend
Speaker 1: from the Anabaptists, who are connected to the Pietists. So
Speaker 1: that's why we have these different movements today. They kind
Speaker 1: of trace back through these different ideologies. But you're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: Modernism is intimately connected with the early charismatic and new
Speaker 1: thought movements. I should add real quick as well, there
Speaker 1: was a controversy in American Christianity with New Light and
Speaker 1: Old Light Presbyterian And now this goes back to like
Speaker 1: John Edwards and Princeton, the founding of Princeton University and
Speaker 1: so forth, where you had these old stuffy Calvinists, and
Speaker 1: then you have these other Calvinists who at the behest
Speaker 1: of the preaching sinners in the hands of an angry God.
Speaker 1: By Jonathan Edwards, people started having these charismatic experiences, like
Speaker 1: Jonathan Edwards would preach about how bad hell was, and
Speaker 1: people started flopping around and crying and freaking out right.
Speaker 1: And so the idea was, oh, this is a you know,
Speaker 1: this is a revival, this is a movement of the spirit.
Speaker 1: Contrary to that, you had other Presbyterians who were the
Speaker 1: old line Presbyterians who were saying, no, no, no, you can't
Speaker 1: have that. This is we believe in predestination, election, Calvinism,
Speaker 1: et cetera. You can't have these these manifestations like this
Speaker 1: emotionalism and whatnot. This is not of God, it's of
Speaker 1: the devil. And so you had this split in Presbyterianism
Speaker 1: at that time. And out of this, if I recall,
Speaker 1: out of this new Presbyterian movement would become American Revivalism.
Speaker 1: So American revivalism also plays into this where you have
Speaker 1: Methodists and Baptists and different preachers who would were part
Speaker 1: of the Western expansion movement, and they would there were
Speaker 1: circuit preachers, and you would have like a Methodist guy
Speaker 1: who would get on his horse and he would ride
Speaker 1: out to the westward moving you know, families and so
Speaker 1: forth who probably didn't have a minister. And so the
Speaker 1: minister would come maybe once a month that he would
Speaker 1: come and preach his healthfire sermon and that he wouldn't
Speaker 1: ride his horse aw to the next colony or whatever.
Speaker 1: And this is also influential in American revivalism. And so
Speaker 1: revivalism is very important for charismaticism and also very important
Speaker 1: for ultimately accumenism. So you're on the right track, I
Speaker 1: would say, John, and so all of these movements collide,
Speaker 1: but they're also very useful from the perspective of social engineering.
Speaker 1: And I would cite as perfect proof of that the
Speaker 1: Berkeley lecture of Aldus Suxley. In that talk, Aldus actually says,
Speaker 1: you know what we're going to do in the future
Speaker 1: when we social engineer everybody. He says, we're actually going
Speaker 1: to borrow the techniques of the revivalist preachers and the
Speaker 1: fear tactics of someone like Jonathan Edwards and Methodist preachers
Speaker 1: and so forth John Wesley, and we're going to actually
Speaker 1: use those fear and terror tech techniques of the pastor
Speaker 1: in the government. And so what Huxley is telling you
Speaker 1: there is that the war on terror is pretty much
Speaker 1: like you know, Jesse duplanis or Benny hen banging his
Speaker 1: banging his fist up on the podium right and telling
Speaker 1: you you're going to help. So just an interesting side
Speaker 1: note there if you look up the Huxley lecture. But yeah,
Speaker 1: so modernism has all an influence from all those strands
Speaker 1: in the Roman Catholic communion. If this is a very
Speaker 1: fascinating story too, because I know that you guys would
Speaker 1: probably have the perspective that Rome was always controlled. I
Speaker 1: don't take that view, having experienced Catholicism for a good time,
Speaker 1: I think that Rome had a lot of power, temporal
Speaker 1: power especially, and wanted to maintain it. And if you
Speaker 1: look at, for example, the history of the Republic of Italy,
Speaker 1: you'll have periods where Pious the Ninth, who actually shared
Speaker 1: a lot of the Masonic and socialist and republican ideals
Speaker 1: as a youth, as he when he became the pope.
Speaker 1: This is like eighteen nineties or so, eighteen eighties and nineties,
Speaker 1: the revolution turned on him and the Pope was actually
Speaker 1: walled up in the Vatican, scared to come out because
Speaker 1: the revolutionaries were going to behead them or something. This
Speaker 1: is what resulted in the calling of the Vatican One,
Speaker 1: where there was papal and fallibility. Anyway, a little bit
Speaker 1: prior to this, or excuse me, a little bit after this,
Speaker 1: was a pope by the name of Leo the thirteenth,
Speaker 1: and Leo the thirteenth heard about the movements of Masonry
Speaker 1: in different countries to not just get rid of monarchs
Speaker 1: and to establish republics, but also to get rid of
Speaker 1: the Church. And so I do think that there was
Speaker 1: a real historical battle between Masonry and Roman Catholicism and
Speaker 1: ultimately most Christian and mainline churches. And so in each
Speaker 1: of the different churches that the battle plays out differently.
Speaker 1: But in Roman Catholicism you have kind of an outright
Speaker 1: battle with French Revolution and so forth, and you have
Speaker 1: a whole string of people and cyclicals issued against Masonry.
Speaker 1: And I would argue that it is mainly through the
Speaker 1: Jesuits that the free Masonic ideals really gained sway and
Speaker 1: power in the Roman Catholic Church. And that is why
Speaker 1: the Jesuits would be instrumental in liberation theology with Marxist
Speaker 1: ties and so forth. And Marxism of course has ties
Speaker 1: ultimately to Freemasonry and Illuminism, and so the Jesuits pioneer
Speaker 1: not just a liberation theology, but also a kind of
Speaker 1: a rival to the papacy. And this is why when
Speaker 1: you look at the history of the relationship of the
Speaker 1: papacy to the heads of the Jesuit order, you will
Speaker 1: find a back and forth swing of power. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that that makes all the Postes good and all
Speaker 1: the Jesuits bad. I'm just saying that this is, you know,
Speaker 1: what I get from church history as I've researched it.
Speaker 1: So there'll be times where where the Jesuits were suppressed,
Speaker 1: and there'll be times where they were hailed as you know,
Speaker 1: heroes of the church, and so forth. You would have
Speaker 1: traditions saying that, you know, Jesuits can't be pope, and
Speaker 1: so forth and so on. And so what Leo the
Speaker 1: thirteenth discovered was that there was a Masonic plot to
Speaker 1: no longer destroy the papacy, but actually to use it.
Speaker 1: And this is a famous document called the ultav Indita. Now,
Speaker 1: certainly people would debate the authenticity of the altave Indeta
Speaker 1: lodge and so forth. It's plans inasmuch as it promised,
Speaker 1: it proposed the idea to co opt the papacy, not
Speaker 1: destroy it, and to use it to bring in a
Speaker 1: new religion, a new world religion in fact. And you
Speaker 1: can actually read the altave Indiza documents on a book
Speaker 1: on that by John Venari, I believe, And then you
Speaker 1: can also read Leo wrote a famous and cyclical called
Speaker 1: Humanum and Janus about masonry. So I believe that that
Speaker 1: was a real war, and there were different factions, and
Speaker 1: there's always been different factions in the papacy and the
Speaker 1: cardinals and so forth. And I would say that by
Speaker 1: the twentieth century you have pretty much a complete victory
Speaker 1: of the New Old Order Masonic power over the papacy,
Speaker 1: and that came to the flowering at Vatican two. Vatican
Speaker 1: two is going to be very important for this because
Speaker 1: that is a humanism in the Roman Church having its
Speaker 1: complete victory. Now, so I'm moving up a little bit.
Speaker 1: By the time that Ntedict the fourteenth i believe, or
Speaker 1: fifteenth one of the two, you have a beginning of
Speaker 1: a crack in the papal perspective on Acumenism and the
Speaker 1: Western globalist so to speak. Prior to this they've been
Speaker 1: very critical of it. And Benedict the fifteenth, whichever guy is,
Speaker 1: the time of World War One in the League of Nations,
Speaker 1: he says, oh, you know what, maybe the League of
Speaker 1: Nations is a good thing. So prior to this, the
Speaker 1: papacy have been very critical of Americanism and American policies
Speaker 1: and Western democratic policies generally speaking. Now they started to
Speaker 1: crack on it. Then you have a belief. His successor
Speaker 1: was Pious the eleventh, who wrote a famous and cyclical
Speaker 1: called Mortalium animal and in this document he addresses the
Speaker 1: ecumenical movement explicitly. This is around nineteen twenty eight or so,
Speaker 1: and he says that this is a complete destruction of
Speaker 1: the Christian religion. So it's starting to make it it's
Speaker 1: starting to make its encroachment into Roman Catholicism. Even in
Speaker 1: the twenties, you had a famous document by previous pope
Speaker 1: I should have mentioned called Pachindi Dominici gregis of Pious
Speaker 1: the tenth, and this is a famous and cyclical that
Speaker 1: addresses modernism in total and there he calls it the
Speaker 1: complete destruction of the Christian religion as well. Or the
Speaker 1: reason Pius the tenth is relevant is that for Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics he's one of the last popes to be declared
Speaker 1: a saint. So the in cyclical of Pius the tenth
Speaker 1: would be considered, you know, to have a special authority
Speaker 1: for Roman Catholics. This is all abandoned by the time
Speaker 1: of John the twenty third, Right, Pius the twelve, this
Speaker 1: is like in the forties and fifties is generally believed
Speaker 1: to be kind of the last quasi traditional pope. John
Speaker 1: the twenty third comes along and he writes a famous
Speaker 1: and cyclical called pacham in Terras, which is about the
Speaker 1: relationship of the world and economics to the Church. And
Speaker 1: it's the first paper and cyclical to kind of call
Speaker 1: for a global government. So this is sixties. And then
Speaker 1: you have the calling of Vatican Two, which would be
Speaker 1: hugely influential for the whole the Catholic world. And there
Speaker 1: a Vatican Two, you have the blessing of the ecumenical movement.
Speaker 1: You have the complete reversal of what had been said
Speaker 1: even back in the twenties and thirties, complete reversal. Two. Yes,
Speaker 1: now it's good. Now the un is good. We have
Speaker 1: to follow the dictates of the UN. It's all good.
Speaker 1: Ecumenism is good, etcetera, etcetera. So that's kind of a
Speaker 1: brief my perspective on the Roman Catholic Communion in the
Speaker 1: last one hundred years and what happened with them. Thing
Speaker 1: happened in the Greek Orthodox Church. You have in the
Speaker 1: Orthodox world as a whole, Greek Orthodoxy surrenders, begins to
Speaker 1: surrender because they have an actual Masonic patriarch in Greece
Speaker 1: by the name of Malicius. Milicius Metaxas Metaxakis, excuse me.
Speaker 1: It was the patriarch of Constantinople, a Greek guy from
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty one to twenty three, and he was openly
Speaker 1: a member of a Mosonic lodge. He was a member
Speaker 1: of the Harmonia Lodge in the Grand Lodge of Greece,
Speaker 1: and the Grand Lodge of Greece's own website cites him
Speaker 1: as a member. So this is not a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: Now why is this relevant. Well, one thing that he
Speaker 1: did was begin this process that would become a kind
Speaker 1: of a controversy in the Orthodox world of changing the calendar.
Speaker 1: Now that might not sound like a big deal, but
Speaker 1: for a person who has a Catholic or an Orthodox perspective,
Speaker 1: you know, the day that you celebrate Easter and stuff
Speaker 1: like that is important to you. So the idea of
Speaker 1: a complete change in these things is could be very upsetting,
Speaker 1: especially to you know, kind of the more simple believers
Speaker 1: of you know, your mom and your pop types who
Speaker 1: don't really care about theology, but they're used to you know, oh,
Speaker 1: we have Easter this way. It's always been that way
Speaker 1: when I was a kid. You know, this is how
Speaker 1: it is.
Speaker 2: And one of the things, and you're real quick when something.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: And I'm not saying to see you, I'm saying this
Speaker 2: to the audience. You know, we're not in any way
Speaker 2: critiquing people's belief systems or what it is that they
Speaker 2: hold beer to them in this particular time period. Now,
Speaker 2: this is kind of going over a history of it
Speaker 2: and then looking at change in the belief systems as
Speaker 2: the mechanism for a feeling change in other areas of life.
Speaker 2: And so if you can work about change in the religion,
Speaker 2: you can bring about change in culture, you could bring
Speaker 2: about change economically. It's changed all over the entire spectrum
Speaker 2: at this particular time in history, in the early part
Speaker 2: of the twentieth century. The twentieth century is the century
Speaker 2: of change, absolutely so. And so that's what you're getting here,
Speaker 2: is you're seeing a fundamental change. It's an interesting thing too,
Speaker 2: because as you see these fundamental changes in people belief systems,
Speaker 2: it is a very subtle change in the belief systems,
Speaker 2: and it's changes where people are not even being made
Speaker 2: aware of that. There's changes going on where it's where
Speaker 2: your pastor is saying something one day and then the
Speaker 2: next day he's saying Oh yes, I think a global
Speaker 2: government is a good thing, and it's kind of like
Speaker 2: something that just passes like a fart in church.
Speaker 3: Yeah now, and so so that's I just wanted to
Speaker 3: interject that this study here, you know about you know
Speaker 3: what Chris and I have been talking about California, and
Speaker 3: then this particular niche of it with religion is to
Speaker 3: show that modernism of itself is fostering change in the
Speaker 3: twentieth century.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and it's intimately tied into Darwinism. That's not a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory. That is, if you look at modernists, thinkers,
Speaker 1: and writers in any of these different fields, whether it's
Speaker 1: religion or academia, textual studies, education. Just finished a book
Speaker 1: on the history of American education, and it's full of
Speaker 1: quotes of all the sort of founding fathers, so to speak,
Speaker 1: of American public education, and they all have the exact
Speaker 1: same Darwinian view of process and change. Nothing is true,
Speaker 1: nothing remains because everything is subject to the ultimate principles
Speaker 1: of Darwin and they all say that like explicitly. And
Speaker 1: so this spills into religion as well. And the reason
Speaker 1: I mentioned the calendar is not to bring up some
Speaker 1: boring point, but The reason that the Orthodox started changing
Speaker 1: their calendar was because they wanted to be in line
Speaker 1: with the pope, which historically, if you don't know that,
Speaker 1: the Eastern Orthodox Church disagrees with the idea of people
Speaker 1: and fallibility, so they're two different churches. But there was
Speaker 1: this movement called Acumenism, which said, hey, why don't we
Speaker 1: just get together, Let's put aside the differences nothing. And
Speaker 1: it might think, well, well, who cares about a calendar, Well,
Speaker 1: the calendar itself may not be an issue of salvation,
Speaker 1: but that's not the point. The point is that the
Speaker 1: ideology of change was such that it was moving everything
Speaker 1: into a convergence, not based on truth or falsity, but
Speaker 1: on social engineering. And that's really what it's about. Because
Speaker 1: the patriarchs that we want to be back with Rome,
Speaker 1: forget the theology. Let's just do whatever it takes to
Speaker 1: merge everyone. And this is what happened at Vatican two
Speaker 1: in the Roman Catholic Church, where they did the exact
Speaker 1: same thing. They said, let's all adopt a new calendar,
Speaker 1: let's forget the differences, let's all come together, which sounds
Speaker 1: all nice and warm and fuzzy, but that's not what
Speaker 1: it's about it's not about being nice and wrmon fuzzy.
Speaker 1: This is all at the behest of monetary elites who
Speaker 1: are putting the funding behind all of this. Right, So,
Speaker 1: you have the World Council of Churches established by the
Speaker 1: Rockefellers National Council Churches in the US, and this is
Speaker 1: these groups all receive money from the same sources, all
Speaker 1: the usual suspects carnegiese, Rockefellers, Morgan, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And this is really their means by which they're going
Speaker 1: to steer the religious sector of society. And it's all
Speaker 1: one hundred percent documented. It's in the Rockefeller's biography by
Speaker 1: Collier and Horowitz, which is all authorized. David Rockefeller talks
Speaker 1: about it openly. And it's not just the Rock Dollers.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of interests involved in this, the
Speaker 1: Pentagon on the government, you know, they're interested in having
Speaker 1: their agents in place in different churches. But so yeah,
Speaker 1: so all of the strands that we've mentioned, I think
Speaker 1: it all come together to produce the idea of a
Speaker 1: super religion, a super megalithic New World religion. And that's
Speaker 1: one hunder true. And you have plenty of writers in
Speaker 1: every different tradition talking about it and warning about it.
Speaker 1: So you know, I could give you a list of
Speaker 1: twenty books on that as well. An interesting topic too
Speaker 1: that proves this is again one of the usual suspects.
Speaker 1: Altu Suxley wrote a whole book on this and it's
Speaker 1: called the Perennial Philosophy. So you could actually class obviously
Speaker 1: kind of in the tradition of traditionalism as it's called,
Speaker 1: or perennialism, and this would be people like a rennagan On,
Speaker 1: Alexander Dugan, Rama, Kumar Slami and so forth. And this
Speaker 1: is the idea of blending all the religions together. And
Speaker 1: so that's what Huxley says in the book print a Philosophy,
Speaker 1: says the new world religion will be all religions blended together,
Speaker 1: and that's where we need to go. And he also
Speaker 1: explicitly says that what has to be gotten rid of
Speaker 1: is the idea of distinctions of differences. That you have
Speaker 1: your tradition that you that you can carry on, and
Speaker 1: all that's going to be done away with, he says,
Speaker 1: so that all individuals can meld into the absolute. And
Speaker 1: this is what we see the UN promoting. That's why
Speaker 1: he was, you know, foundational in Unesco and his family.
Speaker 1: This is why the Rockefellers are promoting, I mean, excuse
Speaker 1: of the rum Catholic Church begins promoting the UN after
Speaker 1: formerly saying it was evil. Right, So so there you go.
Speaker 1: I mean that I apologize for being so long winded there.
Speaker 2: But I actually I wanted to bring some whip. I
Speaker 2: wanted you to talk about. I'm sure you will. Are
Speaker 2: you familiar with Reverend Austin who was one of the
Speaker 2: first Rockefeller funded preachers.
Speaker 1: That's who I met, is that he was the Riverside
Speaker 1: Church guy. That's what I meant earlier I couldn't think
Speaker 1: of the name.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he's the one who who wrote a he
Speaker 2: wrote a sermon that came out and said that we
Speaker 2: got to get rid of all of the old, old
Speaker 2: ways and old ideas. And then Rock John b. Rockfeller said, well, yeah,
Speaker 2: that sounds good. We need to make him ahead of
Speaker 2: the Riverside Church and you know, promote that idea. And
Speaker 2: then the Rockefeller's funded the printing of that sermon and
Speaker 2: had it sent out to like every church in the country.
Speaker 1: Yeah exactly, And.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's how it's done. Another and then so so
Speaker 2: another thing that's fun. You know, let me read a
Speaker 2: little I just wanted to read a little line out
Speaker 2: of this book. And if anybody is actually interested in
Speaker 2: what we're talking about here, there's a good book that
Speaker 2: kind of sums a lot of things up having to
Speaker 2: do with a particular niche of this called the Prosperity Gospel.
Speaker 2: And it's called Blessed by the author Kate Bohler, And
Speaker 2: and it's kind of just a it's a layman summary
Speaker 2: of this big, huge subjects here. But Professor Bowley here
Speaker 2: she writes, uh, she's she's talking about the new thoughts
Speaker 2: mind power, and this is what we're going to get
Speaker 2: into here in a minute. The historian of metaphysics, Catherine
Speaker 2: Albany's christened it mental magic for its use of vision, imagination, affirmation,
Speaker 2: affirmative press, and in interiority that focused on self mastery.
Speaker 2: With Albany is called mental magic. We will call mind
Speaker 2: power because it's discourse of control n FCS and FC
Speaker 2: calls on the role of thought and speech. Victorian America
Speaker 2: was a hotbed of mind power, bursting the trans and
Speaker 2: demolism spiritualism Freemasonry, Christian science, and a particular interest here
Speaker 2: an option of Christian science called new thought. Out of
Speaker 2: this miasma came the thinkers who nurtured a particular species
Speaker 2: of mind power, planting the seeds of the present day
Speaker 2: prosperity gospel. Then we moved forward into the nineteen fifties
Speaker 2: and one beginning of the World Council of Churches and
Speaker 2: a particular pastor coming out of New York where the
Speaker 2: Rockfellers promote things, and that would be mister Roman Vincent Peel.
Speaker 2: And there's a big history on the back side of
Speaker 2: what mind power and what became known as positive thinking.
Speaker 2: Call the Norman Vincent Peel's book The Power of Positive Thinking.
Speaker 2: There's a myriad of of shuckers and hivers and hucksters
Speaker 2: and you know.
Speaker 1: Yes, like Schueler would kind of be his successor.
Speaker 2: Right, But I'm saying like before that, even before that,
Speaker 2: in the nineteen hundreds and twenties and thirties, there were
Speaker 2: all these like the guys you see jumping around on
Speaker 2: TV in the eighties, nineties and today, there were guys
Speaker 2: like that back in the twenties pushing, pushing mind power
Speaker 2: and word of faith. And things like that, and people
Speaker 2: don't even realize that a lot of the same things
Speaker 2: they believe today in Christianity and prosperity God will have
Speaker 2: absolutely nothing to do with anything with Christianity. It literally
Speaker 2: was crafted in the early nineteen hundreds and it comes
Speaker 2: along into this new age idea that people still get
Speaker 2: pushed on today with self help books, that you can
Speaker 2: speak your reality into existence, the manifest your reality. And
Speaker 2: that was all part of Christianity and prosperity gospel, where
Speaker 2: you know, you don't just pray for stuff, you speak,
Speaker 2: you command God's power to make things happen. And then
Speaker 2: the Rockefellers and the industrialists in general, including Carbigie and
Speaker 2: all that, they funded the idea of the a prosperity
Speaker 2: gospel in a sort of a different way where it
Speaker 2: was all had to do with hard work and dedication,
Speaker 2: the dedication to your to working hard and being a
Speaker 2: hard working American because that's what they wanted their workers
Speaker 2: to be in their factories. Yeah, and so they paid
Speaker 2: their creatures to equate godliness and righteousness with hard work,
Speaker 2: and so that became a staple of Americana as time
Speaker 2: went on. Even though once again there has absolutely nothing
Speaker 2: to do with the origins of Christianity whatsoever, and it
Speaker 2: was tagged onto that and has stuck with us ever since.
Speaker 1: Yes, Axe Baber's book on this. Although I would not
Speaker 1: obviously consider myself any kind of old line German socialist,
Speaker 1: Max Baber's book on the Protestant work ethic is accurate
Speaker 1: and he's right to connect it to Puritanism. Interesting you
Speaker 1: mentioned that about the hard work and all that and
Speaker 1: being a good slave to the global capitalists, because that
Speaker 1: is also influenced by a Puritanical Calvinist tradition, again going
Speaker 1: back to the New Light and old Light Presbyterians and
Speaker 1: American Revivalism. And so I remember when I was in
Speaker 1: high school, I used to work at a paint store
Speaker 1: and this weird guy that lived in town. I think
Speaker 1: it was a contractor, I don't know. He saw me
Speaker 1: reading philosophy one day when I was I don't know,
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty, he started bringing me books, and believe it
Speaker 1: or not, for what For a reason, this guy would
Speaker 1: bring me books out of the school of thought of
Speaker 1: what you're talking about, right, So I remember one day
Speaker 1: he's like, you read that arm and Man's Pale. I
Speaker 1: was like, Nah, I don't really care about that. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna bring you a book. So he started to bring
Speaker 1: me that. He brought me a book back guy named
Speaker 1: Vernon Howard, and he Vernon Howard is one of these guys,
Speaker 1: like you're talking about the New Thought self awareness movement.
Speaker 1: A lot of this would of course be found a
Speaker 1: fundamental for the coming New Age movement. And so he
Speaker 1: brought me like Krishna Murty, who, by the way, I
Speaker 1: was trying to think of who it was that was
Speaker 1: formative in the early beginnings of a humanism, and it
Speaker 1: was Jidu Krishna Murty.
Speaker 2: He's one of the yeah, friend California.
Speaker 1: So this yeah, so this weird contractor would just like
Speaker 1: every month he could come up and bring me some
Speaker 1: book from like you know, self help, weird stuff from
Speaker 1: like nineteen thirty or forty. And this is where you
Speaker 1: get into Gerdjieff, right, and the fourth way Gerdjieff would
Speaker 1: be very influential for a lot of these guys that
Speaker 1: you're talking about. But the Gurgia stuff is weird because
Speaker 1: it also kind of has a lot of occult influences
Speaker 1: transnow meditation type stuff. But really what gerdev was doing
Speaker 1: was just trying to create you know, I think his
Speaker 1: own religion blending a bunch of stuff. You know, I've
Speaker 1: got a new way to do it. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: a mix of a Roman Catholic monastic and a Yogi
Speaker 1: and a fuck here, and it's all blended into you know,
Speaker 1: a new new package for you. And that's also what
Speaker 1: you know, the ecumenical movement is because it doesn't have
Speaker 1: any really real substance. It's all about do your thing,
Speaker 1: but be sure that your thing you're doing is in
Speaker 1: accord with what the Globo state is okay with? Right,
Speaker 1: So you can have your little you know, ceremony or whatever,
Speaker 1: just so long as you're going along with you know,
Speaker 1: the main strategies of the system.
Speaker 2: Well, you're allowed to have fundamentals in your religion as
Speaker 2: long as your fundamentals are accept everybody, even if they
Speaker 2: don't believe in the same thing you do. So if
Speaker 2: you're one of your fundamentals is you know, I don't
Speaker 2: accept your religion or your belief system, then that part
Speaker 2: of your religion needs to go.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, it has to be relt visit exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 4: It's interesting how the the prosperity gospel to name it
Speaker 4: and claim it and all that. Uh. If you think
Speaker 4: about freemasonry, a lot of from what I understand, a
Speaker 4: lot of people will get into freemasonry as a way
Speaker 4: to uh make you know, business connections and to get
Speaker 4: sort of a foothold in business and you know, and
Speaker 4: get some advantage there. And it it's interesting that uh
Speaker 4: so much of so called it's called Christianity. It's not
Speaker 4: it's not Christianity, but it's it focuses in on that.
Speaker 4: It's it's about I know I've heard this before different people.
Speaker 4: You know, you talk and you get you get the
Speaker 4: gist of what's going ox. I never really when I
Speaker 4: used to go to church. I didn't attend any of
Speaker 4: these big churches or mega churches or anything like that.
Speaker 4: But talking to people that did, you always get the
Speaker 4: impression that, yeah, they used the whole you know, going
Speaker 4: to church as a way to network, a way to
Speaker 4: get you know, dredge up business and to connect with people.
Speaker 4: And I think in a lot of ways what that
Speaker 4: does too, it makes uh it you know, to take Christianity,
Speaker 4: turn it into something else and turn to the focus,
Speaker 4: uh make it in line with you know, our our
Speaker 4: modern consumerist, materialist culture that it gave it like its
Speaker 4: own sort of different uh, relevancy in in the in
Speaker 4: the system, you know, where it wouldn't have had that
Speaker 4: if it was it wasn't for that. Yeah, so that
Speaker 4: you know, everything in our culture and society is is
Speaker 4: you know, centered around money and the entertainment of mind
Speaker 4: and material goods, and uh, yeah, the churches have to
Speaker 4: align with that to one degree or another. But yeah,
Speaker 4: it's also interesting too how that is part of like witchcraft,
Speaker 4: you know, and and that sort of thing is like
Speaker 4: you it's just the idea that you're gonna appeal to
Speaker 4: the spirit realm to get the spirits to do you
Speaker 4: favors and stuff, you know, like like the way they
Speaker 4: throw curses on people and they do stuff but whatever,
Speaker 4: something that would get them an advantage over other people.
Speaker 4: Well here that's kind of like the idea behind it.
Speaker 1: Here's an interesting thing.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: One of the aspects that's central of to the to
Speaker 1: the ecumenical idea is that you no longer try to
Speaker 1: convert anyone to your to your philosophy. And Krishna Murdy,
Speaker 1: as we mentioned earlier, I wrote this essay called Three
Speaker 1: Pious Egos and it's the idea of how egotistical it
Speaker 1: is to dare to convert someone to your ideology. What
Speaker 1: everyone seems to miss in terms of the obvious presuppositional
Speaker 1: contradiction here is that the ecumenist is converting everyone to
Speaker 1: his non conversion philosophy. So he's everybody, he's every bit
Speaker 1: the egotistical dogmatist by saying that you're wrong for trying
Speaker 1: to convert people. So as I read, you know, Krishna Murdy,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at him talking about how egotistical are for
Speaker 1: people wanting to convert them. This is a whole apologetic
Speaker 1: treatise trying to convert me to his opinion.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you need to convert people into an organization that
Speaker 4: doesn't go out and try to convert you.
Speaker 1: And that's literally And so you know this is George
Speaker 1: Weigel is one of these big time mainline Catholic so
Speaker 1: called writers. He's written big fat books on John Paul's
Speaker 1: second stuff, and you know, he's always tuting this stuff.
Speaker 1: And you know, he wrote an opinion piece about actually
Speaker 1: connecting Catholicism and Pentecostalism and charismaticism as the means by
Speaker 1: which the ecumenical movement could really spread because to reach
Speaker 1: more and more of a mass audience, you're not going
Speaker 1: to do it through putting out tracks and lectures and sermons.
Speaker 1: It's going to happen through people having subjectives, so called
Speaker 1: experiences that they think are divine and so charismaticism is
Speaker 1: a great vehicle for that, right, converting people over to
Speaker 1: this ecumenical sledge of believe nothing, I guess relativism. What
Speaker 1: the irony there, of course, is that, as we said,
Speaker 1: these are actual engineered movements. They're one run by people
Speaker 1: who a lot of these new thought type people will
Speaker 1: gurge you of these kinds of people. You know, these
Speaker 1: are people running in the circles of you know, the
Speaker 1: monetary elite, who you know, are all about social engineering.
Speaker 1: So what I'm saying is that the promises of ecumenism
Speaker 1: are hollow. They don't lead to you know, all this
Speaker 1: tolerance and whatever glowing hippie utopian ideals they're they're promoting. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's all part of the one world global state. And
Speaker 1: as I said again, you can look at Huxley's Perennial
Speaker 1: Philosophy book to see that. Yeah, and then they say,
Speaker 1: these people will even say you know, in the coming future,
Speaker 1: we're going to have to deal with the dissenters. You know,
Speaker 1: they're going to have to be dealt with. Right, So
Speaker 1: much for tolerance, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, doesn't sound very tolerant.
Speaker 2: Well, one of the biggest pushers of the economical like
Speaker 2: it a is Rick Warren.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Now that's got to be some kind of
Speaker 1: CI think.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, oh yeah. And so we're you know,
Speaker 2: now here's where, Here's where. And I want to touch
Speaker 2: us touch on this on a later on a later episode.
Speaker 2: And Jay, you're welcome to join us again if when
Speaker 2: we start getting into southern California, Jesus people and evangelicism,
Speaker 2: because we're going to talk about that in the future.
Speaker 2: But see right here in southern California, and all of
Speaker 2: these churches are within a couple of miles of each other.
Speaker 2: Strangely enough, is TBN Calbred Chapel, Megachurch, Mothership, a vineyard,
Speaker 2: and saddleback Church where we're uh pastors out to the
Speaker 2: twenty thousand people at once.
Speaker 1: So I note one of the the Calvary Chapel which
Speaker 1: it originates to California. DA mc allen points out it
Speaker 1: as one of the Laurel Canyon, guys who started the
Speaker 1: Calfrey Chapels.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's uh, well there there's I know a
Speaker 2: lot about that, and I'm kind of saving it for
Speaker 2: a particular absence. I'm not even going to talk about
Speaker 2: that yet, okay.
Speaker 3: But.
Speaker 2: So all all of those particular churches are kind of
Speaker 2: are kind of offsheets of Calvary Chapel. They kind of
Speaker 2: started that all except for TVN. But but Rick Warren
Speaker 2: of course hosted a debate between John McCain and Barack
Speaker 2: Obama at Saddleback Church in Airline, and then he went
Speaker 2: on to give the inaugural speech for Obama, and then
Speaker 2: he goes to DeVos, hangs out at the World Economic
Speaker 2: Form and then you can see video clips of him,
Speaker 2: you know, saying that he's buddies with the Islamic leaders
Speaker 2: and that they're signing u N agreements for covenants between
Speaker 2: the faiths and things like this, and and so what
Speaker 2: I've talked about with christ before or with you know,
Speaker 2: just people who I know who are church goers. I
Speaker 2: am not myself a churchgoer, but most people who go
Speaker 2: to church, they don't even go to church because they're
Speaker 2: into reading texts or understanding the Bible. They kind of
Speaker 2: want to go to church because it feels good, you know.
Speaker 2: And they're not bad people by any stretch of the world.
Speaker 2: They're not bad. It's just they do something that's kind
Speaker 2: of been passed down as a tradition, and it's kind
Speaker 2: of a blind tradition. So they're not really into learning
Speaker 2: about the Bible, or if they are into learning about
Speaker 2: the Bible, they only go as far as what their
Speaker 2: preacher tells them. So somebody like Rick Warren, who wrote
Speaker 2: the most popular Christian book of all time, The Purpose
Speaker 2: Driven Life, I mean the title of The Purpose Driven Life,
Speaker 2: it should be on the self help aisle in Barnes
Speaker 2: and Nobles. Right, Yes, that has nothing to do with
Speaker 2: I mean even in the title, has nothing to do
Speaker 2: with Christianity whatsoever. And then half the time, most of
Speaker 2: these guys, including warn himself, they don't even have a
Speaker 2: Bible on their pulpit when they're giving their sercums.
Speaker 1: The exact same way. Yeah, yeah, it's very very bizarre
Speaker 1: the history of the megachurch, and I believe Saddleback has
Speaker 1: kind of gone talk connections as well. For my research,
Speaker 1: you can look at Paul Crouch he's been in trouble
Speaker 1: with the FBI for money laundering. Not that I'm saying
Speaker 1: that the government's good. I'm just saying that rival mafia
Speaker 1: is right. Yeah, these people are quite obviously dubious, but
Speaker 1: I think they experiment with different things too. So you
Speaker 1: had in the last fifteen ten fifteen years this movement
Speaker 1: called the Emergent Church. And this is weird because it's
Speaker 1: an attempt to blend the denominational slash megachurch with some
Speaker 1: cafeteria style stuff from maybe Orthodox liturgy or Catholic liturgy.
Speaker 1: So you might have a calendar and you might the
Speaker 1: guy might decide to wear a robe or something like that,
Speaker 1: but you're all going to meet in an auditorium and
Speaker 1: wear jeans, and we're right. So it's a weird mix
Speaker 1: of stuff. And then you start watching the heads of
Speaker 1: this movement and they start saying, oh, yeah, we actually
Speaker 1: disagree with a lot of what's in the Bible. We
Speaker 1: don't really believe that.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: And if you trace back the Emergent movement, I spent
Speaker 1: about a day one day researching this and look to me,
Speaker 1: like this is coming out of Oxford. That's of course
Speaker 1: the you know, Central locale of I believe that the
Speaker 1: inner Party of the UH, for lack of a better terms,
Speaker 1: of real world controlling illuminati. So what I think is
Speaker 1: that they kind of throw out these different things like
Speaker 1: the megachurch and the these different trends in Christianity, like
Speaker 1: you know, Christian hip hop and all this kind of junk,
Speaker 1: which is just like a mimic of the so called
Speaker 1: secular stuff. Right, it's like a cheap copy of that stuff.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 1: And it's it's all marketed in exactly the same way
Speaker 1: as the mainline stuff, right. It looks exactly the same.
Speaker 1: It's not really anything substantially different. So that maybe throwing
Speaker 1: Jesus here and there, and I think it's, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: all it's all a scam. It's it's just as much
Speaker 1: a scam as anything else that you know, you guys
Speaker 1: talk about. So, yeah, all of these movements seem to
Speaker 1: be dubious, and they tie into homeland security quite often.
Speaker 1: You know, these mega churches, emergent churches are full of
Speaker 1: people who are informists for homeland security. There have been
Speaker 1: plenty of articles and mainstream news reports about that as well.
Speaker 2: You know what, one of the biggest seats of modernist
Speaker 2: architecture is.
Speaker 1: Well, what it could be a lot of things.
Speaker 2: What one of the biggest feats that you can attribute
Speaker 2: to modernist architecture the Crystal Cathedrals.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, yeah, Robert, there you go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Philip Johnson was the woman who designed the Crystal Cathedral.
Speaker 2: And then a guy we talked about quite often in
Speaker 2: this the guy who built the original church for the
Speaker 2: Chris Cathedral was built, was Richard Neutra, who builds all
Speaker 2: of the other stuff that we've talked about. But yeah,
Speaker 2: that's another thing that ties into this, and this is
Speaker 2: a good point to bring it up, because there's actually
Speaker 2: a connection between modernism and modernist Christianity modernism in the
Speaker 2: sense of how we've been discussing it, because you start
Speaker 2: to see in the nineteen fifties you start to see
Speaker 2: this and you see this in the Catholic Church as well,
Speaker 2: where you start seeing these churches starting to be updated
Speaker 2: in the way that they're built, and they're all built
Speaker 2: in modernist fashion. They've totally and post modernist fashion. They've
Speaker 2: totally done away with the church and the steeple in
Speaker 2: the classical sense, and now you've got, you know, modern
Speaker 2: buildings where some of them don't even have crosses on them,
Speaker 2: or you don't even that it's a church. It actually
Speaker 2: looks more like a civic center.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the the Catholic version is what you're talking about
Speaker 1: where and I know at a bit about all that.
Speaker 1: And this was especially.
Speaker 4: Say what, oh you you were breaking up there real bad.
Speaker 1: Oh. Yeah, this happens after Vatican Two, especially in the
Speaker 1: Catholic Church, where the norm for the architecture becomes all
Speaker 1: this hideous, uh, space station looking stuff. And what it
Speaker 1: looks like is the old Soviet style architecture of what
Speaker 1: they thought the future, like the retro futurism of the Soviets.
Speaker 1: It's what a lot of that post Vatican too, Catholic
Speaker 1: churches look.
Speaker 4: Like you looked into cause cosmism, Yes, I take that.
Speaker 4: I'm saying that right.
Speaker 1: When it's posted on that And uh, there's some interesting
Speaker 1: articles at us sold the East. Well, there's a woman
Speaker 1: named no Natalia Rtanina and she wrote a couple of
Speaker 1: interesting articles that deal with Russian cosmism. I forget the
Speaker 1: exact name of the article off the top of my head.
Speaker 1: I can link it or email it to you guys.
Speaker 1: But but yeah, Russian futurism and cosmism would have its
Speaker 1: own sort of weird style of architecture. And you know
Speaker 1: a lot of these Vatican two Postvatican Two churches in
Speaker 1: the Catholic Church took on that architecture absolutely right. And
Speaker 1: in the Protestant world, the corollary, I guess would be
Speaker 1: the nobnominational strip mall or the big metal building or
Speaker 1: the church that looks like a sports theater.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they have one of those down here on the
Speaker 4: corner from me, not too far. It's like a big Uh.
Speaker 4: I don't know if it's called a megachurch. I don't think.
Speaker 4: I don't know if it's that big, but it's a
Speaker 4: really big it's like a compound, But yeah, it does.
Speaker 4: It looks like what you just got to describe, and
Speaker 4: it's it's just like pre fab and a big, huge,
Speaker 4: gigantic parking lot that they bought from a defunct grocery
Speaker 4: store that used to be there. And uh, it's they're
Speaker 4: like charismatic. I guess that's what you classify it. And
Speaker 4: I think the think about the charismatic movement from and
Speaker 4: from what I gather, it's like really had a had
Speaker 4: a big research resurgence within the last I don't know
Speaker 4: how many years, twenty years or so.
Speaker 1: Especially in Africa and Latin America.
Speaker 4: By the way, Oh really okay, see, yeah, that it's
Speaker 4: it's it's really it's really big. Well, I mean they
Speaker 4: got this uh, this big compound down here and and
Speaker 4: then I don't I don't know how many members, but
Speaker 4: they have like two different services. Uh, so they can
Speaker 4: accommodate everybody. And they already have those like huge gigantic
Speaker 4: parking lot, so they with all that, they still have
Speaker 4: like two separate services. But I was just going to
Speaker 4: mention something about the uh charismatic movement and like if
Speaker 4: you do what Rick Warren, which is he's admitted to
Speaker 4: being a member of the Council Council on Foreign Relations.
Speaker 4: By the way, they talk about getting direct revelation from God.
Speaker 4: You know, that's probably what you know John's mentioning. You
Speaker 4: know he gets up and preaches and doesn't even have
Speaker 4: the Bible. Well, it's this idea that you know, you're
Speaker 4: getting like direct tapped into you know, the Holy Spirit
Speaker 4: and God and and you're getting direct revelation. And that's
Speaker 4: that's an idea in in you know, the charismatic movement especially.
Speaker 4: I think that is what you see now a lot
Speaker 4: where you know, like like like you're talking about where
Speaker 4: people don't really are into reading the Bible or knowing
Speaker 4: anything about the Bible really, and that I think that's uh,
Speaker 4: at least on my base, on my experience, I gather
Speaker 4: that just about anybody I've ever spoken to who doesn't
Speaker 4: really know a whole lot about the Bible and they
Speaker 4: don't really read the Bible a whole lot. I mean,
Speaker 4: you find exceptions here and there, but generally speaking, it's
Speaker 4: it's more to do like you'll hear people talk about, well,
Speaker 4: you know, God told me this, God told me that
Speaker 4: God's moving in my life, He's working in my life,
Speaker 4: and it's all this kind of, uh, this concept of
Speaker 4: this you know, spirit influence that they're having. They'll make
Speaker 4: reference to the Bible, but it's it's not like they're
Speaker 4: directing our life according to the Bible. It's more this
Speaker 4: idea of this direct revelation from God.
Speaker 1: Absolutely and this, oddly enough, is all directly out of
Speaker 1: the suspects we mentioned earlier, right theosophy. Theosophy and anthroposophy
Speaker 1: are the foundations of the ecumenical movement. And you can
Speaker 1: go back to Madam Wolvatsky who talked about this. We
Speaker 1: mentioned Krishna Murdi under any Bassan, so he was involved
Speaker 1: in the Theosophical Society, you know, a big guy in
Speaker 1: the ecumenical movement. So in the idea there is that,
Speaker 1: you know, my tapping into right is what is what's
Speaker 1: guiding me into whatever force that that might be, whether
Speaker 1: it's my mind or you know, demons or something who knows.
Speaker 1: But but that's the problem, is that there's no guideline
Speaker 1: by which we can determine, you know, the source of
Speaker 1: these of these experiences. And when I was eighteen or
Speaker 1: nineteen started reading the Bible, I visited some charismatic churches
Speaker 1: to just check it out. You know, it's kind of like, well,
Speaker 1: reading the Bible, you know which church is right, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna you know, taste all thirty two flavors or thirty
Speaker 1: two thousand flavors, but I'm gonna go see which ones are,
Speaker 1: you know, check it out. And I went to a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of different churches to get an idea. And
Speaker 1: what you noticed in the charismatic churches is that that's
Speaker 1: absolutely the case. There's you know, very little Bible literacy,
Speaker 1: and everybody's just kind of looking for and waiting for
Speaker 1: this next experience, which probably ninety five to ninety nine
Speaker 1: percent of the time is just people's emotions that they're
Speaker 1: mistaking for the so called spirit.
Speaker 2: I would say, yeah, a lot of things too. Is
Speaker 2: you know one thing you guys brought up I wanted
Speaker 2: to mention because you know, I was raised in the
Speaker 2: throes of the charismatic movement out here, and my parents
Speaker 2: attended Calvy Chapel and I went to private school with
Speaker 2: a lot of kids, some kids who were also pastors,
Speaker 2: children from local churches. And the one thing I noticed,
Speaker 2: like you said, like these churches take on these postmodernist
Speaker 2: structures when they're built. And when that movement first started
Speaker 2: out in the sixties, the idea behind it was was
Speaker 2: something that you could probably get on board with at
Speaker 2: a certain level where it's like, Hey, you don't need
Speaker 2: to go here and go there, We're going to do
Speaker 2: our own thing. You can come to my house and
Speaker 2: we'll have Bible study, right, And that's how that kind
Speaker 2: of started out. It's like, hey, come over to my house.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's what my parents used to do. They
Speaker 2: come over to the house, we'll have people over, we'll
Speaker 2: have Bible study and and we you know, we don't
Speaker 2: need to go to a church to do that or
Speaker 2: you know whatever. And then it then from that point
Speaker 2: it turned into well, I can you know, we can
Speaker 2: rent this warehouse and we can have the church there
Speaker 2: until we're able to get space. But then once the
Speaker 2: people can afford to have the church built, they don't.
Speaker 2: They purposely don't build it like an old church, right,
Speaker 2: they don't build they don't build it in a traditional fashion.
Speaker 2: They build it like, you know, like you guys said,
Speaker 2: like in a postmodernist fashion, where it looks nothing like
Speaker 2: a church, it has no traditional ties to anything else.
Speaker 2: And so people have been brought up.
Speaker 3: In a.
Speaker 2: In a fashion today where they don't know anything about
Speaker 2: what took place before and they don't know how, you know,
Speaker 2: anything else looks and all of them. And if you
Speaker 2: if you were to say to somebody today, hey, the
Speaker 2: majority of the stuff that you believe actually comes out
Speaker 2: of the theosophy, Yeah, they would they would, they would
Speaker 2: they would be mad at you because they wouldn't believe you, right, Like, hey,
Speaker 2: you're talking about communing with the Holy Spirit, and things
Speaker 2: like that, Like people didn't talk that way, you know,
Speaker 2: prior prior to the eighteen eighties, okay, and the only
Speaker 2: people to talk like that were theosophists and spiritualists and
Speaker 2: mentalists and things like that. And you know, interestingly enough,
Speaker 2: around the same time I made this connection, I was
Speaker 2: thinking about that, this is all around the same time
Speaker 2: that Mesmer's stuff came out with so that that all
Speaker 2: plays into into you know, the falling down and you know,
Speaker 2: all I can you know, the blind can see, the
Speaker 2: lane can walk type stuff, And there's a whole series
Speaker 2: of that type of stuff as well, especially in the
Speaker 2: nineteen twenties with the tent revivals and then well then
Speaker 2: also also big time after the Depression, because people were
Speaker 2: looking for reasons why the depression happened, not because you know,
Speaker 2: the rich elite stole everything. It was because God was
Speaker 2: danning America and telling them to turn back to God.
Speaker 2: And that's what the preachers were saying, and so people
Speaker 2: were looking to churches and so that a lot of
Speaker 2: the preachers gained a stronghold during that particular time period.
Speaker 1: It makes me think of that, what's that Steve Martin
Speaker 1: movie from the nineties I think where he's the con
Speaker 1: man preacher. Remember that Leap.
Speaker 2: Of Faith, Leap of Faith, Leap of Faith. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: there's a there's a series of those stuff. And see
Speaker 2: that's the thing that that's too bad about, you know,
Speaker 2: people like Robert Kilton, even my favorite even my favorite
Speaker 2: televangelist because if you want to talk about it, a
Speaker 2: direct connection to God. Yeah. Uh but yeah, see those
Speaker 2: guys obviously, like like you said, those guys are on
Speaker 2: are on government table to act like a bunch of
Speaker 2: koops and make Christians look bad. And then when you
Speaker 2: see a movie like the uh like Leap of Faith
Speaker 2: and the other one, what was the one with Robert
Speaker 2: Huball where he.
Speaker 1: Was yeah yeah, where he he kills somebody and remember that. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So there's the there's there's Hollywood critiquing Christianity there, and
Speaker 2: and they're critiquing in the fashion you know, like like oh,
Speaker 2: look at these bad Christians, are you know, idiots from
Speaker 2: believing the stuff? Right? And so do you have this
Speaker 2: dialectic going on there? And so anyways, uh, unfortunate. I
Speaker 2: was just going to finish real quick here and then
Speaker 2: I'll leave you guys have the rest of the discussion. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: growing up in the nineteen eighties and with one foot
Speaker 2: in Christian culture and one foot being persuaded by the
Speaker 2: worldly culture. If you're going to listen to a heavy
Speaker 2: metal band in the nineteen eighties, you're not going to
Speaker 2: listen to a Christian heavy metal band. And the Christian
Speaker 2: culture all it did was try to any like you
Speaker 2: were saying, all did was trying to anyway. Everything on
Speaker 2: the radio or everything looks like like they've come out
Speaker 2: with books that were kind of like Stephen King will
Speaker 2: it's like a book. There was a book that was
Speaker 2: very famous in the eighties with Christians called This Present Darkness.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Frank pretty.
Speaker 2: Frank pretty, and then he's all hooked into the Council
Speaker 2: for National Policy and everything. But yeah, so we're gonna
Speaker 2: write a Stephen King type novel to have it, but
Speaker 2: it's gonna have a Christian it's gonna have a you know,
Speaker 2: one foot in Christianity sort of peel through the Christians
Speaker 2: because Stephen King is so popular at this time period.
Speaker 2: And then we're gonna Christian death metal bands. There were
Speaker 2: Christian death metal bands in the nineties.
Speaker 4: You know, Christian vampire novels, now I just looked that up.
Speaker 2: I guess I guess it doesn't I guess it doesn't
Speaker 2: work if you staff, if you, you know, pull the
Speaker 2: cross out for him.
Speaker 4: Well it should, right, I mean that's the way.
Speaker 2: Well la cross of the repel then actually lets them
Speaker 2: into the.
Speaker 4: House apparently is such a thing. Wow, just selling that out, well,
Speaker 4: just take I'm sorry, Oh no, I was just gonna
Speaker 4: say it. Just take takes what's already kind of popular
Speaker 4: in culture and puts a Christian angle on it and
Speaker 4: then repackages it, puts it out there films, you know,
Speaker 4: but you know the same action thrillers, Christian action thrillers.
Speaker 1: Christians behind garbage with the cage, right, yeah, y well.
Speaker 1: The what's interesting about the architecture aspect too that I
Speaker 1: wanted to mention was that it's curious to me that
Speaker 1: the idea in uh, you know, the early Church, why
Speaker 1: they started building cathedrals and uh, you know, big edifices
Speaker 1: that were an ornate. It wasn't just some sort of
Speaker 1: notion of being ostentatious or whatever. It was because you know,
Speaker 1: if you lived in a hamlet or a village or
Speaker 1: something like this, the most architecture was built that way
Speaker 1: to begin with, in the sense of durability and longevity.
Speaker 1: So the idea was because it was I guess I
Speaker 1: would argue more traditional. The notion was that you're you're
Speaker 1: building this church not just for you, You're building it
Speaker 1: for subsequent generations, right, so your children and your children's
Speaker 1: children and so forth are going to be worshiping at
Speaker 1: this same building. It therefore makes sense to make it
Speaker 1: out of brick and stone sort to last, you know, right.
Speaker 1: So that's and that's contrasted to this idea of progeny
Speaker 1: and building things for the future, is contrasted drastically with
Speaker 1: the consumerist, you know, transient aspect of the way the
Speaker 1: churches that we're talking about are built where they're built,
Speaker 1: especially in Protestantism and non Denominationalism and Evangelicalism, they're just
Speaker 1: these like big metal buildings that you know, are not
Speaker 1: going to last.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like uh yeah, the prefab stuff, and they could
Speaker 4: throw it up real quick, and yeah that's uh yeah,
Speaker 4: I've taken note of that.
Speaker 1: So it's not a position that is even concerned or
Speaker 1: thinking about, you know, where are our descendants going to
Speaker 1: be worshiping?
Speaker 4: You know, just like the rest of the culture. I mean,
Speaker 4: shopping centers are the same way. I mean, you go
Speaker 4: look at the shopping center. It's like, okay, that's going
Speaker 4: to be gone with the first strong win that comes
Speaker 4: through here. You know, it's it's just not gonna be
Speaker 4: something there's going to last very long. But you know
Speaker 4: it's just uh yeah. And now church is the same thing. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's a good point.
Speaker 1: I think about what it's focusing on, the immediate here
Speaker 1: and now, and that makes sense with this idea of
Speaker 1: you know, the loss of belief in the eternal, and
Speaker 1: I think that's directly connected to the notion of something
Speaker 1: being true with the capital T meaning you know, objectively, consistently,
Speaker 1: always true, eternally true. Is contrasted with pragmatism, which is
Speaker 1: the only school of philosophy that America has produced, which
Speaker 1: makes sense with the idea of America pragmatism and the
Speaker 1: immediate here now empiricism. This is all we got. And
Speaker 1: you know, it's a reflection of the consumerism in the
Speaker 1: society as a whole.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the me centered culture, the century of the self,
Speaker 4: that whole thing. And then yeah, and you look at
Speaker 4: how all of these institutions within the greater system are
Speaker 4: all integrated. It's amazing. Oh yeah, it's that, you know.
Speaker 4: The Okay, Now, the church is follows suit and then
Speaker 4: they reflective and they of the culture at large with
Speaker 4: whichever direction it starts to head. The churches incorporate doctrines
Speaker 4: and theology and stuff that is reflective of the wider culture.
Speaker 4: And I've talked about that in the past calls and stuff.
Speaker 4: How that, yeah that I noticed that growing up and
Speaker 4: going to church. How that was the case, you know,
Speaker 4: or things that were deemed by the culture at large
Speaker 4: as being bad things, and then the church would adopt
Speaker 4: those sentiments. And then uh, but you can go back,
Speaker 4: you know, when I was a h.
Speaker 1: A pipe or a cigarette tobacco like you mentioned.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, and you'd see the guys out, uh mainly
Speaker 4: men out smoking during the enter the between the glass
Speaker 4: in the Sunday school service a there'd be about a
Speaker 4: ten minute break and then be men out there smoking.
Speaker 4: And you know that that doesn't happen anymore. You don't
Speaker 4: even uh wouldn't you know if you if you smoke,
Speaker 4: you don't even let yourself be seen smoking because it's
Speaker 4: something that's that is uh, you know, deemed as bad
Speaker 4: by the Church. And then also like, yeah, you wouldn't
Speaker 4: take a drink out in public or anything like that,
Speaker 4: because that's that's seen as Unchristian or non Christian, even
Speaker 4: though there's no prohibition against it in the Bible at all,
Speaker 4: you know, any of those prohibitions.
Speaker 1: The Psalms even say God gave line.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, he says, let the foremahan drink to forget
Speaker 4: his troubles.
Speaker 1: And proverbs too, he says, let the fore man have
Speaker 1: his drink. There's a statement in Deuteronomy where God even
Speaker 1: says that when the Israelites come together to celebrate the
Speaker 1: feast days, he wishes that they have strong drink. So
Speaker 1: just utterly postrous invention of some you know, some guys,
Speaker 1: some control freak pastor who just got the idea, you
Speaker 1: know that. And I think that goes back to Americanism,
Speaker 1: American revivalism and the Temperance movement that was all, you know,
Speaker 1: connected to the same idea of social engineering. Now interesting,
Speaker 1: the Temperance movement reminds me of it comes up in
Speaker 1: this book I just read called The Messianic Character of
Speaker 1: American Education. And I don't agree with everything that Rush
Speaker 1: Jenny promotes. Who's the authors, but he is kind of
Speaker 1: he's the founder of the homeschool movement. And what's good
Speaker 1: about this book is that he includes about several hundred
Speaker 1: quotes from the I think he picks about twenty or
Speaker 1: twenty five of the founding guys in American education. And
Speaker 1: the reason this is relevant to our humunism talk is
Speaker 1: that it's the exact same idea of Messianism, but it's
Speaker 1: all going to be at the behest of the socialist state.
Speaker 1: So when you look at the figures of Horace Mann,
Speaker 1: John Dewey, JB. Watson, Edward Sheldon, Henry Barnard, there's a
Speaker 1: there's a whole list of these character William James, the philosopher,
Speaker 1: was influential in this.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: They have the idea, I'm not joking. This sounds extreme,
Speaker 1: but they literally thought that public.
Speaker 6: Schooling was a messianic reality that would bring salvation to America,
Speaker 6: and then America would then bring public.
Speaker 1: Schooling to the world, and that the whole change. Now lit'sten,
Speaker 1: here's here's here's a quote from Horace Mann, who was
Speaker 1: a Unitarian universalist. The public school, the common school is
Speaker 1: the greatest discovery ever by man and he goes on
Speaker 1: to say that through the implementation, we will create a utopia.
Speaker 1: That's quotes from of course man, we also go on
Speaker 1: I'm not going to read them all, but I mean
Speaker 1: there's countless quotes where you have these founding guys saying
Speaker 1: that the goal of education, especially John Dewey, is not
Speaker 1: to educate or to teach a child how to learn,
Speaker 1: but to socialize them, and by that he means to
Speaker 1: bring them into conformity with the world state. Now, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that socialism and Marxism is, as we've discussed,
Speaker 1: like a secret ideology that's going to take over the world.
Speaker 1: It's an ideology that's promoted by the capitalist global elite,
Speaker 1: the banking elite, so forth, corporate elite, because it destroys
Speaker 1: the critical thinking of individuals, and that's why it's so
Speaker 1: heavily promoted. So it's not even Marxism, because that was
Speaker 1: primarily and economic philosophy of you know, modes of exchange
Speaker 1: and means of production and all that. It's rather this
Speaker 1: generic idea of sloganized, sloganeering socialism that is literally the
Speaker 1: worldview of every every single one of the founding fathers
Speaker 1: of American education. They all talk about it, and they
Speaker 1: talk about it as necessary for democracy. They even say
Speaker 1: that democracy is not just democracy, it's a salvafic way
Speaker 1: of life.
Speaker 4: Wow, yeah, that is.
Speaker 1: Let's see which character that was that said that education
Speaker 1: to see Carlton Washburn one of the I forget what
Speaker 1: he did, but he's one of these founding guys. And
Speaker 1: you see, a democracy means that America will be the
Speaker 1: instrument through which public education will be spread to the globe.
Speaker 1: And it's public education that is democracy, and democracy is
Speaker 1: a Solvafic way of life. So another whilst the supposed
Speaker 1: idea of democracy is this idea that we all equal,
Speaker 1: we all have the same i'd vote, we all get
Speaker 1: then equal vote, blah blah blah, egalitarianism, and that necessitates then,
Speaker 1: oh well, if we're going to be democratic, you got
Speaker 1: to have public schools because it's not fair to have
Speaker 1: private schools or people learning on their own. Got to
Speaker 1: have public schools. There's also an interesting chapter that shows
Speaker 1: the correlation that comes out of this, which is the
Speaker 1: idea that, well, you can't have gifted students because that
Speaker 1: would presume some higher status and that's not fair to
Speaker 1: everyone else. So even like back one hundred years ago,
Speaker 1: when they were really discussing putting into place the public
Speaker 1: education system, they were already stacking the deck against to
Speaker 1: war against individual critical thinkers, to war against genius, to
Speaker 1: war against gifted students, and so forth. Those are the
Speaker 1: ones that are marked as the problem. As Merchant Russell said,
Speaker 1: for example, But all these, all these same American education guys,
Speaker 1: they're all by the way, and every one of them
Speaker 1: are Darwinian, and they think that they think that we
Speaker 1: are evolving into one big mass clump that will bring
Speaker 1: the utopia. Now I'm not again, it's not it's not
Speaker 1: that Marxism is the point. It's that people believe these
Speaker 1: cloudy ideals and they act on them. And all the
Speaker 1: founding fathers of American public schooling believed it, and they
Speaker 1: even say that if you don't go along with this,
Speaker 1: you're going to have to be dealt with. Hence they
Speaker 1: were behind mandatory public schooling and the idea of truancy
Speaker 1: and so forth.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's that's there. I wasn't quite aware of all
Speaker 4: that those connections there. I you know, I was, uh,
Speaker 4: when I when I used to go to church, I
Speaker 4: would get into debates a lot about about the Sunday school, uh,
Speaker 4: a whole set up in the churches, and I would,
Speaker 4: you know, among other things, I would you know, question
Speaker 4: stuff you know that's going on, doctrinal issues and stuff
Speaker 4: like that, and I was just you know, I would
Speaker 4: get into discussions with the creatures and stuff about hey,
Speaker 4: you know, I mean, how is this, uh, you know,
Speaker 4: remind me how this is scriptural because I don't see.
Speaker 4: I see admonitions in the Bible to raise up your children,
Speaker 4: but those are two the parents. That's not something that
Speaker 4: you naturally delegate to somebody else. So so I had
Speaker 4: a problem with the whole Sunday school concept, you know,
Speaker 4: this principle of it. It's like, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 4: you you turn your child over to somebody else to
Speaker 4: bring them up in the way they should go. And
Speaker 4: it's like, well, I don't think that's what the Bible
Speaker 4: is talking about. I think it's admonitions of parents, really,
Speaker 4: and uh so, yeah, I'll go round and around with
Speaker 4: him on that, and uh, it's just the idea behind it,
Speaker 4: and I think that's probably what you just brought up.
Speaker 4: There had a lot to do with that being implemented
Speaker 4: in the churches.
Speaker 1: Uh, because it's it's like kindergarten.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what it's like. And it's kind of like
Speaker 4: a it's just a principle of the idea that like, yeah,
Speaker 4: you even uh take your take your child and put
Speaker 4: them in turn them over to somebody else in order
Speaker 4: to teach them about the Bible even you know.
Speaker 1: Well, the founder of the idea of kindergarten is a
Speaker 1: German guy, Friedrich Schrubeu, and he was borrowing his ideas
Speaker 1: from the Prussian model of statism. And so the American
Speaker 1: public education system, by the way, is all directly from
Speaker 1: the Prussian state model of education, which was all collectives
Speaker 1: and based on Hegel's philosophy of the state as the
Speaker 1: march of God in history. Now I'm going to read
Speaker 1: you in America, so Rubel was German. I'm going to
Speaker 1: read you his evangelist in America a woman by the
Speaker 1: name of what is her name, Emma Marwadel, some American
Speaker 1: education woman. And then her horseman's sister in law is
Speaker 1: a woman by the name of Elizabeth Peabody. This is
Speaker 1: what Elizabeth Peabody says as she's going around promoting why
Speaker 1: we have to have kindergarten. I'm not making this up, okay,
Speaker 1: she says. She says kindergarten is true education because it
Speaker 1: is a religion. It is not a vocation. It is
Speaker 1: a vocation from God. It is the means to the millennium.
Speaker 7: Children understood leading, children understood leading in the promised millennium
Speaker 7: of peace on earth and good will among men will.
Speaker 1: Make mankind forget the babble of confusion and it's experimenting
Speaker 1: and enter into the mutual understanding of the Pentecost miracle.
Speaker 1: So she literally she's saying public education, not just a
Speaker 1: public education. When we have kindergarten everywhere, it will bring
Speaker 1: the millennium and the reversal of Babel. It's a new Pentecost.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 1: Now there's hundreds of quotes like this. I know it's
Speaker 1: hard to believe, but yeah, all of these. She goes
Speaker 1: on to say, it's my prayer that God's will be
Speaker 1: done on earth, and the way that we bring this
Speaker 1: is through public education. She says, kindergarten will eradicate poverty,
Speaker 1: it will prevent war, it will see to it that
Speaker 1: dictators will rise no more. It will completely alter the
Speaker 1: environment because the only she says, an the only way
Speaker 1: that a kid could ever turn evil is because of
Speaker 1: an evil environment. Now, what's interesting is that all of
Speaker 1: these thinkers all have the same view that everything about
Speaker 1: man is external. So in other words, everything that man,
Speaker 1: all man's actions, are a result of the external stimuli
Speaker 1: that he's received. And so this is why JB. Watson,
Speaker 1: the founder of behaviorism, is so important to this school
Speaker 1: because he says that the behaviorist techniques of operant conditioning,
Speaker 1: stimulus response, deprogramming, and reprogramming repatterning. He says it will
Speaker 1: lead to the idea of total conditioning through public schooling.
Speaker 1: M Yeah.
Speaker 4: And if you notice, like anything that you look at,
Speaker 4: if it's dealing with like the third world of developing
Speaker 4: economies and stuff like that, or anything to do with
Speaker 4: you know, international relations, anything like that, it's always like
Speaker 4: this heavy emphasis on school Yes, like the Yeah, those
Speaker 4: in poverty, our primary concern is like we we need
Speaker 4: to ensure and we need to help them get schools
Speaker 4: and get education because education in schooling is so vital
Speaker 4: to you know, economic prosperity and developing countries and all
Speaker 4: that stuff. And there's so much emphasis placed on schooling
Speaker 4: and so that it's now synonymous with if you can't
Speaker 4: attend school, that's equal to poverty, that's equal to low
Speaker 4: quality of life, that's equal to which in a lot
Speaker 4: of respects, if you're in this artificial system, it is true.
Speaker 4: It's like this uh, you know, self affirming thing that
Speaker 4: exists in our in so called civilization. But yeah, but
Speaker 4: you'll always hear about this. This just heavy drumbeat about
Speaker 4: you know how how important that is. It's so important
Speaker 4: to get these young minds into the classroom environment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, And when you look at say, go to
Speaker 1: the rock Tiller Foundation website and you pull up their
Speaker 1: white papers on the budget and where the money's gone.
Speaker 1: Where they which they all put up, they put it
Speaker 1: up on there. Where does most of that money go.
Speaker 1: It goes to education and schools in foreign countries, and
Speaker 1: women's rights in foreign countries, which that means vaccines.
Speaker 4: And horses and yeah, breaking down the family by uh.
Speaker 4: And I heard us in the like in Africa where
Speaker 4: they have these micro loans and like, yeah, men don't
Speaker 4: qualify for them. It's like mainly given to women. So
Speaker 4: it's like you take the economic power, you turn it
Speaker 4: over to the women. Yeah, it was a great Yeah,
Speaker 4: And uh so, uh, I understanding full well what the
Speaker 4: overall fallout from all that which they're realizing it now,
Speaker 4: But you know, I mean it's it's it's showing itself now.
Speaker 4: But yeah, see they totally understand that up front. And
Speaker 4: that's to break apart, the family break and to destroy
Speaker 4: the traditional culture and structure, social structure.
Speaker 1: Yes, everything has to be melded into this generic absolute,
Speaker 1: this pomanism that Huxley talked about. Here's JB. Watson describing
Speaker 1: his behaviorism. He says, in one sweeping assumption after another,
Speaker 1: the behaviorist throws out the concept of both mind and
Speaker 1: consciousness and calls them carryovers from the church dogma of
Speaker 1: the Middle Ages. The behaviorists thinks that the soul is
Speaker 1: a masquerade. The behaviorist finds no mind in his laboratory.
Speaker 1: He sees it nowhere in his subject. If the behaviorists
Speaker 1: are right in their contention that there is no mind
Speaker 1: body problem, then it is because there is no mind,
Speaker 1: there can be no such thing as consciousness or an
Speaker 1: unconscious And here's the best quote. He says. Thus, prediction
Speaker 1: and control are the essence of the heaviourism. He says,
Speaker 1: give me a child and my world, give me the
Speaker 1: baby and my world to bring it up, and I
Speaker 1: will make it crawl and walk, I will make it climb,
Speaker 1: and I will make its hands, make use of its hands,
Speaker 1: and constructing buildings of stone or wood. I will make
Speaker 1: it a thief, a gunman, or a dope feed I
Speaker 1: will build you, make him death and mute. I will
Speaker 1: build you a helen Keller. Stimulus and response, he says,
Speaker 1: is everything. And that's of course, as many people have
Speaker 1: pointed out, when you go to public school, you hear
Speaker 1: the dog bells that ring in between the classes.
Speaker 4: Uh. Yeah, I've talked about this with I. Uh noticed
Speaker 4: the U This is uh, this is a while back.
Speaker 4: This this particular individual like their children are you know,
Speaker 4: of course going to public school, and one of their
Speaker 4: children come back with this like red stamp on their
Speaker 4: hand and they was crying, like the child was like
Speaker 4: bawling his eyes out, and I was like, what's going on?
Speaker 4: I was like, this is this is odd? And it's
Speaker 4: oh he got a bad stamp or something like that,
Speaker 4: like you like, they'll the teacher put the stamp on
Speaker 4: his hand. It was like a red stamp of some
Speaker 4: sort to identify that he had done something wrong in
Speaker 4: school and he had to go around with his red
Speaker 4: stamp and I was like, wow, freaking scarlet letter and
Speaker 4: all this shit. Yeah, it's like, holy crap, man. I mean,
Speaker 4: I just I was a speechless. I was like, what
Speaker 4: you'll Yeah, oh, I was just saying like his dad
Speaker 4: didn't think anything of it. He thought it was kind
Speaker 4: of numorous.
Speaker 1: That's ridiculous.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 1: The author has an insightful and this his book was
Speaker 1: written back in nineteen sixty three, predicting what would happen
Speaker 1: with American education system. And he says, Watson's goals now,
Speaker 1: this is JB. Watson. The behaviors are the goals of
Speaker 1: science today. Science aims at the creation of life itself
Speaker 1: through biochemistry. It aims at the creation of minds through machines,
Speaker 1: and it aims at the reconditioning of minds by medication
Speaker 1: and drugs capable of controlling and remaking man. Science also
Speaker 1: aims at total social engineering and control through the state.
Speaker 1: It has even been proposed that man will one day
Speaker 1: be wired at birth for permanent control through electrical impulse.
Speaker 1: This was written back in nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 2: Mm.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, that is seems like we're moving forward into
Speaker 4: that with the advent of the smartphone now and uh
Speaker 4: so it's sort of this device that is like for
Speaker 4: so many people, it's it's it's like an extension of
Speaker 4: their you know, personhood. So it's something that's always with them,
Speaker 4: always referring to it, always interacting with it, and with
Speaker 4: with with that in mind, which is you just got
Speaker 4: through reading and then what you hear about these you
Speaker 4: know tech these techno technology technological or technolroti or these
Speaker 4: technologically leaks stuff that are talking about, Yeah, you know,
Speaker 4: putting microchips in themselves, that's already happening already. Have these
Speaker 4: kits that you can order online to self inject an
Speaker 4: RFID tag so that you can you know, open your
Speaker 4: doors without having to you know, drag your keys out
Speaker 4: of your pocket and all that other great stuff. And
Speaker 4: uh yeah, so how long does this this particular phase
Speaker 4: have to have to be in play before you start
Speaker 4: seeing the uh the implant that the neural implant that
Speaker 4: directly interfaces with the brain so that you don't have
Speaker 4: to fumble around with this piece of external equipment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would just had a conversation with my girlfriend then,
Speaker 1: not about that. How soon is it going to be
Speaker 1: before we start seeing this. There was an article yesterday
Speaker 1: about Facebook is actually going to be and I was
Speaker 1: on a boiler room conversation and somebody brought this up
Speaker 1: a few months ago. I didn't know this, but apparently
Speaker 1: Facebook is going to be one of the leading means
Speaker 1: by which virtual reality is going to be implemented, believe
Speaker 1: it or not, which I guess kind of makes sense
Speaker 1: because there's like a billion people on Facebook, and what
Speaker 1: they're gonna do is they're gonna start implementing virtual reality
Speaker 1: through chat. Right, So what's gonna happen is you're gonna
Speaker 1: go in a chat room and everybody's gonna put their
Speaker 1: goggles on, and you're gonna be chatting with your buddies,
Speaker 1: you know, in this virtual chat room, and you know,
Speaker 1: you might be Marilyn Monroe, and then I guess somebody
Speaker 1: will be Elvis, and then somebody will be a Pokemon.
Speaker 4: Or yeah, Lammy from Oterhead or.
Speaker 1: Whatever Otorhead and Johnny Depp and yeah, and so that's
Speaker 1: what's apparently coming. And uh, there was a big mainstream
Speaker 1: article about Facebook doing this. Trying to remember the title
Speaker 1: of the article. Facebook's latest virtual reality. The innovation is
Speaker 1: a big deal is.
Speaker 4: A totally hard Well, Jay, this will certainly have applications
Speaker 4: towards education. I'm sure right, we know how important.
Speaker 1: Will be able to be taught directly. Uh, we'll be
Speaker 1: able to stand directly at the feet of the great
Speaker 1: scientists who discovered the bat people on the moon, and
Speaker 1: we'll be able to look in virtual telescopes and we'll
Speaker 1: see the bat people, the little CGI sixteen bit bat
Speaker 1: people dancing around the moon.
Speaker 4: To shoot them with little Cansas little First, you'll.
Speaker 1: Have a duck Hunter. You'll have the gun from Nintendo
Speaker 1: Duck Hunt that you can but you'll have to but
Speaker 1: it's you'll have to use the reflector that they use
Speaker 1: to balance signals that light off the moon because you've
Speaker 1: got to get in there.
Speaker 4: It's like an extra bonus points for ricocheting and off
Speaker 4: the reflector to the bath hut or whatever you're trying
Speaker 4: to blow up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you've got oculus Oculus rift and then this
Speaker 1: whatever this Facebook virtual thing is. Maybe that's oculus. I
Speaker 1: can't remember, but.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know about that being something that I
Speaker 4: keep hearing because I've heard I've heard about this years ago, right,
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, and I don't I don't know if
Speaker 4: they're ever going to overcome the motion sickness thing, because
Speaker 4: people are still talking about that. But this Oculus rift
Speaker 4: they said, yeah, I know, it's it's fantastic, It's wonderful.
Speaker 4: You get on it for like ten minutes, max. Because
Speaker 4: after ten minutes, you're like, you got to run to
Speaker 4: the toilet. You're going to put your lunch in there,
Speaker 4: you know, because it makes people motion sick. Oh yeah,
Speaker 4: I didn't know what around it.
Speaker 1: I thought you were going to say, you know, they've
Speaker 1: been talking about virtual reality since the eighties and it's
Speaker 1: not going to be here.
Speaker 4: Well, they had it. They had it in the nineties.
Speaker 4: They had it. I remember it at some uh some
Speaker 4: electronic show or something. I went two years ago. They
Speaker 4: had they had a demonstration of it.
Speaker 1: In the growing up in San Diego, we used to
Speaker 1: go to the mall and they had a VR demonstrations
Speaker 1: in the mall that you could look in the thing.
Speaker 1: I did it to you. You can look in the thing
Speaker 1: and it's real cheese cheese ball max bedroom install graphics
Speaker 1: back then. But but yeah, that's a great point. I
Speaker 1: don't see how this would function that. You know, everybody's
Speaker 1: going to be puking. Maybe they'll maybe they'll sell everybody
Speaker 1: a pharmaceutical that that you.
Speaker 4: Take they don't, I don't know. Or maybe you have
Speaker 4: to go get surgery or something, and I guess people
Speaker 4: will go get their cochlea removed or something like that
Speaker 4: so they don't, or get an artificial one put in,
Speaker 4: or maybe like a bypass switch so you can switch
Speaker 4: off your cochlear or your inner ear so you don't
Speaker 4: get You could just like turn it off and on
Speaker 4: some switch they'll put on you. I don't know. How
Speaker 4: are they going to get around that? I don't It's
Speaker 4: it seems like an insurmountable obstacle to this because it
Speaker 4: would already be a thing. I think, I believe if
Speaker 4: it wasn't for that.
Speaker 1: Well, this we'll probably tie into the recent trend of
Speaker 1: the online education. Right. So, now, even back when I
Speaker 1: was doing undergrad my university started implementing this thing where, oh,
Speaker 1: you don't have to come to class anymore. We're doing
Speaker 1: all these online classes and I don't I didn't ever
Speaker 1: take any of them because it gets on my nerves
Speaker 1: done it that way. But but this is getting really
Speaker 1: big now where it's more and more commonplace to have
Speaker 1: your whole course at college just online. And I think
Speaker 1: that that's going to continue to grow and so maybe
Speaker 1: they'll implement you know, VR through that. But yeah, like
Speaker 1: you said, I don't know how that's gonna I guess
Speaker 1: you have to take a bunch of drama meine every day.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you do.
Speaker 4: Yeah, just dose up.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 4: Yeah, what are you going to do to uh to
Speaker 4: get around that? Yeah, I don't. I don't know what
Speaker 4: the uh the plant. I guess they released this Oculus
Speaker 4: rift thing and you could buy one now and uh,
Speaker 4: but you know, people are still complaining about the motion
Speaker 4: sickness issue on this thing, and uh, you know you're
Speaker 4: hearing all this stuff talked about with Microsoft is in
Speaker 4: on it, Facebook's talking about it and all these different
Speaker 4: big companies or Google of course, and this augmented reality,
Speaker 4: this virtual reality stuff. But uh, they seem to like
Speaker 4: downplay the whole motion sickness issue like it's like it's
Speaker 4: no big thing. But it's it just seems like, uh,
Speaker 4: maybe the one big saving, one big saving hang up
Speaker 4: on that thing is the is the fact that just
Speaker 4: people can't adapt to that. You know, we could adapt
Speaker 4: to everything, but we just can't adapt to being put
Speaker 4: in these artificial environments like that because we just something
Speaker 4: else has to come along to deal with that.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I wonder it seems like I'm just
Speaker 1: speculating here, but younger persons that play video games all
Speaker 1: the time I'm talking about, like the people who sit
Speaker 1: and play Halo all day, they seem to not be
Speaker 1: as affected by this, And oh really, I can't do that,
Speaker 1: Like I if I tried to play one of those
Speaker 1: like Halo or something like that for more than ten minutes,
Speaker 1: I get sick.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I wonder if the thinking isn't oh, you know,
Speaker 1: the younger generations are going to be who's doing this,
Speaker 1: and you know they're going to adapt to it, and
Speaker 1: microevolution they're going to adapt to.
Speaker 2: It, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't think that's even possible
Speaker 4: even you know, it's a but uh yeah, it seems
Speaker 4: like no.
Speaker 1: Now, Chris, if you understood evolution, you would know that
Speaker 1: if we if we work at it and just keep
Speaker 1: at it, Uh, the virtual reality goggles will eventually just
Speaker 1: meld into our skin and bone and they will become
Speaker 1: a feature of our cranium and that's just how evolution works.
Speaker 1: Don't understand evolution will adapt to it. Man, don't you
Speaker 1: understand evolution?
Speaker 4: I guess I don't. I I I uh, yeah, I
Speaker 4: think that is.
Speaker 5: Like it it It seems like because because i'm I'm
Speaker 5: I'm of the school thought that, uh, you know, none
Speaker 5: of these plans, these long range plans are a given.
Speaker 4: You know, just because they have the means to carry
Speaker 4: this stuff out, you know, doesn't mean it's gonna be successful.
Speaker 4: And what evidence do we have available to us that
Speaker 4: all of this stuff will go through as planned?
Speaker 1: That's true?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean you listen to like somebody like Alan Watt,
Speaker 4: and it's like, uh, he's going to tell you that
Speaker 4: it's it's it's pretty much a done deal, that it's
Speaker 4: a must be and then it's gonna it's it's gonna
Speaker 4: it's gonna happen. But I'm not so sure about that.
Speaker 4: It's I think that the human form as it is
Speaker 4: is such so much more dynamic and resilient, and uh,
Speaker 4: then then you know credit is given to it, like
Speaker 4: the human mind, the human uh, the human being itself.
Speaker 1: Hi, folks, I'm.
Speaker 8: And I'm here to tell you that there's no hope
Speaker 8: big boys, big boys planned it for a long time.
Speaker 8: The big boys, big boys, the bankers, co Quigleys. I'm
Speaker 8: Alan Woo prosidor Doom.
Speaker 4: Anyway, that's pretty good.
Speaker 1: I don't know, it needs need some work, I guess
Speaker 1: the I have a comment for you, Chris. This is
Speaker 1: some dude. Adam Walsh commented on your post that I
Speaker 1: put up on my site where you deconstructed the Dawkinites
Speaker 1: on that YouTube show, and I responded to this person,
Speaker 1: but I thought you might want to respond to him
Speaker 1: as well, and he says a good example of evolution
Speaker 1: for you, doubting Thomas's would be the Atlantic tom cod
Speaker 1: that has evolved to survive in the heavily polluted Hudson River.
Speaker 1: Even rats that have become immune to poison and which
Speaker 1: are bigger because of the fatty junk food thrown in
Speaker 1: the streets by Slavs. There are fish that can There
Speaker 1: are fish that can walk. I suppose Chris from Hoastbusters
Speaker 1: would say the Australian walking perch is only claiming it
Speaker 1: can survive up to six days on dry land.
Speaker 4: Well, there's the bacteria that's been observed to develop the
Speaker 4: ability to digest nylon. There's changes in bacteria that where
Speaker 4: they had previously no no observable ability to digest like citrate,
Speaker 4: and then they didn't been observed to be able to
Speaker 4: digest sit trate butchs there you go. Yeah, and then Jay,
Speaker 4: are you noticing any gray hairs on your head? I do,
Speaker 4: So that's biological change over time. That's Darwin. So that's
Speaker 4: proof too. Uh. I got a scab on my leg.
Speaker 4: I picked it and it bled, so that blood was
Speaker 4: inside my leg and then it's on the outside. So
Speaker 4: that's transfer biological biological change over time because the scab healed,
Speaker 4: So that's Darwin.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's all proof, man, It's all all of it's proof.
Speaker 4: But uh well, if you think about it for a minute,
Speaker 4: you think about domestic the domestication of animals and they bred.
Speaker 4: Uh let's take one breed of dog for instance, like
Speaker 4: the uh what are those dogs that they used to
Speaker 4: to hunt foxes or like a beagle or something, you know,
Speaker 4: like they use the bread to hunt fox that can
Speaker 4: get down in the foxhole has shorter legs as the shorter,
Speaker 4: stumpier body has you know, the good uh uh broadcasts
Speaker 4: so that it can run keep up with the keep
Speaker 4: up with the the the hunters, keep up with the clocks.
Speaker 4: So that so that is that that creature is has
Speaker 4: adapted to that those requirements as far as its usefulness
Speaker 4: as a domesticated animal. But that's see, that's something that
Speaker 4: was observed ages before Darwin, right exactly, So how does
Speaker 4: that happen? Jay? I mean, how does that? How do
Speaker 4: you go from a wolf like creature to a beagle?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, that's how. The thing is that everyone uses
Speaker 1: the taxonomy of species. The Darwinian theorists believe that species
Speaker 1: is not a real property. It's just a term that's
Speaker 1: used and it's all completely malleable.
Speaker 4: Uh so, yeah, it is right.
Speaker 1: But but the problem is that, first of all, nobody
Speaker 1: who rejects that, I'm aware, rejects evolutionary theory, denies micro
Speaker 1: evolution or adaptation. Everyone believes in adaptation, and as you said,
Speaker 1: it was known and believed far before Darwin. People have
Speaker 1: bred dogs, as you said, for for a long long time.
Speaker 1: But that has nothing to do with the idea of
Speaker 1: transformism as it's called in darwin theory. The older the
Speaker 1: older term for that, the idea that you get one
Speaker 1: species morphing into a completely different species. Right. So when
Speaker 1: we look at a dog and a wolf, I mean
Speaker 1: they're they're pretty much in that same kind or category, right,
Speaker 1: But that is not the same thing as a horse
Speaker 1: or snake, right, or you know different creatures different you know,
Speaker 1: cold blooded, warm blooded, right, omnivores and arbivores. So what
Speaker 1: were you gonna say?
Speaker 4: No, I was just gonna say that. Well, like the
Speaker 4: example I pointed out earlier about the bacteria that was
Speaker 4: observed to develop this ability to digest citrate, right, Okay.
Speaker 1: People with darker skin living near the tropics.
Speaker 4: Right, yeah, So what is that? What? What are we
Speaker 4: looking at when we make those observations or the scientists
Speaker 4: makes those observations, What are they looking at? Okay? What
Speaker 4: what is going on at the at the nuts and
Speaker 4: bolts level, the the the DNA, the molecule like or
Speaker 4: or I were invoking genetics? You know, the bacteria had
Speaker 4: that ability, but it was a latent ability. It wasn't
Speaker 4: being expressed in its morphology until certain environmental conditions were
Speaker 4: it was subjected to triggered and triggered it and then
Speaker 4: it's it's this dynamic change within the organism. But it
Speaker 4: represents something that already exists within the genetic code of
Speaker 4: that organism. Do not thing with all dog changes that
Speaker 4: you observe, same thing with all horse changes you observe
Speaker 4: from breeding, and all that all that potential already existed.
Speaker 1: You don't have the introduction of a completely new DNA
Speaker 1: or the DNA of a different No.
Speaker 4: It's not a slow gradual shifting of molecules that resulted
Speaker 4: in a new trait or a new ability. That's not
Speaker 4: what you're looking at. But that's what Darwinism requires. Yes,
Speaker 4: but they always conflate the two and they'll show you,
Speaker 4: like an example, the fish now can survive in an
Speaker 4: environment where it couldn't survive before. Well, that's demonstrating the
Speaker 4: adaptability of that organism based on the genome. That it
Speaker 4: an ability of that genome to do what it needed
Speaker 4: to do to adapt to that environment that already existed.
Speaker 4: And then that the changes in the environment it triggered
Speaker 4: the expression of those genes, or a lot of times
Speaker 4: it's the non expression of the genes, like with in
Speaker 4: the case with dogs having short hair or no hair,
Speaker 4: you know it's a it's those genes for the hair
Speaker 4: the fur are not being an expressed So that's not
Speaker 4: an addition of new traits that would lead to if
Speaker 4: you accumulate an accumulative effect over time, that would lead
Speaker 4: to a totally new organism. That's not what you're looking at.
Speaker 4: You're looking at the h the inherent variitability that's already
Speaker 4: present within that organism.
Speaker 1: Right, for the Darwinian idea to be plausible, I think
Speaker 1: you would need the potentiality in every DNA sequence for
Speaker 1: every single animal. Right and if if I'm going to
Speaker 1: be able to swim underwater, if I'm going to develop gills,
Speaker 1: then the any sequencing that the fish has should be
Speaker 1: present in me. But you're not going to get that right.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, yeah, because not there. Yeah, it doesn't you
Speaker 4: don't have it. It doesn't exist. I mean there there's
Speaker 4: a lot of genetic well, I mean we see that
Speaker 4: with you know, especially with stuff you know we're most
Speaker 4: familiar with, like the domesticated dog, cats. You know, how
Speaker 4: long do you have to breed dogs? Like if they've
Speaker 4: done experiments on the silver fox, within ten years, they
Speaker 4: were able to get a silver fox to exhibit traits
Speaker 4: and behavior very very similar to the domesticated dog. So
Speaker 4: by by selectively breeding the foxes that exhibited more docile
Speaker 4: tendencies and within ten years, yeah, they were already starting
Speaker 4: to get a domesticated dog like creature. But it is
Speaker 4: that an example of Darwinism. Now, we're always told that
Speaker 4: Darwinism takes long ages of time, and then it's the
Speaker 4: accumulation of mutations that result in all these new life forms, right, right,
Speaker 4: So long ages of time can also mean ten years. Well,
Speaker 4: it's a long age of time.
Speaker 1: Another point too, is if you think about what we
Speaker 1: should see given Darwinism, we should see billions of skeletal
Speaker 1: remains and fossils everywhere. We should literally be drowning in these.
Speaker 1: You know, you can't walk out your door without you know,
Speaker 1: shooting away four feet of skeletal remains, because if you
Speaker 1: think about it, there would be billions of variations of
Speaker 1: all the animals that have ever existed, right all the
Speaker 1: way back four point five billion years ago, right, of
Speaker 1: these transitions. Right, So everybody makes the transitionary fossil argument,
Speaker 1: but I'm making a different point that they should actually
Speaker 1: be everywhere because there would be billions of species right
Speaker 1: with billions of transitions, excuse me, billions of numbers within
Speaker 1: the species of billions of stages of transitions and there's
Speaker 1: not anything but a few CGI models and these invented
Speaker 1: interpretations that they give to bones that are found.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like the tiktolic, like they'll point to that is
Speaker 4: like lizardfish. You know, it's like it's part lizard, part
Speaker 4: fish or whatever they're saying that it is. But if
Speaker 4: you were to look at that to say you found
Speaker 4: it at a rummage sale or something like in a
Speaker 4: cardboard box, it's like, oh, what's this And it's like,
Speaker 4: I don't know, I found it in my backyard. It's
Speaker 4: like some kind of skeleton and it kind of looks
Speaker 4: like fossil if that was kind of cool, so I
Speaker 4: kind of keep it. You have it for five bucks
Speaker 4: or whatever. But it's exact same thing that you see
Speaker 4: presented in museums and stuff like that. But let's say
Speaker 4: outside of that context, you never heard of tiktolic, you
Speaker 4: never heard of evolution. What would you do with that
Speaker 4: set of bones? Would it change your belief your worldview
Speaker 4: just on just the prema facie evidence of those bones, No,
Speaker 4: it absolutely would not. Now, outside of the context of
Speaker 4: modern science, it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Yeah, only
Speaker 4: interpretation put on it that.
Speaker 1: You'd say it's a fish or something similar, or maybe
Speaker 1: somebody dropped a bunch of bones that were fish and animals. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like one hundred years ago, some guy, a hunter, you know,
Speaker 1: like dropped in old bag of bones or some and
Speaker 1: then one hundred years later somebody finds it. It's like
Speaker 1: there's the arm of a squirrel on the yeah, the
Speaker 1: head of a rabbit, and then here's the scales of a.
Speaker 4: Fish or the like a Kroco squirrel or something with
Speaker 4: a crocodilet on it or something like that. Yeah. Like, well,
Speaker 4: well you have to have an expert come in and
Speaker 4: give you the lowdown on what you're looking at, right,
Speaker 4: so that you it's like the Mormon tablet's gold, you know,
Speaker 4: like you were to find tablets of gold somewhere, you'd
Speaker 4: be like, oh, cool, it's gold, you know, that's that's nice.
Speaker 4: But uh but they're formed into these tablets with this
Speaker 4: interesting writing on them, and uh so at that point
Speaker 4: they not have any significance to you. But let's say
Speaker 4: you go take it to the pawn shop or whatever
Speaker 4: you want to check out and say, what is this man?
Speaker 4: He checks it out and he's like, I don't know.
Speaker 4: It looks like you maybe take this new museum, you
Speaker 4: take it the museum, and so they say, well, maybe
Speaker 4: the Mormons might be interested in this, and the Mormons
Speaker 4: get it, and then that's a very profound significant finding
Speaker 4: to them. But outside of the context of the authority
Speaker 4: of the Mormon Church and their whole mythology and stuff
Speaker 4: that they have already in place, that it would just
Speaker 4: simply be some sort of tablets, right, something a matter
Speaker 4: of gold, someone with writing on it, but it wouldn't
Speaker 4: have any significance. Some undecipherable language that was given to
Speaker 4: Joseph Smith by an angel, and then it would have
Speaker 4: a great deal of significance in that context, but outside
Speaker 4: of that context has real no significance other than maybe
Speaker 4: the idea that it's gold and then you can maybe
Speaker 4: sell it for some money or something like that based
Speaker 4: on the fact that it's gold. But other than that,
Speaker 4: it wouldn't have no significance until the interpretive framework of
Speaker 4: the Mormon ideology is overset on it. Same exact thing
Speaker 4: with these bones, because there's nothing you can take away
Speaker 4: from just looking at those bones that would tell you
Speaker 4: that that's a lizardfish. There's not even doesn't even have
Speaker 4: any legs on it. It's like this like kind of
Speaker 4: stumped sticking out of it, and it's like looks exactly
Speaker 4: like somebody did a comparison between that and a certain
Speaker 4: species of crocodile that's out there, and they put it
Speaker 4: side by side, and it's like, wow, that's virtually identical
Speaker 4: to that thing. But uh so, maybe it's a combination
Speaker 4: of a crocodile skull and a fish like who knows.
Speaker 4: But you have to defer to the experts, right, and
Speaker 4: they have to interpret that for you.
Speaker 1: Yes, did you see that reminds me of the Grand
Speaker 1: Canyon sized hole that opened up somewhere in Middle America?
Speaker 1: I forget where it.
Speaker 4: Was, Yeah, up in Utah or why Won'ting or something.
Speaker 1: And this happened very quickly.
Speaker 4: Uh huh I talked about that.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, well that's supposed to take millions of years
Speaker 1: for the Grand Grand Canyon to form. How is this possible?
Speaker 4: Yeah? How do you have a canyon that has a
Speaker 4: lot of the same characteristics very strikingly so even and
Speaker 4: it form overnight? It's not possible, is it?
Speaker 1: Say? I'm looking to science or entity, our god, creature
Speaker 1: and it says that the Grand Canyon took seventy million
Speaker 1: years to form. According to Live science dot com, he lope,
Speaker 1: yuh huh, seventy million years.
Speaker 4: Science says seventy million years at least. Yeah, that's the Oh,
Speaker 4: that's what you're going to be told. And then okay,
Speaker 4: so when you go look at the Grand Canyon, now,
Speaker 4: well that's proof of long vast ages of time. That's
Speaker 4: evidence that you can observe with your own eyes. But
Speaker 4: would you necessarily draw that conclusion outside of the scientific
Speaker 4: priests class telling you that's what it represents now? And
Speaker 4: remember especially if you just came from Wyoming where you
Speaker 4: just saw a hole like that open up in the
Speaker 4: ground like a week prior, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And other great points too. Stalactites and stalagmites do
Speaker 1: not take millions of years to form. You can look
Speaker 1: at houses that are one hundred years old with old
Speaker 1: basements where they have formed and these are supposed to
Speaker 1: take millions of years.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and they'll have like a what like a fifteen
Speaker 4: foot stalagmite in the basement, you know from Yeah, and
Speaker 4: then you could find fossils of modern well, there's a
Speaker 4: pretty well known fossil that's of a cowboy boot with
Speaker 4: a foot still in it and it's completely fossilized.
Speaker 1: And then uh, dating, we'll say that's a million years old.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if you were to take like maybe a chunk
Speaker 4: of it and go have it dated and don't tell
Speaker 4: them that it was a cowboy boot, they'd probably come
Speaker 4: back with some astronomical date on it.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: There's been all kinds of examples of that where they
Speaker 4: date stuff that can't possibly be that old because it,
Speaker 4: you know, just came from newly formed out of a volcano,
Speaker 4: and they date it it's millions of years old. So
Speaker 4: it's like, Okay, this is brand new rock. You hello,
Speaker 4: how do you get that date? It's like, well, something's
Speaker 4: wrong somewhere, right I look at it that way?
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 4: But you know, people are absolutely one hundred percent convinced
Speaker 4: that they can take rocks and bones and stuff like
Speaker 4: that out of the ground and run them through a
Speaker 4: machine and get some kind of a date on them.
Speaker 4: But you can't. I've talked about this where I have
Speaker 4: this sample form from the University of Wisconsin or something,
Speaker 4: and it's your submission form when you submit a sample
Speaker 4: to be dated in their lab. You know, they're they're they're, uh,
Speaker 4: what is that called isometric dating or whatever. They're going
Speaker 4: to look at the rock and they're going to count
Speaker 4: the isotopes and and do all that right with their machines.
Speaker 4: They can do all that right. But at the top
Speaker 4: of the form, they ask you the approximate date of
Speaker 4: the thing that you're submitting.
Speaker 1: How old? How old is How old is your rock?
Speaker 1: It's thirty million years old. Then you get it back
Speaker 1: it says your rock is thirty million years.
Speaker 4: Old based on well, how far down was it? Was
Speaker 4: it from the Triassic era, the Cretaceous era, or what
Speaker 4: do you think it was from? Well, I found trilobite
Speaker 4: in it, so it must have been of the pre
Speaker 4: Cambrian era. Yeah, guess what date they'll probably give you,
Speaker 4: you know, yeah, something approximating that.
Speaker 1: I think you guys have pointed out the Fly Geyser
Speaker 1: as well, which is another great.
Speaker 4: Example, Yeah, of a geological formation that started forming in
Speaker 4: this what sixties.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the sixties at where they have Burning Man.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the same area right there right.
Speaker 1: Of the people at Burning Man would say they believe
Speaker 1: in the Darwinian evolution. They're standing right next to the
Speaker 1: fly geyser, which took like forty years.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, but I'm sure like if they didn't
Speaker 4: know any better and somebody was saw that, they would
Speaker 4: just assume, well, that must be you know, many many
Speaker 4: thousands of years old or maybe millions of years old.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, And that was I didn't know about the flagyser,
Speaker 1: so I was glad to hear you guys point that out.
Speaker 1: And you were probably the one that pointed out the
Speaker 1: it's the massive crack in earth mysteriously opens a big
Speaker 1: horn mountains and this is Wyoming. So two things to
Speaker 1: check out that were new to me this last year.
Speaker 4: Yeah. And there's a guy Robert Gentry. Have you heard
Speaker 4: of him?
Speaker 1: Huh?
Speaker 4: And so he goes into how you know coal seems
Speaker 4: that's another thing that we're told that takes millions of
Speaker 4: years to form, but he's demonstrated that he can. He
Speaker 4: can make coal in a laboratory, put a heat and
Speaker 4: pressure on it, and he can make it like a
Speaker 4: couple of days. And then he's taken measurements of something
Speaker 4: that something isotope or something that decays within these coal
Speaker 4: seam formations, and he can take a sample of that,
Speaker 4: slice it down the center and you can see these
Speaker 4: like halos that will form. And if you look under
Speaker 4: the microscope at these halos and then they have I mean,
Speaker 4: they know how long it takes for those things to
Speaker 4: form by direct observation that they show signs of being compressed.
Speaker 4: So it said this had to have formed obviously before
Speaker 4: the process that it underwent to get this visible compression
Speaker 4: you know, in these halos. So it's like it's very
Speaker 4: strong evidence that those formations didn't take No way could
Speaker 4: have tooken millions of years to form. There's just absolutely
Speaker 4: no way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Another assumption that's made on the part of people
Speaker 1: that have that viewwards corollary the Big Bang and so forth,
Speaker 1: is the idea that things couldn't be created with the
Speaker 1: appearance of age. Right, So.
Speaker 4: In other words, I mean, what do we even what
Speaker 4: does anybody even mean when they say appearance of age?
Speaker 4: You know, So that's kind of like a arbitrary definition
Speaker 4: and another example of one that gets thrown out there. Yeah,
Speaker 4: you know, like, oh, well, this is this age because
Speaker 4: of this, and they'll invoke radiocarbon dating or something like that,
Speaker 4: but when in fact, there's a lot of different factors
Speaker 4: that you know, can can give you all kinds of well, well,
Speaker 4: like I just mentioned before, well, I mean there's even
Speaker 4: examples where they take a wooly mammoth and then they
Speaker 4: take a sample of this wooly mammoth that was giving
Speaker 4: birth and it was like somehow flash frozen in the ice,
Speaker 4: and they take they took a sample of the of
Speaker 4: the baby wooly mammoth and the mother wooly mammoth, and
Speaker 4: they got like a difference in age of like half
Speaker 4: a million years or something like that. So that's obviously wrong.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Another point too is what's often mentioned is the notion
Speaker 1: of complexity, and so the Darwinian theorists will say, look,
Speaker 1: you know, it's obvious that organisms moved from single cells
Speaker 1: to complexity, right, because we see a self split and
Speaker 1: so therefore we can reason back to presume or actually
Speaker 1: dogmatically declare that everything thus split from one single cell
Speaker 1: at some point. Well, no, because first of all, I
Speaker 1: would just from a philosophical standpoint, I would say that
Speaker 1: given the worldview that the Darwinian perspective has, there's no
Speaker 1: such thing is complexity out there in the world. Complexity
Speaker 1: is a is a concept, right, as you've been pointing out,
Speaker 1: is an interpretive framework. So when you're looking at something
Speaker 1: and it has the appearance of complexity in the Darwinian scheme,
Speaker 1: ultimately it's all just atomism anyway, right, So it's just molecules,
Speaker 1: and the idea that it's more quote complex, assume some
Speaker 1: sort of scale or gradation of complex and less complex
Speaker 1: or simplicity that is somehow a priori or inherently obvious.
Speaker 1: And from a philosophical mantage point, that's problematic because in
Speaker 1: that world view and your perspective, you would have no
Speaker 1: reason or way to explain what complexity is because it's
Speaker 1: a conceptual interpretation of some object in the world, and
Speaker 1: you don't have that right. It's also as arbitrary as
Speaker 1: what you're saying with the so called APay of age.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, I think a good, a real good example
Speaker 4: that demonstrates that is this concept of convergent evolution. So
Speaker 4: they'll they'll look at a biological feature in an organism
Speaker 4: like bioluminescence and squid, octopus and stuff like that, and
Speaker 4: so they can't concoct any kind of evolutionary relationship that
Speaker 4: were they can point to that being a result of
Speaker 4: some kind of common anist ancestry because it it will
Speaker 4: totally disrupt their current model, you know, so they have
Speaker 4: to reject that. So they have to come up with
Speaker 4: this new theory, which is convergent evolution, meaning that bioluminescence
Speaker 4: evolved separately in those organisms, independently of each other. And they, yeah,
Speaker 4: that's actually a thing. It's a convergent evolution. So with
Speaker 4: that in mind, you come over to do what they're
Speaker 4: talking about with the fusion of chromosome two, and they'll
Speaker 4: point to that as proof that we have common ancestry
Speaker 4: with the chimpanzees because of this fusion site in the chromosome.
Speaker 4: But if you keep in mind that there's the same
Speaker 4: called convergent evolution, so that like this touch is on
Speaker 4: what you just described where there is no real complexity,
Speaker 4: there is no real structure anything, because everything is just
Speaker 4: atomism anyway, right, So that the same holds true with
Speaker 4: these observations, and they can invoke this special ad hoc
Speaker 4: explanation for these repeating patterns, so that it's like they
Speaker 4: want to invoke patterns in the case of chromosome two
Speaker 4: or these er V sites they call them these uh
Speaker 4: idea and uh so pointing the similarities between those sites
Speaker 4: in a chimpanzee and those size and human, which actually
Speaker 4: turns out that those are not what they purport them
Speaker 4: to be anyway. They're not they're not retroviral sites, they're
Speaker 4: not they're not vestigial. They have functions, so they can't
Speaker 4: be that. So their interpretation on that has been proven wrong.
Speaker 4: But anyway, let's say even if it was true, which
Speaker 4: is it isn't true. But even if it was true,
Speaker 4: they're relying upon an observed pattern, right, absolutely, How do
Speaker 4: they now resort to applying significance to an observed pattern
Speaker 4: when in other contexts it perhaps absolutely no significance exactly,
Speaker 4: So patterns can be chalked up to just pure coincidence,
Speaker 4: right in any other context.
Speaker 1: They are in Darwinism and in any other context. And
Speaker 1: the irony here is that from a philosophical perspective, you
Speaker 1: need the reality of patterns objectively out there in the
Speaker 1: world for human interpretation, period, for the human mind to
Speaker 1: interpret anything in the world. It's all kind of grounded
Speaker 1: on pattern recognition. But the patterns have to also be
Speaker 1: actually out there in the world. They can't just be
Speaker 1: in the mind, right, because if they're just in the mind,
Speaker 1: then we're stuck in our mind and syllipsism. And ironically,
Speaker 1: because Darwinian theorists are generally people into do physics and biology,
Speaker 1: they don't study philosophy. They don't they're not worried with
Speaker 1: consistency because they're always contradicting themselves, which is funny because
Speaker 1: they're always the ones to turn around and talk about
Speaker 1: how they believe in the logic and reason. Well, number one,
Speaker 1: logic is actually also conceptual, it's immaterial. They are rules
Speaker 1: and laws, much like mathematical principles that function not just
Speaker 1: in the mind, but also in the natural world. If
Speaker 1: they didn't funk in the natural world, we couldn't build
Speaker 1: a bridge, right because it's based on mathematical principles. Yet
Speaker 1: at the same time, there is a belief that there's
Speaker 1: no objective principles out there in the world. There are
Speaker 1: just human descriptors for things that are called quote natural laws.
Speaker 1: But those aren't really laws. They're just the way quote
Speaker 1: nature works. It's just what's out there should just happens.
Speaker 1: In other words, right, just yet, we're supposed to believe
Speaker 1: that there is the ability of the human mind to
Speaker 1: go out and interpret the world, to write scientific journals
Speaker 1: to do all kinds of experimentation, which is all based
Speaker 1: on pattern and logic. Right, the scientific method is based
Speaker 1: on patterns and logic. Yet all of that is simultaneously
Speaker 1: in modern science discarded. There's no such thing as a
Speaker 1: mind that has a structure that's interpreting an external world
Speaker 1: with order and structure that's been dispensed with so that
Speaker 1: it's all completely shot itself in the foot philosophically, which
Speaker 1: is why they don't care about philosophy. This is why
Speaker 1: Neil de Grassy Tyson says philosophy is ridiculous and it
Speaker 1: asks a munch of the dumb questions. Actually, it asked
Speaker 1: the questions that Neil de grass Dyson has to avoid.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because you know, with without that, you know, you
Speaker 4: can uh invoke any kind of crickterra you want for
Speaker 4: your epistemology, which which excludes even having to be consistent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we believe in logic and reason. We're Darwins belar
Speaker 1: with logic and reason. Oh what is logic and reason?
Speaker 1: Don't bug me with your philosophy bullshit?
Speaker 4: Literally, Well, I think it can be summed up too,
Speaker 4: like the whole argument, And I guess this's kind of
Speaker 4: touch goes into the teleological argument, Uh, why would anything
Speaker 4: in the universe have to work? Whatsoever? Why does anything work?
Speaker 1: Yeah? And by the way, for something working quote work.
Speaker 1: That is also in the Darwinian scheme of necessity, a
Speaker 1: subjective interpretation of phenomena in the world. What you're calling
Speaker 1: working right when you say, oh, the gastro intestinal system
Speaker 1: of the swamp rat, it works because it shits a lot.
Speaker 1: That is merely a phenomena of things happening in the world.
Speaker 1: There's no working or not working. I mean another word,
Speaker 1: you see what I'm saying that there's no reason to
Speaker 1: say that it's working simply because the phenomena are happening.
Speaker 1: For something to work is to assume that you've got
Speaker 1: again some sort of gradation of standard, just like something
Speaker 1: being logical or consistent by which you can judge a
Speaker 1: thing in this case works and a thing in this
Speaker 1: case does not work. So, in other words, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: Presumes te lose or purpose. But telos are purpose. According
Speaker 1: to David Hume and everyone after him and all the
Speaker 1: scientistic crowd. Does not work. There's no telos in the world.
Speaker 1: Telos is a human interpretation of facts, and in fact,
Speaker 1: every time you were if you were to say, oh,
Speaker 1: the blind watchmaker, right, this is the one they always
Speaker 1: fall back on. They'll say, David Hume showed us that
Speaker 1: the blind watchmaker argument doesn't work because you're just interpreting
Speaker 1: the phenomena of the world to have a purpose. Uh oh,
Speaker 1: that works against Darwinism too, because you're just interpreting the
Speaker 1: gastrointestinal system of the rat to have a purpose or function.
Speaker 1: Now I think it does, right. But what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is that in any one of these cases there are examples,
Speaker 1: and you could give many anymore. What it shows is
Speaker 1: that they're operating with a philosophy, even if they don't
Speaker 1: want to admit it or know it, that is completely
Speaker 1: contrary to the other subpositions of their philosophy, right, because
Speaker 1: their philosophy is materialism, materialistic process determinism as a result,
Speaker 1: and mind and psyche essentially don't exist. Really, they're illusory
Speaker 1: and it's just shit happening. Yeah, they want to turn
Speaker 1: so it's in other words, ultimate reality is completely irrational.
Speaker 1: But they want to turn around and have all of
Speaker 1: this reason and logic and rationality and meaning and purpose
Speaker 1: and order in their descriptions and scientific methodology.
Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, they they do play both sides of the fence.
Speaker 4: You know, they have these presuppositions that they operate off of.
Speaker 4: And you know this, when somebody will point to something
Speaker 4: observed maybe in childbirths, say a deformity, Well, there is
Speaker 4: no such things as a deformity. That is only some
Speaker 4: realization of some biological process. It totally has no purpose
Speaker 4: or meaning even of what we're familiar with, because all
Speaker 4: of that is totally subjective, right, So there is no
Speaker 4: such thing as a deformity. There is no such thing
Speaker 4: as even a disease or an illness. Yeah, say, all
Speaker 4: those things are part of the biological process and you're
Speaker 4: only putting that human interpretation on those things. There is
Speaker 4: no such thing as a disease. There is no optimal
Speaker 4: way to be or exist, So there is no I
Speaker 4: think we maybe even see that come about. As bizarre
Speaker 4: as that sounds, yeah.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised. It's a system that's so modeled
Speaker 1: and nonsensical that it could literally go anywhere to try
Speaker 1: to maintain its viability, because really it just falls back
Speaker 1: on techniques of propaganda and there authoritarianism without any attempting
Speaker 1: you know, coherence or consistency. Yeah, there's plenty of peer
Speaker 1: reviewed papers, but that has absolutely nothing to do with
Speaker 1: being consistent or coherent, or rational or logical or based
Speaker 1: on evidence. You and I know this. Those two things
Speaker 1: are radically different, right. But you know, for most people,
Speaker 1: the equivalent of what it is to be rational and
Speaker 1: coherent and logical equals peer review and what the establishment says,
Speaker 1: and those two things are not the same. So yeah,
Speaker 1: and from a philosophical mantage point, you can break that
Speaker 1: down even further by pointing out the absurdity of every
Speaker 1: time that they try to write a book or make
Speaker 1: a statement. These are the also materialistic determined processes. They're
Speaker 1: not actually learning anything about the world. They're just you know,
Speaker 1: spewings over of chemical reactions. You know, the the books
Speaker 1: that Stephen J. Gould writes are merely the determined processes
Speaker 1: of natural phenomena and they don't have any objective meaning.
Speaker 1: Which is curious because Neil Degrassey Tyson says that the
Speaker 1: philosophical question that's posed to him often about meaning is
Speaker 1: ridiculous and absurd. He thinks that those are waste of
Speaker 1: time questions. Well, they're not a waste of time when
Speaker 1: you tell me, on the one hand that life is
Speaker 1: just a bunch of chemical reactions and meaningless, and then
Speaker 1: you're going to turn around and try to write books
Speaker 1: and do TV shows that purport to give the meaning
Speaker 1: of the universe.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so they're like playing both sides of the field
Speaker 4: and putting out contradictory philosophically contradictory constantficiens constantly. Yeah and yeah,
Speaker 4: no wonder they don't want to touch on those areas.
Speaker 4: But it's more of this and you'll se see it
Speaker 4: how they argue a point or something like that. It's
Speaker 4: that not not for any reason thought out, uh methodical way.
Speaker 4: It's more of this, uh tell it just stating that, Okay,
Speaker 4: we have the facts and that's a fact. You know
Speaker 4: that we have a fact.
Speaker 1: Fact, it's just a fact.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's just a fact that we have the facts.
Speaker 4: And it's like, well that you told me nothing. I mean,
Speaker 4: that is a fact that you've told me nothing. It
Speaker 4: is like you're you know, but that's you know, if
Speaker 4: you just go around and round with that, you're not
Speaker 4: and not saying anything. So like when you know, you
Speaker 4: get into a discussion with with somebody who's a Darwinist
Speaker 4: and they're one hundred percent convinced that evolution is true
Speaker 4: and it's been observed, and you, you know, you start questioning, Okay,
Speaker 4: what what is in your mind the best evidence or
Speaker 4: you know, evolution happened like they say it happened, and
Speaker 4: so they give you their what they think is the
Speaker 4: best evidence. And then okay, you want to take a
Speaker 4: few steps further. Okay, let's get in the particulars of
Speaker 4: what you say, this meat, what is in other words,
Speaker 4: explain it, give give me flesh it out, and give
Speaker 4: me some uh, some of the some of the mechanics
Speaker 4: of how this actually works. Let's get under the hood.
Speaker 4: It's like, you know, you got to you gotta buddy over. Okay,
Speaker 4: you got a problem with your car. You can sit
Speaker 4: around and talk about it. Well, I don't know, I
Speaker 4: turned the key and nothing happens, and you can sit
Speaker 4: and talk about it all day. Well, let's let's go
Speaker 4: get under the hood and look at it, and let's
Speaker 4: start poking around into there. So when you get into that,
Speaker 4: to that level, you know, metaphorically speaking with a discussion
Speaker 4: with somebody like that, it's like, why are you taking
Speaker 4: me here? This is the this is the arena of
Speaker 4: the experts. It's like it's like, uh, Jason Cavaledo did
Speaker 4: with me. It's like I started pressing him on. Okay,
Speaker 4: he says that he believes this, and he says, in
Speaker 4: this established fact, well, let's get it too. Let's let's go, Jason,
Speaker 4: let's go check it out under the hood, man, let's go.
Speaker 4: Let's go start uh, you know, looking looking down under
Speaker 4: there and start getting getting greasy into the nuts and
Speaker 4: bults of the matter. And it's like, no, why I'm
Speaker 4: not a mechanic, why should I do that?
Speaker 1: Well? And there's so's there's so many ways to from
Speaker 1: my perspective, to come out this problem. So take that
Speaker 1: situation where he says this is a fact, or like
Speaker 1: you and I've had discussions in the past where where
Speaker 1: you know, they talk about reason or logic and you say,
Speaker 1: what are those things? What is reason? What is logic?
Speaker 1: On your view?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: So when we talk about a fact, well, the fact
Speaker 1: that what he's doing in that conversation is presuming to
Speaker 1: have learned something at some point in the past which
Speaker 1: was true about the external world and his experience. And
Speaker 1: I guess everybody's external world and this is objectively true
Speaker 1: in his mind, and that he can at a later
Speaker 1: date pull from that capital T truth and reiterate that
Speaker 1: to you as something that was once true in the
Speaker 1: past and still holds to be the case. Now, the
Speaker 1: problem is that in that evolutionary worldview, this is a
Speaker 1: huge leap. There's no reason to believe that something that
Speaker 1: was experienced or interpreted or read in the past is
Speaker 1: subject to it, or excuse me, is no longer subject
Speaker 1: to evolutionary change and still retains some capital T truthiness
Speaker 1: to it. You follow me. In other words, So in
Speaker 1: philosophy this is called in metaphysics or in epistemology, it's
Speaker 1: called the problem of identity. And what it presumes is
Speaker 1: that you can interpret a truth about some object and
Speaker 1: that that truth maintains invariantly it's status over time. But
Speaker 1: the problem is that in that worldview, nothing maintains an immaterial,
Speaker 1: invariant truthfulness over time, because there's no such thing as
Speaker 1: that realm of immaterial conceptual truthfulness over time. That that's
Speaker 1: been canceled out. It doesn't exist. And so to spout
Speaker 1: out of your mouth these platitudes about something being a
Speaker 1: fact right that you learned at sometime in the past
Speaker 1: is pretty laughable given what your world view says at
Speaker 1: the same time about everything being subject to constant flux
Speaker 1: and change. Now, there may be some Darwinian theorists or
Speaker 1: revolutionary theorists who think that they have some reason to
Speaker 1: believe in, you know, truthfulness or conceptual realities or mathematical
Speaker 1: entities or whatever that exists outside the space and time.
Speaker 1: But that's not most of them. Most of them don't
Speaker 1: and they've never even thought about that as an issue
Speaker 1: because that's a question that is in philosophy that they
Speaker 1: think is pointless and outside the realm of empirical science.
Speaker 1: But that's the problem, is that when you have a naive,
Speaker 1: empirical quote science worldview, which they all have, you're begging
Speaker 1: the question when people bring these kinds of issues to you,
Speaker 1: and I think they are important questions, you know. I
Speaker 1: guess it depends on what you think of metaphysics, but
Speaker 1: in my mind those are important questions. You know. I
Speaker 1: want to be able to say that, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: the same jays that exists over time, that I retain
Speaker 1: my identity over time, even though my body might change
Speaker 1: from the time I was a kid in turning into
Speaker 1: this massive, adonous hunk of a man. Nowadays, I'm still
Speaker 1: the same Jay, right, And so you know, this is
Speaker 1: an issue again, the problem of identity over time. But
Speaker 1: this is all just thrown away by the pragmatic Arminian
Speaker 1: types because they don't think it matters but the problem.
Speaker 1: But they're using all these things that make sense and
Speaker 1: a theistic worldview. And that's my point is that it
Speaker 1: makes sense why you know, there's a unchangeable truth in
Speaker 1: my view. It doesn't make sense why anything is quote
Speaker 1: true over time in your worldview.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I know, I see what you're getting out.
Speaker 4: As far as this, well, it's like this whole idea
Speaker 4: of of the concept of an art type, right, like
Speaker 4: where if you have sort of an objective, unchanging standard,
Speaker 4: let's say, of like what a male, an idealized male
Speaker 4: or an idealized female, how would they look? It's like
Speaker 4: maybe our our our imagination we think about like Adam
Speaker 4: and Eve in the garden of Eden, Like what you know,
Speaker 4: do we when when somebody says Adam and even in
Speaker 4: our garden eating? Does the mental image come into your
Speaker 4: mind of you know, the kind of typical American you know,
Speaker 4: in their forties with like the big pot belly and
Speaker 4: the Verico's veins and the double chin. Is that what
Speaker 4: the image that comes to your mind? Or do you
Speaker 4: see something? What do you see when you think of
Speaker 4: Adam and e the first proto parents of all, you know,
Speaker 4: the first human beings? You have a certain conception of that,
Speaker 4: right yeah, sure, yeah, but it's not so. It's it's
Speaker 4: this idealized form that everyone already has in their mind.
Speaker 4: It's something like this or it's referred to as an
Speaker 4: arc type or sure, an idealized form, right but of course,
Speaker 4: like in the Darwinistic worldview, that's such a thing doesn't exist, right,
Speaker 4: but you could prove it exists by doing these thought
Speaker 4: exercises and and think, you know, just thinking things through,
Speaker 4: Like okay, you think of like or you know, back
Speaker 4: to the like domesticated dog, Well, is this a fully
Speaker 4: realized dog or is a wolf more of a fully
Speaker 4: realized you know what? Is it tainted or the scientific
Speaker 4: classification of what that type of animal is? I think
Speaker 4: everybody would agree that it's the wolf. And as opposed
Speaker 4: to like a teacup poodle, you know, tea cup poodle
Speaker 4: is not going to do that great in the woods.
Speaker 4: But the wolf could hold their own and the like
Speaker 4: the with all its instincts intact, with all its uh fur,
Speaker 4: all of its stamina, all of its strength, all its
Speaker 4: muscle tone. It's it's bone, it's bone density, and everything
Speaker 4: is the archetype. It's the ideal. Everything that emanates from
Speaker 4: that in our domestication process is lesser than in those terms,
Speaker 4: then the wolf.
Speaker 1: Well that's interesting, yeah, so yes, So the archetype is
Speaker 1: similar to the point of forms or eternal truths absolutely,
Speaker 1: And as we've talked about in the past, that's just
Speaker 1: a variation on the same argument that I've made in
Speaker 1: talks we've had, you know, quoting like the mathematicians about
Speaker 1: you know, the principles of say the Mandelbrot set, which
Speaker 1: is not a humanly devised pattern, and it can go
Speaker 1: on infinitely, and it's not found in empirical data in
Speaker 1: the world, right, And so there are all kinds of
Speaker 1: mathematical truths that are not realizable in time space reality,
Speaker 1: that are nevertheless true. And don't we all kind of inherently,
Speaker 1: sort of intuitively feel that one plus one is two, right,
Speaker 1: But the problem is that these are truths and the
Speaker 1: truthfulness of these examples are not things subject to time
Speaker 1: and space change. Now the Darwin has many of them,
Speaker 1: or the philosophers of naturalism and so forth, and materialism,
Speaker 1: they will try to deal with this problem, and they
Speaker 1: will all admit it's a problem, and what they'll generally
Speaker 1: say is that, okay, actually one plus one is not
Speaker 1: equaling too. These are just social constructs. This is the
Speaker 1: most popular explanation for this problem is that humans just
Speaker 1: got together and decided that one plus one is two,
Speaker 1: which is utterly preposterous because one thing and one thing
Speaker 1: equaling two things has absolutely nothing to do with humans
Speaker 1: getting together and just deciding that right from some sort
Speaker 1: of practical social organization or something. Furthermore, there's also no
Speaker 1: evidence of the fact that humans got together and decided
Speaker 1: that one plus one is two. And were you to
Speaker 1: go to any primitive tribe and you know, try to
Speaker 1: cheat somebody, they're going to probably know, right, like I
Speaker 1: gave you a pelt, you owe me a bag of beings, right.
Speaker 1: It's In other words, mathematics is yet another example of
Speaker 1: that archetypal pattern that you're talking about. And it's not
Speaker 1: different from culture to culture. There may be cultures that
Speaker 1: are not aware of you know, mathematics in a maybe
Speaker 1: advanced sense, but there is a basic kind of numerics
Speaker 1: and counting that is ancient. Goes back, right, everybody is
Speaker 1: using in some way, you know, one, two, three, four, five,
Speaker 1: and up to ten in primitive societies and so forth.
Speaker 1: So that shows you that also that you know, there's
Speaker 1: empirical evidence for it, but there's also immaterial opriori evidence
Speaker 1: for it, by the matter of fact that it's it's
Speaker 1: self evident to anyone that one plus one is two,
Speaker 1: and that is not a truth that is subject to
Speaker 1: evolutionary change. If the whole world decided tomorrow that one
Speaker 1: plus one is three, it would not suddenly make bridges
Speaker 1: operate on a different principle of physics. And everybody knows
Speaker 1: this right, right, right, But in the Darwinian theory, for
Speaker 1: most of them at least, they would have to say that, yeah, okay, Well,
Speaker 1: if everybody just decided that one plus one is three,
Speaker 1: then you know, that's just the evolutionary progress of man,
Speaker 1: and things change, and you know, societies make up different things,
Speaker 1: and you know it just changes. Man.
Speaker 4: Well, you like the work too, well anymore, No, it
Speaker 4: wouldn't work at all.
Speaker 9: It just you know it it Uh, it's not too
Speaker 9: hard to see that there's this disconnect between.
Speaker 4: What is theorized. Yeah, you know, these belief systems and
Speaker 4: what people actually do believe exactly when they go to
Speaker 4: operate in the real world, they work off of these
Speaker 4: presumptions that aren't in line with their worldview. Like I
Speaker 4: talked about with the example of putting placing significance on
Speaker 4: patterns in some areas and then other areas. You know,
Speaker 4: they it's it's dismissed as you know, coincidence.
Speaker 1: It's easy to sit around and talk about philosophize and
Speaker 1: write your books and pretend that you're an intellectual and
Speaker 1: say that man has no mind, has my soul, has
Speaker 1: no consciousness, world just matter. Yet then when someone comes in,
Speaker 1: you know, murders Richard Dawkins's wife, he's probably going to
Speaker 1: be mad about it. But there's not really any reason
Speaker 1: to be had. I mean, it's just no atoms bumping
Speaker 1: into other atoms. So your anger at that action is
Speaker 1: merely just a human social constructed the response mechanism. It
Speaker 1: really has nothing to do with, you know, anything objectively evil.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, according to them, yeah, so there, What what
Speaker 4: are you getting uptied about?
Speaker 1: You know, why why? Why go to a funeral?
Speaker 2: Why? Why?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 4: Indeed yeah,