Speaker 1: The the the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 1: The the the the the the the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the the the the the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 1: The the the the the the the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the.
Speaker 4: The the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 1: The the the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the.
Speaker 1: The the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 4: The the the the.
Speaker 2: The the the the the.
Speaker 1: The the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 4: The dout the the the the don't do the do.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 4: The the don't do don't do the.
Speaker 5: People?
Speaker 3: Don't do the do do.
Speaker 5: Do do them?
Speaker 2: The the the the.
Speaker 1: The the the the the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 1: The the.
Speaker 2: The the the the the.
Speaker 1: The the the the do.
Speaker 3: Do do.
Speaker 2: Do do do.
Speaker 1: Do do do do do do.
Speaker 4: Do do do dom b.
Speaker 6: Oh, Yeah, you're listening to Late at Night Black Radio,
where we tell you how to love people. It's love
fim Late at Night, where we tell you how to
love how to become a baby daddy and head on
out of town about I was all right.
Speaker 7: All and what's up, y'all welcome. It's open for him,
and that means open for him. I want to talk
a little bit about the recent films that I've seen.
My wife and I went to see films, and then
we'll read some of the super chats from yesterday we'll
open it up to all of y'all callers, to the goobers,
the goofballs, the goof troop, the goofy goobers, all of
y'all beloved callers. We're gonna open it up.
Speaker 2: But so.
Speaker 7: Two recent horror movies. We like to briefly break down
these real quicker as you guys know, we do movie analysis,
Esoteric Hollywood Part three is complete. I finished all the revisions.
It is back at the publisher, hopefully going to the
printer soon. We on black time over here, which is
my time, which is whenever I show up, which is
Gandolf time, because a wizard arrives precisely when he's meant
to Fredeaux. We got hand farts, we got black voices,
We've got Lord of the Rings references, We've got movie trailers.
What else do you want in your life? Why are
you even listening to any other content? Quote creator? What
else is there?
Speaker 8: Nothing?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 7: I do like horror movies, and I will say that
Weapons was certainly a better horror movie than Together. There
were some aspects of Together that I thought were okay.
I don't like body horror movie in general, though. The
only body horror that I can think of that. It's
pretty good, is some of the David Crounnenberg movies. Otherwise
it's usually just gross. Dude, it's like that, you know
what I mean. So we watched this the other night
and then we saw Weapons in the the theater, and
I will say that Weapons together with Long Legs was
probably two of the best horror movies that I've seen
in the past few years. There's a couple of others
that I thought we were pretty decent. Let me see,
I just somebody was asking me though there was some
good horror movies. Well, Heretic was really good. The first
omen actually was good. I didn't expect that to be
that good. Smile and Smile Too were pretty pretty creepy,
actually good horror movies, and a couple of maybe Nighthouse
with Rebecca Hall was pretty good. It's about it. I mean,
you know, a good horror movie is few and far between,
and so usually the only thing that makes for good
analysis is when they have esoteric occult symbolic elements in it.
This one didn't have a whole lot of that, although
the overall theme did end up being pretty heavily esoteric,
and it actually shared some parallels with the other movie,
the recent Josh Brolin, what's her name? Julia Garner weapons
some parallel symbolism. We'll cover this really briefly because I
think what I'm gonna try to do is, as I
cover different segments and as we get people timestamping, I'm
going to clip out the movie section and make it
its own clip. So this will be the first, you know,
ten to fifty minutes of a separate clip. Otherwise I
just can't figure out. It's two time racking, and it
takes up too much time to sit here and do
twenty minute clip segments when the most efficient way is
obviously just to clip one long livestream and live streams
are the only way to make a living anyway, because
ad revenue itself doesn't make enough. But you get a
lot of views with clips because people don't have attention
spans over twenty minutes on YouTube.
Speaker 1: That is.
Speaker 7: So Here we have Alison Bree from Community, who was
actually a really she's a really good comedic actress in
the community. Jamie and I just finished Community. It was
a lot funnier than I expected. I was kind of
blown away, And again I don't praise a lot of shows,
because there's not that many shows that I think are
funny and impressed me. The first four seasons are just
absolutely genius. Last season kind of trails off because I
think they knew they were getting canceled. There's a lot
of really trippy meta references, a lot of pop culture
references that are pretty even some pretty in depth philosophical
references throughout Community. If you've never watched it and you're
looking for like a really funny, kind of wacky, almost
again trippy comedy, I would say it's up there. As
Chevy Chase leaves the show, and again I'm not a
huge Chevy Chase fan, but for whatever reason, he's actually
really funny in Community. He plays the perfect boomer, and
so they've got these archetypes of characters that and that
was still when you could kind of make fun of
people groups. You could make fun of ethnicities back in
the late two thousands, early twenty tens. You could get
away with that. So it's kind of similar to the
Office in certain ways. If you like the Office, you
would like Community. I actually think Community might be funnier
than Parks and rec So I kind of think it's
up there because some of those episodes are just genius.
I did not like Midsommer like people are lit about Midsommer.
I mean Midsommer as a movie was engaging, but sometimes
if the message is too dark or satanic or nihilistic,
it's very difficult for me to like the film. So
that's unfortunately the case with Together. So basically, you've got
Alison Bree playing the needy, responsible wife or I think
they're dating. I can't remember if they're married or dated.
Oh no, they want to get married, right, she wants
to get married. And then you've got Dave Franco, James
Franco's brother is the listless millennial musician who is not
having a lot of success, but he's still hoping in
his band and thinking, oh, we're gonna make it one day.
And she kind of gets them to eventually concede to
getting together because she does the very cringe thing about
Community has a black face joke, five dollars seven glove
and Yeah. In fact, it turns out there's several episodes
of Community that we're pretty quote scandalous nowadays, as well
as it's always sonny, and there's about five banned episodes
if it's always sonny. That's how crazy. We're already into dystopia,
And if you go watch the episodes, the jokes are
pretty innocuous, right. It's like Danny DeVito does blackface in
one of them, Kaylin Olsen does it in one of them,
and then she does this this Latina cholo girl character.
That's pretty funny. I mean, it's like, that's enough to
get you your episode banned. I mean, this is insane,
but this is where we are anyway. So back to together,
she ends up proposing to him, So we have this
feminist statement that she's going to propose, and she does
it at this big party with all of his musician friends,
and everybody just kind of cringes because Dave Frank goes like,
I don't know, right, and he doesn't go for it.
But they're moving out to the country outside of New York.
They want to get away from the city and focus
on their relationship and growing up or whatever. But Dave
Franco isn't ready for this. So when they get out
to the countryside, they meet this gay teacher who tells
them that they should go spend some time in the
woods and just kind of frolic around and get back
to nature, and you know, somehow that will help them
to solidify whether they want to be together or not. Well,
it turns out there's this filth pool out in the woods,
and maybe they're in Oregon. I forget where they are.
I was thinking they were in New York. Maybe they're
in Afgant. I'm getting all the movies mixed up because
they all take place in different places. But they wander
out in the woods and they find a chapel that
is sunken into the earth like a sinkhole, this old
quote chapel. And in this chapel is this mysterious filth
pool with nasty liquid. And because they get stuck down there,
it rains really hard. They think, well, we may not
be able to get out of here. It's raining too hard.
We'll have to wait until it stops raining. And they decide,
because they aren't knew water to drink the filth pool.
Never drink from random filth pools. I can tell you
this from experience in Florida. Tasted a lot of filth pools,
and look, Florida has a lot of filth pools. None
of them taste good. They decided to do it for
survival and they wake up tripping out because it has
a kind of a I guess it has a shrewmish
component to them. I don't know, but they start tripping
out and they notice that bells have been hung up
all throughout the forest near this collapsed chapel. Their legs
begin to stick together. They begin to be more and
more drawn to each other. We think maybe their relationship
is healing, but it turns out as they get intimate,
they start to stick together, and as you can imagine here,
they are kissing and then their you know, their lips
kind of stick together. Well, as you can imagine, this
is an allegory for their relationship, right. Their relationship is
a push pull. She wants commitment, he doesn't want to commit,
but then when he takes time apart, then she he
wants her back, and then he won't sleep with her.
But then after several months he decides he wants to
and he begins to have this overwhelming compulsion for her,
and eventually she ends up drinking this same filth pool.
I kind of figured the whole movie out from the beginning.
I knew that the gay teacher was in on it,
and he's actually trying to get them to go drink
this filth pool water because he wants them to merge.
The craziest part about this movie it is overall pretty lame.
Here's the crazy part. This gay teacher says, Yeah, it's
kind of like Plato and the ancient Platonic dialogues. And
he starts talking about the Monad and Plato and this
idea of all of us coming from one and then
we fell and became separate particular individuals. Now, I mean,
he doesn't explicitly say that, but that's kind of what
he's talking about in more normy terms, because obviously the
normy audience has no idea what Plato is or what
the Monad is in terms of the systems. Right, So
I started thinking, Oh, this is like some kind of
weird cult where they're going to try to merge people together.
Lo and behold, that's what it is. The guy, the
gay teacher turns out to be a hybrid too, gay
dudes that went through the cult ritual of merging into one,
and they have to recruit other people to merge into one.
And that so essentrally, Deve Franco and Alison Brie there's
the cult having their underground meetings there merge into one
and at I'm gonna go ahead and spoil it for
you because I didn't really care for this movie. They
become a hybrid seeming hermaphrodite. So it's no longer Alison
Brien de Franco. It's now the hermaphroditic gender non binary
being that is the synthesis of the two. So it's
almost like a Monophysite horror movie. So if you want
to understand why we would critique Oriental Orthodox Christology, it's
the final state of Alisonbrie and James Franco, which neither
of which are either one. There this other third thing
a tertium quid. But it's platonic because it's like Batha Met,
the original dual gendered being. Batha Met's got the boobies
and the equipment downstairs at once the goat right above
as above so below. But that's not new to Elephus
Levy or modern Satanism or Hermeticism. This is actually in Plato.
Plato believed that the original It's also in the Kabbala
Adam Cadmon, the original non gender, non binary bisexual being
is the original God being. This is also taught in Crolin,
as we said, in Kabbalah, and Platonism and hermeticism. So
the idea, the esoteric occult idea behind a lot of
the tr and Z stuff isn't just depopulation. It is
all part of that, But a lot of these people
actually believe the ideology of that somehow. If we get
erase all differences, and this kind of underlies communism and
socialism too. Right, if we could erase all differences and
level the playing field entirely, and not just between ethnicities, races,
people groups, or religions, but also between in classes. Right,
class warfare also gender, The most fundamental warfare from these
people's perspective, this sort of a cultic al chemical perspective
or whatever you want to call it. Hermetic perspective is
male and female. So if we get rid of the
male and female by necessity, we will also then get
rid of all the other particularities and differentiations. And it's
like what Aldus Huxley talks about in his Parentio philosophy.
But we'll create the big blob. Once everyone is a
giant monochrome mono blob, there won't be anything to divide over.
You won't have your religion and your ethnicity and your
nation state and your tribe or whatever. We're all one giant,
non binary blob. And I'm not joking anyway, So that
is that movie. I was surprised to see the platonic
monad getting over and getting beyond all differentiation themes. That's
not what I expected in this movie. But then again,
I don't know about Dave Franco, but James Franco is
actually openly interested in Crowley. He's done himself Crowley rituals,
or try to reenact them. I'm not joking. If you
look this up, he spent several days trying to reenact
some elaborate Croley ritually. Yeah here it is now supposedly
this is performance art, but Twilight star newt c R.
Brian Butler performed curly ritual together with James Franco. And
then here's a bunch of dorks watching on, Oh look
how cool this is. They're doing the Bartzabell working And
I don't know who this chick is. She's supposed to
be from Twilight or something. Anyway, James Franco has some
role in this. I don't know what his role is
all right, this is too bright. Let me turn this on.
Speaker 2: Here we go.
Speaker 7: They wanted to invoke the spirit of Bartzabelle, the spirit
of Mars into James Franco. Oh update, James Franco missed
his flight and there was a stand in actor. Okay,
I didn't know this. Did he miss the flight or
did he just decide? Okay not, I don't really want uh,
you know, butt demons inside of me. And I'm not
joking because Crowley famously would h and insert himself into
Victor Newburgh's butt. But yeah, this was eventually so. In
other words, regardless of whether it was actually James Franco
that showed up. Uh, we know that James Franco, perhaps Dave.
I don't know. I do at least have some interest
in Crowley and Croly and rituals. And the old ethos
of Crowley is actually, as Croly himself said, the equalization
of all actions and all values. Did you know that
the equalization of all actions and all values. Because from
Croley's perspective, or so he argued, if everything is equal,
then the only thing that determines what's good and evil
is the will of the majis right, So everything that's
out there is just literally equal. I will determine as
the most powerful magis good, evil, male, female, et cetera.
Whatever I want based on my will you say? Now?
The other film I do wants to mention was a
much better film. I might play some of this future
futuristic jazz music in a second. So hold on, let
me pull this up over here. The cinematography, the music,
everything in Weapons was on point. Now. My only criticism
of Weapons is that it has a couple gruesome, like
overly gruesome scenes that just weren't necessary. So a couple
of times I had to turn my head away just
because it was two gross. Otherwise, this is a really
good movie. So basically brief analysis. Oh and I forgot
to mention in Together the Cult, for whatever reason, had
bells with all seeing eyes on the belt. I'm assuming
this is supposed to mean wedding bells, and that you
maybe some inversion of the bell that's rung during the
liturgy or the mass, right the wedding bell, the call
to mass or the invocation epiclesis in the Orthodox liturgy.
When the priest is praying, you hear the bells, smells
and bells. But interestingly, weapons also has bells with curious
symbology associated with them. I'll give you what I think
is going on, and then I want you, guys, if
you have seen it yet, to let me know what
you think is going on, because sometimes in films, and
particularly in this one, there's some ambiguity in interpreting the symbologia.
I don't exactly know how to interpret it. So we
have a kind of a Middle America, average small town,
and this strange event has occurred where the children in
one classroom have all disappeared except for one child. So
in the middle of the night, seventeen of them just
sort of ran away in the middle of the night
at two seventeen am, and they ran in this very
sort of weird posture to we don't know where. So
the whole town ends up in a tizzy, and obviously,
and then for the next year or two they're very upset,
and they blame Julia Garner, who I'm sure you've seen
in many movies, because they all disappeared from her class
for some reason. I don't know why this trailer is
so dark, dude, I can't see anything, you know, this chick, right,
So the whole town begins to blame her because they
think that it had to have been her class for
some reason.
Speaker 8: And after the.
Speaker 7: FEDS and the FBI and the police and everybody sort
of looks into this, nobody can figure out.
Speaker 8: What happened.
Speaker 7: So Josh Brolin plays one of the dads who lost
his son, and he of course also originally blames Julia
Garner's character for it. She's developed an alcoholic, you know,
she's become an alcoholic after all this, and she's thinking,
I'm gonna have to move. I have to you know,
find another job. I can't leave her anymore. And is
it a sequel to Barbarian?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 7: I think it's the same people that made Barbarian, which
is also a pretty good horror movie, but it is
not a sequel. It's a totally different thing. Anyway, Josh
Brolin decides that it's her, and so he's got this
red paint and he paints on her car witch and
paint that you can't scrub off. So you begin to think, Okay,
there maybe is a witch involved. It's got witchcraft involved,
and maybe it is Julia Garner. But she decides, I'm
gonna have to prove myself innocent. Or else, no one's
going to believe me. We're going to figure out what
happened to these kids, So they both end up teaming up.
But the best part of the movie is I think
that it's told in that style. Very few movies are
done are done this way. I can only think of
a few. There's one that has Patrick Swayze that's pretty good.
It's called eleven eleven, I think, and it's each character's
vantage point of the same day, which is kind of difficult.
Pulp fiction is kind of that. I mean, it's kind
of difficult to pull off. I think that's why a
lot of people don't do it. Is it eleven? Let
me have I got the name wrong. Maybe it's not
eleven eleven. There's a movie with Patrick Swayze from some
years back that is the same style of film. We're
gonna go back to open form here in a second,
so I'm almost uncovering the movies. If you're that impatient,
just hold on eleven fourteen. Maybe that's it. Yeah, this
is it. Yeah, I forgot Hillary Swank was in this.
So basically, this whole film is told from the vantage
point of five different characters in one evening as they
all intersect in one crazy event, right, And uh, I
don't really remember this kind of a story since then, right,
I mean, I'm sure there's been some movie told in
this way, but uh, it's it's a it's a unique,
out of time, you know, way to tell stories. And
it was it was done very well, and so you're
you're totally engaged. Every single character's vantage point is not
just kind of absurd, and it's a very it is
comedy too, right, This is has elements of comedy, which
I think make it overall a really good film. It's
not just a horror movie. But to get back to
the esoteric point, and I'm gonna spoil it for so
shocker here's spoiler alert right here. So it is a
witch and you kind of become obsessed in the second
half of the movie figuring out, Okay, who is the witch,
Who's who's doing the witchcraft? Because we've seen these sort
of passing images and glances of some kind of creepy
looking witch, but we can't really make out what it
is or what's going on. And the witch has her
own network of symbology, as we could say that which
connects her to On the one hand, we see triangles
consistently positioned throughout the film, and the triangle of manifestation,
I think is what this refers to, because that is
very important in just most forms of witchcraft, whether it's
more ceremonial witchcraft or Sanders Gardenerian, whatever type of witchcraft
it is, the triangle of manifestation is very important. It's
a very fundamental symbol within witchcraft. And I actually as
soon as I saw the opening of the film, they
showed us as triangle and I was like, Oh, it's
gonna be witchcraft. So I knew nothing about the movie
other than that everybody was saying it was good, so
I was pretty much right there. I didn't know who
was going to be the witch because it kind of
leads you on some trails and you get distracted. But
the witch also has a bell, and her bell has
the number six on it and the triangle of manifestation.
And it was just odd that we'd watched a movie
the night before with, you know, this cult that had
the bells with the all seeing eye on it. Here
we have the witch has a bell with the number
six and the triangle manifestation on it. I don't know
what the purpose of the number six was obviously. I
know that six in scripture refers to man being made right,
the creation of man, you know, six sixty six. I mean,
there could be a lot of obvious references to the
number six. I don't exactly know what the purpose of
the Witch having six in this movie was, though. I
also don't know if you guys, if you did see it.
When Josh Berlin has the dream that kind of helps
him start to think about figuring out who's behind the
missing kids, he sees the giant assault rifle in his dream. Again,
I don't know why that was there. I think given
that the movies titled weapons, maybe it was just a
archetypal symbolic reference to weapons. And we're trying to figure
out why is the movie named weapons. We haven't really
seen a lot of weapons in the film, Like there's
one cop that has a gun, and there's a guy
with a knife and this and that. There's not a
lot of weaponry, so you start to think that the
weapons have to be something else. Well, you got it,
weaponize Humans. Humans are the weapons and their weaponize when
they're underneath the spell of the Witch. And I don't
I think that this is a horror movie. That this
is just a basic horror movie. I don't think it's
trying to make a massive social commentary. But if I
did try to make a social commentary, I would have
to say that I think. I mean the way that
people act in the movie, the way they're sort of
going insane gradually as we get towards the climax of
the film, it's almost like society is under a spell.
People are going insane, They're going crazy, and we often
want to say, well, it's just you know, social factors,
it's this and that. But what I liked about this
kind of like Twin Peaks, is like, maybe there's actually
spiritual forces that are causing people to go insane, and
in this town, basically a large portion of the town
is actually under a spell, and that's why people are
having these breaks and going insane, and the town ends
up being they end up discovering who the witch is.
I won't say exactly. I mean, I gotta totally spoil
it for you if you do want to see the movie,
it is a little gruesome and a couple of places.
But yeah, maybe maybe this kind of a movie has
a much better insight into what's really going on, like
people are actually under mnemonic spells. They're not just low
IQ or you know whatever. It's not just toxic food
and toxic culture. That's all part of it. But maybe
it's all so witchcraft in the sense of people are
being influenced by dark spiritual forces. Let me know what
you think below, if you watched either of the films,
if you think I missed anything, if you have another
interpretation of the triangle manifestation, or of the number six
or the bells that were used in the film, and
I do want to read a couple of the super
chaps before we go to the open forum here, and
you can call in on any topic you want. It's
open open of course I am on YouTube, so obviously
not every single possible topic, because anytime you say it's
open for him, everyone wants to talk about Tiny Mustache Man.
I don't know why everybody wants to talk about Tiny
Mustache Man. I don't think he's even that interesting of
a character. But the Internet has just sort of created this,
these these obsessions and these you know, fixations, because I
guess people are just naturally drawn to what they think
is edgy, So I guess that's the actual explanation. But
I did close the stream the other day without reading
some of these super chats, so I apologize to those people.
So I want to get to those Let's see where
I left off. I forgot Mementos Memento meet mentos Maury,
Memento Mori or mentos Mori Mento's freshness. What are your
thoughts on some of the Mormons claiming that Jesus is
eternally divine? Well, I mean, we believe that as Orthodox Christians,
and so I'm not sure. Maybe some Mormons are claiming
that out of ignorance, thinking that that's their teaching as well.
It's not historic Mormon teaching. Even if a Mormon did
concede the eternal generation for some reason, it still wouldn't
mean that the rest of their theology wasn't heretical. So
really wouldn't really mean much. Remember, it's you know, to
be orthodox or to have It's not like, oh, I
believe all the things in the Creed except for two
of them. Okay, it's not like an eighty percent thing.
You got to believe the whole Creed. You have to
believe the whole faith hood Rat Thirty four thirty two.
What is the fallacy called when a person asserts that
because there's many religions, a single one could be true.
Is this the fallacy of incredulity? Yeah, I think what
you mean is, why would I believe that out of
the thousands of religions, somehow one of them is true. Yeah,
it's it doesn't follow from that, from the fact that
there's a lot of them, it doesn't follow that there's
not therefore one that's true. Just like if a lot
of people have different opinions on a math problem, it
doesn't follow from that that there is no answer to
the math problem. You see how that's a non sequitor.
And yeah, I would say in this case it's a
form of fallacy of incadulity. You're right, v Margulis. Jay,
I haven't watching streams. I was in the chat waiting
for you for a long time. You booted me because
you thought I was somebody else. Okay, well, I'm sorry,
I don't know which that was something yesterday I apologize.
Gabriel five dollars. You need to do a video game
walk through with commentary. I've done three and they don't
give many views. So I've done. We did some live
playing of resident Evil. We did some silent hill and
it's fun to do, but it gets one third of
the views. So sharif five dollars, How do you define
a person in regard to the relationship? What is relationship
between a person and a soul? Well, in orthodox theology,
person is really reflected in the human domain from the
trinity and the relations of the persons in the triad.
So the person is distinct from the nature because the
person is the subject or agent, and the nature is
the what right as opposed to the person being the who.
So the person is who, the nature is the what.
And so a human has human nature. The person is
the individual subject that has that nature, and that's what
individuates us or particularizes us, because I have the exact
same nature as you, but I uniquely instantiate in that
nature as the person Jay with all the qualities and
characteristics of Jay, And you uniquely instantiate human nature as
the person Bob. And that's modeled on the trinity. It's
not a one to one correspondence because obviously between the
trinity and between human beings there's vast differences. We are discrete,
separate beings. The trinity is one they're united in nature
and they are never separated or divided. Human beings are
sharing the same nature, but we are separated or divided
from one another. So there's not one to one parallels.
But there is an analogy between the one and the
many in humans, between nature and person, and humans and
nature and person. In the triad, the soul is not
the person or the subject. This is something that we
might make an easy mistake in terms of thinking, because
people like William Lane Craig identify the soul with the
person for Orthodox Christology coming out of the Apollinarian Crisis
and rejecting a Pollinarianism number one and by extension, Calcedon
and the Fifth and six Council's soul is a property
of nature. So we all have souls, but souls are
uniquely instantiated, as also my soul, Jay's soul, or Bob's
soul or father deacon soul. Right, so we uniquely instantiate
a common property or trade or attribute of soul that
we all share. That is not my opinion. This is
the Orthodox Church teaching, so you can call what I'm
saying opinion. There is no mother in the trinity. I
have no idea. What you're talking about American culture. You're
welcome to call in if you want, but no, we're
not doing a crazy made up gnostic trinities today. So
what defines human nature in Orthodox anthropology is body, mind, soul,
and will. And that's distinct but exists in the mode
of person. So persons have natures, they're not identical to
their natures. That would be to reduce person in nature.
And that's the move that Augustinians and tomass make, which
we do not make. John Damascus says, and on the
Orthodox faith, the root of all heresies or most heresies
is the collapsing of the confusing of nature in person.
Does a person subsist in the soul? No, a person
is a subject or the agent that has or possesses
a soul, just like it possesses a body, a mind,
I will. Those are all components or parts you could say,
of what a human nature is. Palomite one dollar, thank
you for helping me to convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Yeah,
I don't believe that. No Roman Catholic person calls themselves
palamite and then says they're converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism
and they only spent one dollar. Yeah, nice, try tried
cat young finessor five dollars, Jay, glad to see you
live again. By the way, why don't you call in
the people who do that kind of a thing where
they send one dollar to say that I converted them
to Rome from Orthodoxy? How come you don't call in
and make your arguments? Then we could we could see
how brilliant you were. Jay, I see that you're alive again.
Did you check out uncensored with Andrew? I have not
seen that a bald black lady is claiming to a
ball blacklead. I think you mean that play. There was
like a play where they made a crazy bald black
woman play Jesus and then I can't read the rest
of your super chests cut off. Steve mcglovin community has
a black faced joke about dark elves in the D
and D episodes. Yes, I remember that, Emilion, ten dollars.
Do not forget to like Jay's alive. Thank you, Emeli.
I appreciate that gens or gen Z five dollars. Good
faith argumentation means adhering to the internal logic of your position. Well,
I don't even think being a good faith in argumentation
even means that you're going to be internally consistent. It
just means that you mean well, that you're not there
to troll or to cause division or you know, you're
actually there with the sincere intentionality of you know, getting
to the point. So I wouldn't even say that good
faith means that you're going to be internally consistent. I
think you at least want to be internally consistent. Is
being good faith admitting when you don't know something? It
could be This term is used a lot, but it
seems to mean things to different people. I mean, I
think it just means being sincere, like you're not You're
there to actually learn and to actually have a debate,
and you know, not just cause chaos or whatever. Strange
as our Dean Withers doct a father, doc's a father?
Do you think he's going to jail? I don't know
who Dean Weathers is. Is that the person that has
the issue with like the child in Texas or something?
I have no idea. I don't know anything about it.
Speaker 8: Let's talk God.
Speaker 7: What's your favorite icon? I mean, there's a lot of
really cool icons. I like the icons of Daniel with
the visions of the beasts. I like Elijah being taken
up in the chariot, which is a typology of the ascension.
By the way, I don't know if I could pick
one favorite. Sev three dollars. Religion saved my life. Well,
I guess that's good news, except religion could be anything, right,
I mean I could be I could so uh, you know,
religion saved my life. And I'm a scientologist, you know
what I mean. That's I don't know what that means.
So I think it needs to be the right religion otherwise,
otherwise it could just be kind of a delusion. All right,
let's open it up. We got some callers here. You
can call in on anything you want. If you disagree,
you got the head of the line. You can put
me on my place. You can smash me in a debate,
you can destroy me. I'm sure we got a lot
of flat earthers that are chomping out the bits to
just just because I'm a NASA's shill. That's what I've
heard the last few days. I'm paid by NASA. Even
though I critique all of the stuff that like Normis believe,
I'm still a paid Shill for NASA. Nick, what's up, man, Jerry?
Speaker 5: What's going on my man?
Speaker 7: What's on your mind?
Speaker 2: Bro?
Speaker 9: I don't have any flat earth theories, Unfortunately I wish
I did.
Speaker 2: I'm just I'm not there today.
Speaker 7: Okay, what's on your mind?
Speaker 2: Then?
Speaker 9: So I've been going through that philosophy course.
Speaker 10: Another subtle plug for the philosophy course.
Speaker 5: Just been awesome.
Speaker 9: And as I was going through the epistemology lesson that
you have with father, I'm.
Speaker 7: Spacing on how to say his name right now while
they're digging.
Speaker 9: Yes, one thing that kind of tripped me up, and
I just really wanted to know your thoughts and how
you go about explaining it. So when you go into
like correspondence, coherence, pragmatism, and I'm spacing on what the
fourth one was, I guess what I'm kind of wondering
is how is this different from I don't understand why
philosophy separates the pre socratic approaches to finding truth like
Dailey's had empiricism and nax Amander rationalism and some many mechanism.
But then later there's theories like correspondence, coherous pragmatism. Is
it just the different ways of saying the same things,
like why is it necessary to treat them as separate
categories instead of just one framework.
Speaker 7: Well, there are different theories of truth, so people in
history of philosophy have different truth theories. So there's a
correspondence theory of truth. You know, there's different theories. So
why would we wouldn't collapse them all as the same
when different philosophers have different theories. So maybe I don't
understand your question.
Speaker 9: Yeah, So like, okay, so correspondence theory like true if
it matches reality, Like, wouldn't that be really similar to
what Bailey's was saying that It's like it's what he's observed, like, oh,
everything is water, so it must be water because I'm
seeing everything is water.
Speaker 7: Those are very different. So, I mean, the ancient philosophers
weren't hyper specified with specific disciplines of epistemology. So basically,
by the time you get to modern modern philosophy, after
Descartes and those kinds of Enlightenment philosophers philosophy, and it
gets more and more hyper hyper focus and technical, and
the ancient guys might have some parallels with that, but
they're not hyper focused. They're not hyper technical. For example,
None of the pre Socratics are going to have a
worked out philosophy of language. That's something that comes after
the seventeen hundreds.
Speaker 9: So is it almost like the pre Socratics they were
just kind of giving methods to how you source the
claim and then later on at least where I'm at
right now with epistemology and what you're explaining that unit,
this is more the definition of how you present it
so the reader accepts it as well.
Speaker 7: I wouldn't even say they're giving methods. It's more so
I mean, maybe a little bit, but they're more so
just saying, hey, what if everything's this? You know what
I mean. They're just sort of putting theories out of like, hey,
here's a way to explain everything. Everything's fire or everything's water.
I mean, I mean, there's a little bit of methodology
in that they're stepping away from the mythological answers that
you find in Homer and illio Odyssey, but they're they're
not method questioning. A methodology itself actually doesn't really occur
until post Enlightenment.
Speaker 9: So is it not a methodology? Like Dailies for instance,
wasn't he just empiricism? But just I mean, they didn't
use that word back then, but was that not just empiricism?
Speaker 7: Yeah, but he doesn't focus on methodologies.
Speaker 9: He's just explained everything's water, right, So it's like it's
almost like me using a later definition to explain something
earlier on that doesn't what makes sense.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 7: So basically the early guys just assume, uh, metaphysics, and
they think that if you just give these sort of
metaphysical explanations, that solves these problems. But it gets more
and more abstracted and technical, and people begin to question
more fundamental things as time goes on. So, in other words,
after the Enlightenment, all the Enlightenment, I say, wait a minute,
all this ancient medieval stuff is putting the cart before
the horse. They're assuming that they know these things, but
they haven't actually given a basis for knowledge yet. So
why are we going to listen to all these theories
and metaphysics when we don't know if we have a
reliable theory of knowledge yet?
Speaker 5: Okay, that makes sense.
Speaker 10: And then I had one more thing about.
Speaker 7: Tag If that's okay yep.
Speaker 9: So I feel like, as you go down, let's just
say opening up with the claim saying that logic can
only exist because God exists, and then a secular individual
would have like a counter to that, and you go
back and forth with that person almost like moves on
a chessboard, and you kind of arrive at this point
where they're going to hit a circular claim. And then
obviously the claim that you're making is well, I'm saying
that it's not just because it is the way it is,
I'm saying it is the way it is because of God.
Speaker 10: And they'll say, oh, that's circular.
Speaker 9: You're doing the same thing as men when you say no,
that's why it's called transcendental, because it's above the argument.
I feel like what I get from there is ad hoc.
People be like, you're just changing the definitions, like you're
changing the.
Speaker 10: Measuring sticks on.
Speaker 9: I don't know if it's ad hoc's the right way
to explain it, but I get I get that where
it's like, oh.
Speaker 10: No, you're just changing the term.
Speaker 9: If I'm saying it is the way it is and
you're saying it is the way it is because of God,
you're just creating a different version of a circular argument there.
Speaker 10: So how do you go about counteracting that point in
a debate?
Speaker 7: Can you re say for me what exactly the argument?
I don't know. They're just saying the transcedent argument is circular.
Speaker 9: Yeah, Like the transcendental argument is just circular logic. Like
you're you're saying it's a circular argument. You're saying the
exact same thing. You're just saying it is the way
it is because of God, Like you're the definition is
baked into the statement where it's like, isn't that why
it's called transcendental.
Speaker 7: It's called transcendental because of the type of argument that
it is a transcendental form of argumentation, meaning that it's
an argument about preconditions for the possibility of knowledge.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 9: So if I if I said, oh, Jay, that's circular
though it's a circular definition there, what would you respond.
Speaker 1: To that with.
Speaker 7: The definition isn't circular? It's just what that doesn't make sense?
Like if you ask me what a thing is and
I define it, how would that be circular?
Speaker 9: So maybe I'm misunderstanding circular on the if I say
it is the way it is because it is, isn't
that circular?
Speaker 7: Yeah? But you asked me what the definition of a
transcendental argument is. That's different from circular argumentation.
Speaker 9: Okay, So if you're in the discussion with the person
and then you're stating.
Speaker 7: That, let's say logic, you're saying that logic.
Speaker 9: Exists because God exists, and then everything is because God exists.
Is that not you falling into like a circular circular.
Speaker 7: That's not what the argument is. That's not how the
argument goes.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 7: The argument is that in order for knowledge to exist,
there must be preconditions for knowledge. The precondition for knowledge
are not found within normal empirical sense, data and knowledge.
Therefore they have to be grounded in some other thing.
God is the only type of being who could ground
the preconditions of knowledge.
Speaker 5: Okay, that makes more sense.
Speaker 10: So I just don't think I was explaining the right way.
Speaker 7: Then, well, what do you maybe you're I mean, I'm
not trying to be rude, but it sounds like you're
confused on what a transcendental argument is to me.
Speaker 9: I guess the way that I was looking at it
as is that there's nothing like, nothing can exist without God.
Speaker 7: So like if you apply it to logic, now that
that's not the transcendental argument. The argument is that knowledge
requires the preconditions of knowledge the preconditions of knowledge themselves
are not found in empirical sense data there prior to
science investigating the world, and this would be the things
like Aristotle's categories and qualities, or if you look up,
can't redefines Aristotle's categories to be what he calls the
preconditions we have the precondition of the external world, time
and space, causation, et cetera. So I think you need
to look into what the preconditions are because the argument
is not God is and therefore God's true. But thank
you for those questions. You'll get to that as you
If you're only up to the epistemology class, that's only
like three classes in so wait until you get up
into the enlightenment. A lot of them make more sense. FDA,
did you want to say anything? Father, Deacon? Did you
want to say anything?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 7: I guess not, Alpine. What's up? Well, you can call
in on Twitter or z her.
Speaker 11: Hey, Jay, So I have I have two questions, one
for both you and for the deacon, and another.
Speaker 1: One I just have for you.
Speaker 7: So let's just do one, just make it quick. What's one?
Speaker 8: Yeah?
Speaker 11: So I'm going to Manatos in October and I'm gonna
go visit a Veron and see the wonder working icon that.
And I was just wondering if both of you had
any like prayer requests that you wanted me to pull
to the Mother of God.
Speaker 7: Pray for the conversion of the enemies and the haters.
How's that appreciate that knack?
Speaker 4: You l Yeah?
Speaker 8: Why are you playing?
Speaker 7: I just was looking for some chill music to play
in the background because sometimes I want to hear some
soothing sounds in the background, and the only way to
get around the copyright is to play some you know,
fake ass slop like this, So that's why I'm playing it,
and I'm playing it also to be silly.
Speaker 5: Why not?
Speaker 7: Y'all need to quit taking shit. So seriously, what's up now?
You el On you.
Speaker 1: Pjs A you uh? I was just wondering.
Speaker 12: I don't have the book in front of me Esterry
in Hollywood. I let my friend borrow it.
Speaker 2: He's on a cruise.
Speaker 12: But I came across something interesting with the shining photo.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you've already talked about this or not,
so pardon my.
Speaker 12: Ignorance that you'd have, But it turns out somebody found
the oris like the original photo of Jack Nicholson to
like the bat mit post. I don't know if you
knew if you signed to.
Speaker 2: That at all.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's in it's in my chapter. What do you mean, Oh, oh,
it is in your chapter?
Speaker 12: Okay, Sorry I didn't I didn't have the book in front.
Speaker 8: Of me, but that's okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 7: I end that chapter with talking about that photo warrior.
What's up, dude?
Speaker 2: Hello, hear me?
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 13: So the other day I was talking to a Lutheran
fella and he was saying that not only Thomas aquine Us,
but also Saint John Damascene had.
Speaker 2: The idea that of the beatific vision.
Speaker 13: In which we directly partake of God's essence.
Speaker 10: I don't even know if this is part of theology.
Can you clear that up?
Speaker 7: So the easternschurch fathers say that we see the things
around God. So that's not the beatific vision, which is
the Roman Catholic doctrine that we see the divine essence
and our intellect associated two different doctrines.
Speaker 13: In the beatific vision, do they say that they directly
partake of the essence of God?
Speaker 7: Or are they they say it's an intellectual perception of
the divine essence that satiates the intellect and makes you
not want to choose or will anything else. So it's
actually a platonic doctrine.
Speaker 13: Okay, So it's not a direct participation in the way
that would make you a member of the Trinity. They
couch it in somewhere.
Speaker 7: I think that when it comes to participation, they're always
inconsistent because half the time they'll talk like, you're really
participating God, but they've always they always restricted to a
created grace.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 13: That was my understanding was that they had to somehow
participate by analogy.
Speaker 7: Because yeah, that's what Aquinas says.
Speaker 14: Okay, well, okay, that's not what this person was saying,
thank you for.
Speaker 2: I was just it was kind of bothering me.
Speaker 13: I didn't know what they were accurately representing.
Speaker 2: Aquinas.
Speaker 7: No, that's what Aquinas says. As as far as I'm aware,
it never becomes other than a created reality, so that
you're participating in. But he thinks that you do see
the divine essence, which say, ciates your intellect and makes
you not want to choose anything else, which is like, well,
how is their free will? Well, I don't think they
care about answering that question, universal what's up Jacob Kabe
five dollars Jada, as you watch Jimbob's evolution debate, No,
I've been busy. I haven't. I'm not anti Jimbob. I
love Jimbob. I just I can't watch everybody's content. Don't
have time, but I'll probably see some clips or something.
It seems like evolution proponents can't answer the teleological questions
of why even within evolution there is an attention No,
I think any any kind of metaphysical question is actually
going to be a huge problem for these sort of materialistic,
processed philosophy positions. So what's up, universal man? David Murdock
art ten dollars. When a Mormon says Christ was always divine,
this is actually weasily Mormons speak, That's what I would assume. Yeah,
they're actually they're referencing their infinite timely where matter and
intelligences always existed as uncreated. They're playing word games. Yeah,
I would think, So what's up, universal man?
Speaker 10: Yeah, the day I have a question only problem of people?
Speaker 8: Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because well you.
Speaker 15: Will know about the argument from Paul coop Plant's book,
is God a Moral monster? From my unders how I
saw from my review. If God knows everything that was
to take place before it took place, then to my mind,
I agree with the atheist argument that he is a
moral monster.
Speaker 10: Right, How I get a wrong?
Speaker 7: That is that.
Speaker 15: You believe that God is outside of space and time?
Speaker 10: But am I correct?
Speaker 7: Yeah, he's transferndent.
Speaker 15: Okay, okay, I how I get a wrong? It is
argument for God knowing everything? Therefore his amoral monster is
that I don't actually believe that he's outside of space
and time. And the from the grounding scripture from my
entire world view is Genesis three, when God rested on
the seventh day.
Speaker 10: So my understanding is that God is a creature.
Speaker 7: He's a process. Philosophy created God.
Speaker 15: My no, But what I'm saying is, well, God rested
on his seventh day.
Speaker 16: Right, Well, if you repted on the seventh day, then
you must be a person who works, and he must
be a creature.
Speaker 15: Okay, Well, could you allow me to make the argument. Right,
so when so my understanding is when he rested on
his seventh day?
Speaker 16: Excuse you said three genuses three? Kah phone, please do
not speak true fund must redeem first. Sure, but probably
we will say that, yes, you're a correct, sir, laptop.
Speaker 8: What's up? God?
Speaker 16: Did the creature Ramano rest Morgit a very tired? The
papers are returned.
Speaker 8: What's up, dude, Joseph? What's up dog?
Speaker 7: This guy actually has a dog on his profile, so
when I say what's up, dog, I'm talking to his pet.
Speaker 10: A pretty good impression.
Speaker 7: It wasn't an impression, Oh for sure, it was one
of my alternate persons within my head, or.
Speaker 8: Sure live in my head.
Speaker 5: I just had a quick question.
Speaker 17: In the Bible, or there's if you look at up,
there's certain Bible links that all because I was looking
up John the Baptist's birthday and it's supposed to be
six months before Jesus Christ. And there's a lot of
Christians that believe that he was born in March tenth
due to the lunar solstice or something like that, and
the months had different names back then, I believe, and if.
Speaker 10: He was born March tenth.
Speaker 17: That would put Jesus Christ's birthday six months later on
nine to.
Speaker 1: Eleven and.
Speaker 7: Super retarded.
Speaker 10: It is a mega ritual in the destruction of God's
foundation of earth.
Speaker 7: The killers that's so we're going to actually get in
the skits today. Why would you think this is true?
This is so stupid.
Speaker 5: It was just a question.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So there's an article that covers this, and I'll
link it right here. Well, Christmas is not pagan by
I forget this guy his name. Let's see here it does,
father Jeff Harvey, why Christmas is not pagan? And this
article he goes into the dating of the birth of
John the Baptist, and that should answer all of these
retort level emotions clouds or something. Get your head in
the clouds, get your head off the clouds.
Speaker 8: Ask your question.
Speaker 5: Hey, sorry, sorry mate, just a wave it. We're kind
of ducking cover from the boss. I just got a question.
Speaker 18: I'm got a Unitarian friend and I've gone through most
of your videos on Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons, and it
seems in Genesis eighteen, you'll say.
Speaker 19: That Abraham fell down before the agel of the Lord,
and I believe.
Speaker 5: Did he offer worship to him?
Speaker 7: Eighteen?
Speaker 18: Uh, he says someone.
Speaker 19: When the Angel of the Lord or God appeared to
Abraham at the oak tree, and Abraham like fell down on.
Speaker 7: His knees and bowed down and said, you know, I'm
your servant. Yeah, so identify I guess as the Lord.
Speaker 19: Yeah, yeah, I guess like my friend's position is. He
will then say, well, actually, in Genesis nineteen, Lot is
with those two angels.
Speaker 1: That's sort of in Gomorah.
Speaker 19: And then Lot also falls down before these two angels
and says, you know, I'm your servant, and it actually
says like he worshiped these two angels.
Speaker 7: So right, it has nothing to do with Navigator. So
in the scriptures, you can bow down and revere even
created beings Joshua and Joshua seven bows before the tabernacle
and the temple and the altar. Joseph bows before Pharaoh.
So bowing isn't the problem. The text it self identifies
who the beings are. And so in Genesis we're told
that one of the angels is the Lord and the
other two are angels. So the text itself tells you
when it's Yahweh here, it is Yahweh, the Lord appearing
by the tent door. The other two angels are identified
not as Yahweh, because it is this one that is
the Lord. The other two are the angels.
Speaker 10: Yeah, that's what he keeps saying.
Speaker 19: Like it's just theophany and then he'll sort of spin
it to well, actually, it's like Yahweh's just being channeled
through his message.
Speaker 7: Well, but God doesn't give his glory to another, and
so in Judges, for example, with Gideon, it says Yahweh
turned his face to Gideon. In Exodus twenty three, it
says that the name of Yahweh is in the Angel.
There's no other age. There's no created beings like Michael
and Gabriel who have the name of Yahweh in them
to remit sins. So your friend is just missing the
whole point and confusing it on the basis of the
term angel. Angel is just the word messenger. It could
be a created or an uncreated messenger, TINGU, what's up,
tangu i mute. We can also prove this from Leviticus nine,
where we see the glory of the Lord appearing. God's
glory is not a creature. And yet we're told that
the glory cloud and the fire, the glory and the
fire of God and the Lord himself appear visibly and
all of Israel sees it. Okay, Angels are not the
glory of God. So this is another stupid because all
of these Ariyans are just completely stupid and they get
tripped up on grammar. They can't even do like basic
grammar laptop. Yeah, it's so weird of a work. Like
people are just like mentally incapable of understanding words and grammar,
and they they have these crazy theories they read into
grammar and work like that. You know, the whole Jordan
Maxwell schizo stuff we were talking about. Or let's go
back to this again. Notice the commonality between idiotcy theorists
and heretics when it comes to interpreting words. It's like
they're mystified by words. They don't understand subject predicate relations.
It's it's kind of insane, and they don't understand. It's
like they don't understand that the same word can be
used in different context to mean different things. It's really insane.
And even Saint Basil said, like most of the heretics
are just messed up on basic grammar. They can't predicate correctly,
and then they all these wild metaphysical speculations just like
schitzos do, and I mean literal actual schizophrenic people. Let's
look at this conspiracy gibberish and how stupid this is
no less means be less, be less you.
Speaker 10: A soldier is a soulder.
Speaker 20: You are weakened on the week end from the weak
days days is unable to think in a state of confusion.
On the week days, you work a job, which is
Hebrew for persecuted. On that job you earn and earn
is a vessel for the ashes of the dead. Awake
is awake. Awake is a gathering that takes place before
a funeral. Hollywood is the holywood, the wood from a
holy truth. This wood was used to create magic ones.
They cast spells to a.
Speaker 7: Have you ever interacted with people that suffer and I'm
not being mean, I'm being serious, like the suffer from schizophrenia.
This is how they understand words. They think words only
have like one reference and the reference must be to
the most insane ontological reality.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 7: So like if if a soldier soldier which that one's
one of the dumbest ones, bless you be less like soldier,
this soldier is a soul, dire, dire, ah shit, my
name is a killing word. To quote the Lizan al Gaib,
to quote Mauldeb, to quote Paul Ussel, my name dire
is a killing word. I'm sorry because every time you
come to my live stream and you pronounce my name
dire die, Oh she damn son. Who would have ever
thought that the insanity of Jordan Maxwell is the same
root mistake of idiot heretics who can't do basic grammar.
Speaker 20: Solda, you are weakened on the weak end.
Speaker 7: You're weakened on the weekend by but you wonder why
I don't spend more time on TikTok? This is the
TikTok crowd, Yo, what do we say with the black keeper?
Israelites were the true we the true Israe lights because Jewish,
they're Jewish, they're a little bit Jewish, but not like us. Dog, laptop,
what's up?
Speaker 21: Can you hear me?
Speaker 22: I can hear her.
Speaker 23: I called him a long time ago when you had
that the awesome stream about Kristian Prince and the stupidity
of him and that Athenitions quote. So I just want
to thank you helped me with an answer about econography
way back then.
Speaker 7: Ask good.
Speaker 3: So thank you for that.
Speaker 1: I had a question.
Speaker 23: I have some Protestant friends and I just want to
to ask if I'm going the right way when.
Speaker 10: I'm talking to them.
Speaker 23: With regard to the canon of scripture. I've watched I
think everything you have on the kind of scripture and
the debate.
Speaker 24: They've been very, very helpful.
Speaker 23: One thing I'm trying to understand is I tried to
take it almost step back, like a little bit more.
Speaker 2: I don't know metal is the right world or not.
Speaker 7: But not even just the.
Speaker 2: Which books that they should know.
Speaker 23: For example, they come of talking to whomever whatever Protestants,
but the question not even which books, but how do
they know they should even read this book to beginner with?
How do they know they should even have a scripture,
any scriptures? And they have no choice but to even
the idea of having a book this goal.
Speaker 2: They have to appeal to the early Church.
Speaker 23: They have to appeal to what the early Christians believe,
what was handed down. So I've been wondering if that's
that's just.
Speaker 7: The Apostolic authorship is only known from tradition, and Apostolic
authorship is one of the key reasons why we would
read Matthew's Gospel. So this is a huge puzzle piece. Yes,
now they might argue that, well, the Jews had, you know,
the Torah and the prophets, and they had what Paul
calls the scriptures to Timothy, So therefore we should expect
that there would be new Testament scriptures. And yeah, but
that doesn't tell you which ones are the New Testament scriptures.
That's the thing in question. And yeah, great question. Just
look at the recent critique that we did of Wes
Hoff because West have tried to make a video about
the cannon, and you never actually answered the thing in question.
He just said early church fathers cited books. Yeah, but
nobody disagree with that. That was never The question is
what's the final list of the authoritative books? Alistair? What's up?
Speaker 8: Sure? Sure?
Speaker 16: Sure, go to rest On seven today in the trees,
go do what's cutting down the trees?
Speaker 8: What's up man? Alistair?
Speaker 7: Hello, there's nobody used. I don't understand, like I see
every day, like dozens of Twitter what do you call them?
Space is going on and then have to be able
to come on here like have never turned their mic on.
I don't understand, Like have you all never done this before?
We've been doing this for like seven years here, Vin.
Speaker 8: Louver, what's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 16: Should stop being racious? Star Shadow when you're doing devices
racist vicious, I'll have.
Speaker 7: You know, eight Indian food yesterday after church.
Speaker 1: So yeah, how's it going?
Speaker 25: Oh yeah, what you reminded me about? Like the name
thing is a lot of people Lava Pagans say like, oh,
Easter is the pagan religion because Oyster or for some
reason oyster God. No Oyster the Greek goddess of I.
Speaker 7: Mean I had a black girl.
Speaker 25: Yeah. Anyways, Uh, we're all gonna talk about I've been
thinking about the metaphysical nature of evil and it makes
perfect sense, you think I metaphysical wise, You know, a
knight has to go defeat the dragon, safe the princess,
get the treasure in order to be a knight. The
same today to be the hero. But without the dragons lay,
there's no knight.
Speaker 24: He has nothing to do.
Speaker 25: I mean, what's Spider Man without his villain? Just a
guy in tights flying around doing nothing.
Speaker 10: And though God does not.
Speaker 25: Want us to be doing evil and his permissive will,
he allows us. Because he allows us, don't forcome to
become the hero because you know, you gotta say your dragon.
Speaker 8: Yeah that sounds well, yeah, you know it sounds like
you've been listening good, You've been listening good. Hey, you
gotta slay your inner bregons.
Speaker 7: Calling what's up? We got a JB P in the chat.
We got a little JB P in the chat. Thank yo.
Speaker 21: I was gonna ask what about the verses like how
do you defend the verses in deuterotomy like chapter twenty
what verse fourteen where it says, but the women and
the little ones and.
Speaker 1: The cattle are all gonna be spoils of the enemies.
Speaker 26: But like the dispensationalists will say, like, oh, well, God change,
but like we know, as you know, as like Orthodox,
we believe that God doesn't change over time. So how
do you defend the in deuterotomy against heretics?
Speaker 7: Well, God had laws for what they could do, what
they're called laws of warfare, So I don't understand, like
you couldn't rape them, You couldn't you know, do what
you wanted to do with them. They had certain rights,
So what's the problem.
Speaker 21: Well, they'll say, like like the children and stuff like
that's their biggest like the eightiest like argument is that their.
Speaker 5: That's their biggest thing.
Speaker 7: So because God gave principles for the rights of people
who were taken in warfare for the first time ever
in the ancient world, that's somehow a mark against Christianity. Hell,
I don't know, no, but I'm saying it proves our position.
Speaker 1: That there's laws for warfare.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and that the people who were prisoners of war
actually had rights. M you can't rape and kill them
as you list here. In fact, they had rights. That's
the point.
Speaker 5: Okay, all right, thank you.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 7: I mean it's not like, I mean, what what, what's
God going to do? Tell Israel never fight again? Be
a bunch of peace knicks. Well, their enemies were going
to completely wipe them out if they did that, because
the motivation to destroy Israel, as we've seen, for example,
in the case with Pharaoh or in the case with Herod,
is actually to destroy the Israelites, not because they have
magical Jewish blood or DNA, but because they're going to
produce the Messiah. So the motivation that Satan has to
destroy Israel as a nation and as a people is
precisely to destroy the Messianic lineage, which has been promised
since Genesis to the woman. So Satan has had this
desire to stamp these people out, and by extension now
to stamp Christianity out right, because he hates the seed
of the woman who is now the Christian Church but
is also marry. So that's the whole purpose of the
proto evangelium in Genesis three fifteen, and why Satan had
such a motivation to try to destroy these people. They
offer us what's up, but no, it's really actually it's
a reddit lie. I don't even know where these reddit
people come up with us. They think that the Israelites
could have like child sex slaves. That's nowhere in deuteronom
I don't know where they make this stuff up. What's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah, just a short question.
Speaker 11: There's been this like Muslim guy who's been spying me
for weeks looking for a debate.
Speaker 2: I messaged Luis yesterday.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I unblocked him and he said he can't come
here today.
Speaker 23: So, oh, I don't know, he said, you know, he
said he tried to get on, but like there's only mood.
Speaker 2: You only want to talk about movies.
Speaker 7: That's what he wrote in your That's not true. I
said that after I talk about movies for ten minutes,
I'll open it up to everything else. And he told me,
he told me in DMS he couldn't come, so he's lying.
Speaker 10: Oh yeah, he's like.
Speaker 7: His profile is refuting Orientalists. I already sent him the link.
So leon lyon what's up? Man, lyon what's up? I'm you,
what's up?
Speaker 1: Ject?
Speaker 7: What's on your man?
Speaker 10: Okay?
Speaker 5: So I've been talking with some of like my Protestant friends.
They're not Evangelicals, they're.
Speaker 27: More like classical Protestants in the sense.
Speaker 5: Of like Lutherans and Reformed.
Speaker 27: So my question is not basically to me, like the
whole argument for solid scrip tour. It doesn't really make
sense to me. I believe more on the traditional side
of like believing in church church tradition. But I guess
like the only thing that's kind of plaguing in my
mind is like I'm not really to adapt at the
history of this. So one of the main like points
they've went against me is the end of it, like
the intercession of the Saints. But they say it doesn't
show up as a church tradition until like the.
Speaker 1: Third like like mid.
Speaker 7: Just say, yeah, but neither does the Protestant canon show up.
So that refute your own your own premise. So if
we have written evidence of something before the third century
to believe it, then we shouldn't believe the Protestant Canada
scripture because there is no Protestant Canada scripture for centuries.
Speaker 27: Okay, but what they would also say, like, it doesn't
necessarily show up in the oral tradition.
Speaker 7: It's mentioned in the ancient liturgies. So what do you
mean the ancient liturgies mentioned the intercession of the saints.
It's in Revelation five through nine. How's that that's an
ancient liturgical text. People don't think about the Book of
Revelation as an ancient liturgical text.
Speaker 25: But it is.
Speaker 7: Are you talking about the cloud of witnesses Revelation five
through nine, which I've cited probably fifty times in debates
when Protestants call in go look up intercession of the
Saints' clips. I'm not being rude. I'm just saying, like
that whole section is about the heavenly liturgy and the
intercession of saints in heaven. Petro's biological male in the house.
Thank you for that question.
Speaker 10: Okay, can you hear me? Hey, you's got two Armenians.
Speaker 1: In a row.
Speaker 7: M Is that good news or bad news? Only Armenian
I know? Is Sam Tripoli?
Speaker 1: There you go?
Speaker 28: What about search TANKI and from system of a down.
Speaker 8: I do not know him.
Speaker 28: Okay, okay, So first of all, I've been watching your
the Oriental U series you've been doing.
Speaker 10: Man, It's it's been very you know, very very informative
for me.
Speaker 28: I've ordered you know, I remember the last time I
called in, you recommended.
Speaker 10: A book, The Disputation with h Farius.
Speaker 7: Uh I forget the name, but Paris Disputation by Saint Maxim.
Speaker 25: Yes.
Speaker 28: Yes, So I've been reading that and I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 28: So my question is, so, I unfortunately live just outside
of Satan's asshole, uh Portland, Oregon, and I'm trying to
find a I'm trying to find an Orthodox church to
start attending, and so what would you what would be
some things to look out for, because you know, I
know how it is with you know churches.
Speaker 7: You know, being like, really visit them all and just
look out for anybody talking about Schotle stuff or we're
all the same religion or just all this the standard
kind of you know, ecumenist type stuff. By the way, no,
that's not too quotua to point out that you have
a double standard. So there's two there's a difference between
a two quotuay argument and a double standard. If the
question is the standards themselves, then it's not a too
quotquay to say, hey, you have a double standard, because
you're saying that for you, as a Protestant, it doesn't
matter whether there's first, second, and third century witness in
a written way to the Protestant Candida scripture, You, as
an Orthodox person, must prove to me, the Protestant, that
there's written textual evidence of intercession of saints, which, by
the way, there is in the ancient liturgical rites and liturgies.
But that's not the same thing as a two quotua
where you say, well, you know what, yeah, I guess
I got problems, but you've got problems too, right, So
it's categorically two different arguments. They kind of look similar
at times, so I can understand why you might think
that turning the tables on the opponent might be a
two quot wray, but it's not right. So when a
Roman calviolk says, okay, you say that we got you know,
a liberal pope, well you got liberal bishops, that's a
two quot way why because the argument is not who
has or doesn't have liberal bishops? The argument is the
system itself is flawed at a fundamental level, and thus
it's a false comparison to say when we argue that
the pope is actually contradicting itself and being heretical, that's
not the same thing as a patriarch Raay Bishoman the
Orthodox Church saying something wrong because we have a different
system and a different ecclesiology. Likewise, when a Protestant says
I'm only going to accept written textual evidence for a
belief in the first, second, or third century, or I
won't believe it, he's inconsistent because he doesn't actually follow that.
So two different arguments, two quote way is not a
double standard argument, lieber lamb.
Speaker 8: What's up? Yeah?
Speaker 7: Yeah, two quotua is actually a way to shift the
argument away into something else. It's a good way to
put it. Yeah, it's like a form of red hearing thinking.
Welcome everybody. It's open for him. Father Deagan has joined us.
Speaker 8: If you would like to.
Speaker 7: Call in with your challenges, debates, questions, the link is
right here in the chat. It's the Twitter link. We'll
look and see if that Muslim guy has joined us.
I'm muted, Yes, what's that mean?
Speaker 29: Ija, I've been watching your YouTube channel for a little while,
and I appreciate orthodoxy, but I'm a Buddhist.
Speaker 10: I wanted to kind of like go over some of
the transcendental arguments stuff with you, Okay, okay, So, like
from a.
Speaker 29: Buddhist POV, we would kind of have this idea of
two truths, wherein the.
Speaker 10: Transcendental argument would fit into a conventional truth and it
would describe kind of the world in.
Speaker 29: A mundane sense, and then there would also be ultimate truth.
But ultimate truth would be treated as a perceptive, so
you know, apart from any medium, we would perceive it,
if we use the word perception, we would perceive it directly.
We would penetrate it directly.
Speaker 10: And so I'm curious, like, what are your thoughts on
kind of like the Buddhist way of, you know, grappling
with that.
Speaker 7: I don't really know what any of that's supposed to mean. Honestly,
I think that a lot of the irrational mysticism and
Buddhism actually ends up just being incoherent, contradictory nonsense.
Speaker 29: So one kind of parallel I woul draw would be
between say, like the mysticism of Buddhism, which is kind
of oriented around virtue and things like that.
Speaker 10: And then the way that the desert callers who are kind.
Speaker 29: Of included in the phili okoy of how they approach
kind of Christianity. What are your help there?
Speaker 7: Well, some of the philocalia, now the philiokoy.
Speaker 29: So okay, some of them corrected me one time when
I pronounced it is philucalia and it mixed me up.
Speaker 7: Now that's the philioque is a different thing from the philocalia.
Speaker 14: First of all, you're not going to be able to
get Buddhism to work with the transidental argument of the
consistence of God because you need a personal God. That
reveals you need the incarnation, you need a triad persons.
So none of that doesn't come any work.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean, isn't ultimate reality impersonal in your view?
Speaker 29: So ultimate reality would be penetrated by the person, and
so it wouldn't really you know, it's like we could speak.
Speaker 10: About it impersonally, but a person penetrates it with their mind.
Speaker 7: That's not what I asked you, is the person is
the ultimate reality itself impersonal, not asking do you penetrate
it as a person.
Speaker 10: Oh yeah, it's impersonal.
Speaker 7: Yeah, So ultimate reality is chaos and meaninglessness.
Speaker 14: Right, Well, because ultimate leader evidental. Because if you don't
have a person that stands behind the universe, that creates
and sustains so that there's intention behind, you have accidentallysm
So you're in the same boat as the atheist, right,
like you tacking on a bunch of stuff like little
truth and blah blah blah two type that's not going
to do anything for you.
Speaker 29: Well, like, my response here is just that it wouldn't
be dislocated from a provisional truth to the in which
to say.
Speaker 10: We navigate the world.
Speaker 14: What I'm saying it has nothing to do with truth.
It has to do with intentionality behind behind the universe,
So a whole other issue.
Speaker 29: Yeah, that intentionality would be a provision that you set
forth in your aspiration towards the truth.
Speaker 7: We're talking about the ap not yours. That's just so stupid, right,
I just can't even do it.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 7: We're not talking about your perspective and what you think.
Speaker 10: We're talking about a god that's personal behind the.
Speaker 14: Universe, that creates the universe and sustains it and reveals it.
You don't believe that, So you're an accidentalism, right, So
you have a defeater for truth and knowledge.
Speaker 10: So you talking about all.
Speaker 5: This other stuff completely irrelevant exactly.
Speaker 7: Yeah, your perspective has nothing to do with if. All
of reality, as your own position says, is accidentalism, chaos,
and impersonalism. That's why, ultimately it seems to me like
Buddhism just kind of ends and atheism. What's up, man,
You're eager to come and debate us? You're here? What's up?
Speaker 30: Yeah?
Speaker 5: I was looking for Christians to debate.
Speaker 7: What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: You?
Speaker 7: You reached out to multiple people to come to bate.
You are looking for Christians a.
Speaker 5: Debate, That is what I mentioned.
Speaker 8: Okay, Brad, what is your argument?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 31: Well, to be honest before I get into the argument, right,
I've seen a lot of cognitive dissonance from Christians like you.
Christians in general try to pretend that their records are.
Speaker 8: Yeah, very much corneritive, Brad. What is the argument?
Speaker 5: Well, first, I'm.
Speaker 32: Making a simple point that Christians are basically shipped for preservation.
Speaker 16: Oh yeah, we're no good bad papers. Yes, you have poop,
you have poop vendors in streets, but we are bad papers.
Speaker 8: You you have garbage culture, but we are bad paper. Yes,
we're very bad.
Speaker 7: Make your argument.
Speaker 10: I don't think it's about bad.
Speaker 2: I don't think Christians are bad.
Speaker 33: I think it's most of them are deluded and desperate.
Speaker 8: Yeah, very much so, yes, yes, very desperate. So this
is good argument. Already we are half refuted.
Speaker 32: Well uh, well, honestly, any Christian area gross fine.
Speaker 10: I would love to debate the.
Speaker 31: Topic of historical and liability of Islamic and Christian record.
Speaker 7: We can't even understand what you're saying. What you want
to debate?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 5: I think you don't understand. You just don't want to.
Speaker 7: I'm sitting here waiting for you to make an argument,
and you're just basically saying gibberish. I don't even know
what you're saying. What's the argument it?
Speaker 29: Why are so scared?
Speaker 7: Like I'm so scared that this is the fifth time
I'm asking, the fifth time I'm asking.
Speaker 8: To make him argument? What are your argument? I am
talking into pillow? Why are you scared?
Speaker 7: I'm not scared of you.
Speaker 1: You're here.
Speaker 8: What's your argument again?
Speaker 2: Make?
Speaker 8: I would like make my I would like to order
two arm pit patties. Pretty fair, well, I would like
to order.
Speaker 2: One Christian who won't interrupted.
Speaker 7: But but we're scared of you. That's why it's scared.
Speaker 2: Well, why would you let someone else pop?
Speaker 8: Why are you?
Speaker 7: I'm assuming?
Speaker 33: Why can't you let someone else wrong?
Speaker 7: Because you sound like a retard. That's why.
Speaker 33: Well, I think you are in all anyone.
Speaker 1: You have.
Speaker 8: You have general poop society, and we are bad people.
Speaker 1: Well you are?
Speaker 8: You got me Brad totally refuted.
Speaker 5: Where I just making you can keep it?
Speaker 7: When are you going to make an argument? I can't
believe I unblocked you for this? Now I realized why
I had you blocked. This is like, this is like
the argumentation is equal to your your street food. It's
literal poop. That's why I had you blocked.
Speaker 8: I realize that now religion is oh good argument?
Speaker 24: Interacted with you before.
Speaker 33: I have never interacted with you once, but honestly, like
you can search your.
Speaker 2: Tag and my tag.
Speaker 7: Oh are you going to make an argument? I'm waiting
on this.
Speaker 5: Are you going to shut up?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 7: Yes, go make your argument?
Speaker 8: Argument, but we can't even understand you.
Speaker 7: How are you gonna make an argument? We can't understand
your voice? Can you state it slowly in English?
Speaker 32: Honestly, I find like this is the reason Christianity is tying.
Speaker 8: Did you did you ever think that?
Speaker 7: Maybe? Did it ever occur to you?
Speaker 33: Which is why you never like you can't debate depend.
Speaker 7: I've debated all of the right, all of the top Muslims,
I've debated, But you're the one that I can't debate,
that can't talk, that I'm afraid of.
Speaker 25: And everyone here can touch his tag and my tag.
Speaker 15: I have never spoken to you here before, and you
had been blocked.
Speaker 7: I probably saw you said all right, shut up, But
I'm not gonna even go to you. Are you gonna
make an argument or not? This is your last chance.
Speaker 33: Give me thirty seconds without talking.
Speaker 10: I'll make my argument.
Speaker 8: Okay, okay, So.
Speaker 32: Here's a simple sociological argument, right uh Now for this argument,
I'll just make a simple point. First, we can find
numerous cases of biblical scholars I bought them, etc.
Speaker 5: Instantly they will debate and depend their arguments.
Speaker 7: Right, So that's your argument?
Speaker 1: Is no case?
Speaker 2: What what happened in thirty seconds?
Speaker 1: Like?
Speaker 5: Can't you shut up for thirty seconds?
Speaker 7: This is I can't believe on I unmuted you for
this nonsense. This is the stupidest ship, This is a
total waste of time?
Speaker 8: Where where? Where?
Speaker 7: Not even worth my time? Lewis, Come on, dude, what's
up man? All of that for Bartman? Wowoh b it
sounds like a phone is ringing, but it's an Indian dude,
and you pick it up?
Speaker 8: You are stupid. Wait?
Speaker 7: Wait, what's something?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 2: I'm you.
Speaker 7: I thought there was going to be actually something there.
We waited like thirty minutes for this guy to come.
Speaker 8: On here, rep Christians or poop religion?
Speaker 7: Did your whole society is poop? Get out of here
with your poop religion, with your blasphemy. I mean we
were talking about eighty IQ people. What do you expect.
Speaker 8: You are afraid.
Speaker 7: I've debated all the top Muslims, but I'm afraid of you,
a random guy who can't speak. Yeah, that makes that's
probably what's happening. Probably that that's that's the truth. Probably.
I was hoping for an actual, like at least an argument.
Speaker 8: What a mart ermann Mark? Mark? What's up?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 21: Jay?
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me on?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: So I got a question, is that so when Jesus
was on the cross and uh?
Speaker 34: The New Testament mentions how a lot of saints were resurrected,
and they kind of preached for a few days, and
it's just such a very verse and there's not really
much detail. I'm wondering in the Orthodox tradition, is there
any more light that's kind of shed on what kind
of happened there.
Speaker 7: A fulfillment of what's mentioned at the end of Daniel
that when the Messiah comes, one of the signs of
the end of the age would be when the saints,
when the Old Testament patriarchs would be seen walking around
and preaching and teaching in Jerusalem. So that's why that's there,
is that it's fulfilling what we read in Daniel. Thank
you for that question. Askill Do you notice how I, like,
I asked him like ten times to make his argument,
and you are like me talk make your argument. You
want let me tuck make your argument, you want let
me dunk make your argument. What's up, man, I'm you.
Speaker 8: It's just gold for me.
Speaker 7: That's just comedy goal, bro. Remember the Remember the one
that called in and was cussing me out, the Pakistani dude.
That one was funny too. Those are that's the comedy
goal man.
Speaker 2: Like.
Speaker 7: I hope these guys understand you're not doing Islam a favor.
With these kinds of calls, you just become more easy
comedy goal. Benjamin became a member for six months.
Speaker 8: Buddy, you do not redeem sir exactly.
Speaker 7: Benjamin gets it.
Speaker 8: Let's talk God.
Speaker 7: Ten dollars. If the Beazivic vision happens in heaven for
the Roman CALLC. Thomas, If heaven is created and the
divine essence is seen in creation according to these inconcestent
soy boys, Yeah, that does seem to be inconsistent. If
you can never if the Beasivic vision is for the afterlife,
because in this life you only get the creative effects. Well,
it's still created effects in the afterlife, is it not. No,
it's a direct perception of the divine essence. Okay, But
if the intellect can see a divine essence, why can't
it see the divine essence in this life? On your
line of argument, I don't think we do see the
divine essence? Margo, what's up? I thought you haven't had
a Muslim call in in probably six months. I thought
we were finally gonna have a muscle Hello, what's.
Speaker 11: Hey, Ja, I've been watching a channel for a while.
Big fan just had like a geopolitics question.
Speaker 5: Okay, so basically, you.
Speaker 2: Know, I've been following.
Speaker 10: What's been going on in Israel.
Speaker 11: I watched a good stream from orthox Ethos on basically
how there was like a prophecy by this elder ath
and I elder that the nuclear program and it ran,
we get bombed by Israel and the kind of got
me thinking about, you know, because I haven't really been
into politics or any schizo stuff, but then I started
doing some reading and about Apak and how all of
our you know, elected officials are like supporting Israel and
what's going on there. I just wanted to like ask
your opinion on geopolitics, Like I guess, I guess what
I'm asking is like, do you think like a lot
of like the Western society, especially in.
Speaker 10: The US, is dominated by international Zionists.
Speaker 11: As another stream from Churchyard Ternal Logos, there's like Saint
Payusa said, like, you know, the Zionists they're trying to
build a third Temple and they're trying to reign into Antichrist.
Speaker 7: And all that. I've covered the stuff over and over
and over. So are you new here?
Speaker 11: Yeah, I've only been following you for like a little bit,
but I have I've only seen.
Speaker 10: Like a few of your videos on conspiracy theories.
Speaker 14: I just want to hear your like, I don't know.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I'm multiple. I have probably now ten videos and
audios and live streams on the history of Zionism, the
history of all that. So yes, but thank you, Osco.
Speaker 1: Are you anyway.
Speaker 5: Awesome?
Speaker 35: So I come from sort of this background of like
that's a nationalism when just saying one went on in
twenty twenty everything, and I've finally come to Orthodoxy, and
I just wanted to understand what the position of Orthodoxy
is on multiculturalism and on everything happening in the West,
like especially with this mass migration that's coming into Europe
and the United States now and everything. Do we believe
that multiculturalism is possible? Or is assimilation the expectation?
Speaker 7: I mean, I think in any church you're going to
find liberal priests. You're not going to find a universal
Orthodox answer on cultural geopolitical issues. I mean, I was
on the Hodge Twins that's got hundreds of thousands of
views across platforms for two hours talking about Israel, Joshua,
what's up. Of course, we don't support multicult multiculturalism as
a weapon.
Speaker 5: Hello, yep, oh, can you hear.
Speaker 1: Hold on?
Speaker 5: Give me one second.
Speaker 36: This doesn't work, I'll leave.
Speaker 7: I can hear you, all right, Hey, I.
Speaker 5: Can't hear you, but i'll I won't take too much.
You're hello ex Mormon.
Speaker 7: You're cutting out and.
Speaker 17: It's not orthodox cates doun cool And I was just
gonna ask you if you're familiar with the Adam.
Speaker 10: God doctors and uh, it's really good eternal critique.
Speaker 7: Yes, yeah, we've covered it many times. Appreciate that. I understand.
We've covered this probably ten times. I bring it up
in every morning debate. Agios, what's uping? Yeah? I covered uh,
Israel Poul Sign conflict a year and a half ago
in a t talk. Here's the theology of it here
as they're in Israel Regime Change CIA. There's about five
talks that are for members on this topic. Here's me
on the history of Israel in the Book of Revelation.
Here's me debating this goofas idiot, misfit patriot. I mean,
here's me on Hodge Twins, hundreds of thousands of views
talking about it. But it's just I get tired of
talking about this because people think I have, Oh you
just to talk about Jews. I do, and I have,
and I knew about all of this stuff before all
of you did. I knew about this stuff in two
thousand and six, seven eight, I had blogs. I got threatened.
So don't come to me about do you know about Leinism?
Do you know what the Tomud says? I knew about
what the Talmud says in the two thousands, when you
were still popping your diapers. What's up?
Speaker 1: Man? Oh? What's up?
Speaker 5: Can I ask a father deacon and an eye of question.
Speaker 7: If he's here?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 7: I don't know if he's here or not.
Speaker 5: If not, I could just ask you what's up?
Speaker 7: FDA are you there?
Speaker 10: I could just ask you?
Speaker 5: In the fall, I'm taking a Problem of Evil class.
Speaker 30: Do you have any like topics you would recommend before
like going into something like that, or like like Christian
apologetics you know specifically what.
Speaker 5: The dogs see.
Speaker 7: At a secular university?
Speaker 1: Yes? Uh?
Speaker 7: And you're asking me what should you ask them?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 30: No, No, I'm asking, like, are there any topics I
should study on or like like specific topics to be
like prepared for a class like that was specifically like
towards the problem of evil.
Speaker 7: FDA, are you there? I mean, I think FDA has
some classes and course work on his channel. Maybe reach
out to him, or he touched on or covers the
nuances in the specifics of problem of evil stuff, but
it seems like he's cutting out anyway. Disagree, you go
to the head of line today. If you would raise
your hand, we got seven or eight people in line.
Eight people. Now, if you disagree, raise your hand, you
go to head of line. Anybody, We'll get more people
hopping on eight nine people who disagrees, you go to
the headline. Robert, you disagree, Penguin, do you disagree? Slow, slow,
Pez disagree? Somebody do an emoji if you disagree and
you go to the headline. II Rodriguez became a member
for five months, and he says, take a break from theology.
It's getting tired. You're getting tired of me or I'm
getting no, I'm just getting tired of like the same
old questions. It's like, I mean, I'm not trying to
be rude to I don't mind the guy asking about Zionism.
It's just like I've covered it forever and a lot
of topics get old when you cover it for like
a long time, and then you know it's like the
PSA question. It's like there's ten clips now of how
to refute PSA from northodox perspective. But people are super
lazy and they'll just call in and ask me, expecting
me to rehearse and repeat the same line of argument
and explanation, the same talk that we've done probably one
hundred times. And when I say one hundred, I'm not exaggerated,
like hello, uh huh, what's up.
Speaker 10: Hey, Jay?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 10: You willing to do a alien kind of PSIO question?
Speaker 8: Sure?
Speaker 1: Okay, cool?
Speaker 14: So hold on, I don't know why.
Speaker 10: It's like.
Speaker 7: I didn't say Christian apologizes solved up?
Speaker 10: Okay, cool?
Speaker 5: All right?
Speaker 37: So I have a I saw a stream from Orthodox
ethos about uh, the Genesis six sons of God, uh
being the instead of being fallen angels like spiritual beings
or you know, fallen.
Speaker 10: Angels, that it's gonna be the sons of Seth. Have
you heard anything about that?
Speaker 5: Of course?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 3: What is uh?
Speaker 10: What is your position on that or do you have
a position.
Speaker 7: I think the Bible and the Deutero canon make it
clear that it's talking about angels and not men.
Speaker 37: Okay, okay, because from my from from that Orthodox Ethos
video that I watched, and I know, like we don't
have to agree with everything that Orthodox Ethos puts out
or like one Church father or whatever, but they were
it was it was owning like a couple sayings from
the saints, Saint Augustine, and yeah.
Speaker 7: He's one of the first to doubt that it's angels, okay.
Speaker 38: And I just had a thought about how you talk
to a lot of like Christian people who you know,
they hold that view that it's the angels that came down,
but they somehow they connected to like the aliens coming
or like some kind of psyop.
Speaker 7: That's about That's a bunch of evangelical, retarded stuff. So
I would just avoid all that. But thank you for
your question. Penguin. See, I got my dang koran. Now,
I got my dang study Bible koran out. I thought
we was going to have a real conversation and we
got Indian deli man who couldn't even formulate sentences. Check
out the New Weapons horror movie, dude. The first ten
minutes is analysis of the movie. So I Rodriguez rewind
to the beginning of the lectureing, what's up man? Yep?
Speaker 2: Okay, uh yeah, Jay?
Speaker 5: What is your option on getting like a three nup
before marriage?
Speaker 1: Like orthod exhibition on that?
Speaker 7: I think that most of the time it's discouraged, but
there are some situations in Orthodox can of law where
it is permitted. But that's the question for your spiritual father,
not for me.
Speaker 6: Matt.
Speaker 7: Are you going to talk about free Masonic influence on
revolutions again? Should? I've talked about for fifteen years?
Speaker 2: Dog?
Speaker 8: What's up?
Speaker 7: Man? I'm you, Matt?
Speaker 1: What's up? Jay?
Speaker 15: I know I'm not gonna have a good debate for this,
but can I'm an atheist and I'm trying to get
out of it just being all right, my preference versus
year preference.
Speaker 5: I know that's a popular go to, Like I can't
make a stronger claim than.
Speaker 10: That, But can you give me a line kind of
think break past that barrier?
Speaker 7: Give you an argument why pure relativism and subjectivism is wrong?
Speaker 1: I guess so.
Speaker 7: Yeah, Well, it's self refuting. If if a position at
a very fundamental level is it self self refuting and
destroys the possibility of having justified knowledge, then it's probably
not a tenable position.
Speaker 10: It's self refuting because it rejects knowledge.
Speaker 7: Itself rejects the possibility of knowledge or and or justific
cation for knowledge. So if all positions and all beliefs
are purely relative and subjective, you can't state that all
positions are relative because that's a universal claim. So it's
a fundamental contradiction.
Speaker 19: Got it?
Speaker 7: Okay?
Speaker 2: Cool?
Speaker 7: And that would make all knowledge claims then no longer
true knowledge. Go ahead, man, what's up? Your thumbing down?
What's your problem? Alistair? What's your problem?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 7: What's up? I don't know, man, the dial up ain't
working for you, by the way, I saw that. I
think they're getting rid of dial up. So a lot
of y'all calling in. I guess you will be calling
in anymore since AOL is getting rid of dala Jeff,
what's up?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 7: Dang it. I forgot to mention when I mentioned the
freaking movie, I might have to add that if I
clip the movie thing, I might have to add a
little bit on that. Yeah, I wanted dimension. By the way,
and if you look, if you want to just look
up Jay Die or Israel, you get these videos if
you go to the member section. Here's me talking about
Victor Strowsky's books, his lectures. Here's another one on Israel.
Let me just go to my channel and search my
channel for Israel, Iran, CIA, all that stuff. You're gonna
get your fill. I did a five hour debate on Zionism.
Go watch the five hour discussion we had with Ridvan.
I mean, go watch the two hour discussion on the
Hodge Twins. It's like, do I just I guess the
only way to do this is that you literally just
have to talk about Israel and Zionism all day, every day.
That's the only way to show that you've ever talked
about Israel and Zionism. This and by the way, that's
all that there is in the world. Literally, all that
exists is Israel and Zignis. That's it. Nothing else matters,
Nothing else matters. When Metallica wrote that song, it was
about Zionism. Nothing else matters.
Speaker 4: Dog.
Speaker 7: By the way, I think I put Zionism in the
chat here, it's like you could call in on dispensationalism,
Hebrew roots movements, all that's in the chat. By the way,
where's the black Heeber Israelites that they're the funnest. We
haven't had one of them in a year. Gabe became
remember for five months, what's the next big debate? Jay
in ten days eleven days were debating Tim Gordon on
Elijah Schaeffer's channel, on the Papacy, the Ley Oakway and
something else. Jeff, you want to try again?
Speaker 5: Sam?
Speaker 7: Hello?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 25: Okay, cool?
Speaker 5: You were just talking about Weapons.
Speaker 1: I was going to.
Speaker 11: Recommend that movie together with Dave Ranco.
Speaker 5: Have you have you seen any previous line?
Speaker 7: I just did the first ten minutes of this stream
both of those movies.
Speaker 2: Oh you did baw into Okay.
Speaker 7: It's okay, thank you? Thunder?
Speaker 8: What's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 7: I gotta do, I gotta I forgot to mention that
the children are being in k monarched as well. And
that's the other element that was pretty prominent in Weapons,
and I think Weapons is It reminded me of Prisoners,
remember Villain News Prisoners with Donnie Darko, and uh, it
was about the sort of take king of the youth,
shall shall we say, and then reprogramming them. That was
also what was going on with Weapons, But in this case,
it's a sort of pretty powerful witchcraft cult that's essentially
doing this what's up, man, I'm mute.
Speaker 1: Hey Jay, can you hear me?
Speaker 36: Okay, hey, thanks for taking my call. Just a couple
of things really quick. Number One, I went to my
first Orthodox liturgy yesterday, and I just wanted to thank
you for being somebody that you know, kind of led
me to their Greek Orthodox church.
Speaker 10: But my question here is about the subject of worship.
Speaker 36: I come from a Protestant background, and I've even been
to like some of the megachurch like weird kind of
costal stuff, and growing up in the church, I've always
felt like worship part of like these Protestant services and
stuff was like very disingenuous. It seems like more of
a worship of the self when you know the people
are on there on stage, you know, playing all these
crazy instruments and stuff. And the liturgy was really a
bit of a culture shock for me, but it fell
a lot more genuine. No, My main question here is
I've talked to my parents about this and some of
my friends who are all Protestant and gotten a lot
of pushback on this subject of worship, and they're throwing
like Bible verses at me, you know, and saying like, oh, well,
King David was, you know, running around in the streets
with the heart and singing and dancing and all this
kinds of stuff.
Speaker 14: As if you know that's some sort of defense.
Speaker 7: I just felt like, first of all, not everything at
every time in the Bible is for all eternity, right,
So just because something happened at one time period, it
might have been what was beneficial for those people at
that time. So for the Old Testament period, for example,
animal sacrifice was partly an apologetic against paganism and the
worship of idols and demons at that time, because a
lot of the animals that are being sacrificed are actually
viewed as divine or semi divine or instantiations of the
gods of the nations around them worship. So, for example,
the cow was revered in Egypt, and yet when the
Israelites come out, they're not supposed to worship the golden
calf or the cow. They're supposed to be engage in
sacrificial worship using cattle. So this is a pedagogical advice
and an apologetic something that most people don't understand, but
we don't forever at all times utilize that pedagogical device
within the Church, because the Eucharist now supplants that covenantal
worship and meal that we have with God. So not
everything that David did is necessarily eternally the case for
the church. So the question is not did David do
something at one time, it's what do the apostles laid
down as the pattern of worship.
Speaker 5: For the church.
Speaker 7: The New Testament does not record an actual worship service.
Did God leave us to diyat well? In Leviticus he
seems to care quite a bit about how he's worshiped,
and he's never left it up to Diy. You don't
just do it yourself. You don't come up with I
like this verse where David does this. We actually have
a tradition of the apostles handing down a pattern of
liturgical worship, and you can actually see this in the
Book of Revelation itself. So I'm gonna say, watch this
video that I did right here that goes into the
history of liturgical worship out of the Book of Revelation,
because in Revelation five through nine, John is actually at
the liturgy, looking into heaven and seeing the liturgical worship
going on. That becomes the pattern for the earthly worship,
which is where we get the basis and the pattern
for Orthodox Apostolic worship. And thus in the history of
the Church you have when Paul and the Apostles go
out into the Roman Empire, they establish sees and they
give a pattern of worship, and those ancient liturgical worship
services are preserved in the Orthodox Church, mister crot Croat.
But here's a basic biblical argument right here from the
Book of Revelation, chapters five to nine, where I debate
with a goofus charismatic kind of costal person on this
very topic.
Speaker 39: You yeah, yeah, I thought this pretty interesting, secuests because
I want to know more about funny funny with some
people who claim a bolt talk about problems like some
you know, like wasp I to Protestant aspect bits it
was made some people.
Speaker 7: Bro, I don't know what you're saying. I have no idea,
no idea what you're saying. What's going on, Isaac? What's up?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 7: If you call in, please clearly a nunci in dumb
English for me, what's up?
Speaker 12: Name?
Speaker 2: Oh? Hello, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 5: It's up man.
Speaker 2: So my question is about Israel and stuff.
Speaker 7: So I noticed a lot I don't talk about it
because I'm paid by APAX. They pay me in shekels.
Speaker 2: Nice.
Speaker 7: Nice, But sheckles is actually a crypto that none of
you have heard of.
Speaker 2: Con oh yeah no.
Speaker 40: But basically I noticed a lot of Catholics and Orthodox
you know, rightfully, you know, they look down on what
Israel is doing and stuff, like the way they view
Palestinians is like lower than them and stuff.
Speaker 10: But one of the problems I.
Speaker 40: Have with the Bible is that you kind of see that,
like Jewish supremacists like look on gentiles in the Old
Testament too, like they're like the chosen people, and like
in the Old Testament, I feel like Gentiles are presented
as like lower than that.
Speaker 7: Already covered that because earlier we were talking about how
the reason that Israel had that attitude was because they
were promised to produce the Messianic line and the Messianic seed,
so they had to have that insular, self defensive attitude
against the nations around them. And Satan was who motivated
the nations to try to stamp out the Israelites only
because they were going to produce the Messiah, not because
of any magical Jewish DNA. So after the birth of
the Messiah. Those principles of you know, how to treat outsiders,
this kind of stuff are now applied to the Church,
which is the true Israel. So it was appropriate for
that time for Israel to have laws of warfare, self defense, etc.
That is no longer appropriate now that the Church is
the fulfillment of Israel and is the true Israel.
Speaker 2: Okay, that actually makes sense.
Speaker 7: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, and that and I'm not being rude,
but that we had that same sort of question about
maybe thirty minutes ago. But you might be new here, Robert.
What's up, Gabe K Please do an analysis of Martyrs
two thousand and eight. It's a French philosophy horror movie.
I don't know about that. Sounds that sounds terrible. French
philosophical horror sounds insufferable. Please. I hope you get to
debate Alex O'Connor. He is ducking you. I don't think
he's ever going to do a debate. I mean, I
really don't. Thought we were going to do Piers Morgan
and he didn't want to do it, so he said nope,
not debating theism on Piers Morgan. He said he would
only debate me on politics. Destiny did the same thing too, right,
Destiny said, I'll only debate you on political like politics,
Like that's just the most gay thing to debate, dude, politics.
What's up, man, I'm Robert.
Speaker 17: Hey, how's it going.
Speaker 10: In regards to the movie Weapons with the bells, I've
heard people. I've heard people talk about.
Speaker 17: How bells like help release demons and a little weird,
but in the Spider Man movie when the third one,
when he's possessed by venom, he goes to the church
and the bell separates him from the demon and he
becomes good again, and then kind of follow up in.
Speaker 10: The Spiritual Warfare.
Speaker 17: Also regarding comics or whatever, like Superman and Batman are
kind of like Jesus Christ and the Devil kind of
personified as heroes and they're both created by Jews. And
I was researching like the medieval witch trials of Europe
and all the people that were executed for like entropy
had a lot of similarities with Batman, where the devil
would give them a magical belt, a utility belt, a
cowl like a wolf'spelt, and ointments and like also the
full moon and the bad signal kind of like mirror
each other, and there's a lot of other similarities between
the two.
Speaker 7: Or a braided belt, but I met a lot of
dudes in the nineties that I thought were a little suss,
so they had a braid of belt.
Speaker 1: Probably you're probably accurate, But what are your thoughts.
Speaker 14: Do you think they're using like.
Speaker 10: Things like that to attract children to satan.
Speaker 7: I think the course that Marvel comics and comics in
general took after getting more and more woke, definitely went
in that direction. I don't know that there was a
self conscious desire when they created Superman and Batman to
be quote satanic. I mean, I guess that would really
just depend on specifically what was in the mind of
the guy who made those comics, which I haven't even
looked into, so I don't know, but I know that
over time usually what happened is like this kind of
stuff gets more and more and more twisted into dark,
demonic stuff. So it's an interesting question. I'd have to
know more about, you know, whoever was the creator of
Batman and Superman. I did know that it was, you know,
Jewish creators, but I don't know about Batman. I know
that whoever created Superman was a Jewish guy. But I
don't know about Batman. I haven't I haven't thought about
comic books in a long time, so I don't know
the bells thing. I mean, I think we said earlier
in the first ten minutes that the bells thing was
like a it's like an inverted version of the liturgy.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 7: So in the movie Together, we had wedding bells for
the merging because the whole issue is about are they
going to get married or break up? And then the
bells in weapons seemed to be directly related to witchcraft.
Another thing I thought about, dude, why are you doing this?
I don't understand the purpose of like the constant thumbing down,
Like what do you want to say? Jadis has a
bell that she uses in a Magician's Nephew if you've
read Narnia, so perhaps in the Golden Dawn and these
kinds of things, bells play a prominent role. What's up, man, hey, j.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me now? Awesome, sir, I'm inquiring too
orthodoxy now.
Speaker 41: Also follow of Liquid Zulu when you debated him, and
it kind of made me realize the faults of libertarianism.
Speaker 2: So now I'm transitioning out of that. I look at
the Church and.
Speaker 5: A lot of it does.
Speaker 41: Have similarities with the libertarian at ethos, like to become
a Christian you have to freely choose.
Speaker 7: That or Libertarianism is an Enlightenment philosophy of natural rights
and all that. So there will be some overlap with
the idea of liberty in terms of free will and
Christian theology and anthropology. But the libertarian ethos of the
Enlightenment is not compatible with Orthodox you know, symphonia and
that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that's what I wanted to ask about.
Speaker 41: So with like the Church, we as people, we would
pay a tithe, but that wouldn't be enforced under threat
of death, would it.
Speaker 7: I've never heard of that. I've never heard of that,
even in the West, that there was death or not tithing.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, of course, But I was just going
to say, so, when we move up to.
Speaker 41: The state level, why can't we form a Christian like monarchy,
monarchical government voluntarily without force of death if you don't
pay a taxes or imprisonment.
Speaker 7: I think that's what we would want.
Speaker 41: Oh, okay, because a lot of the Orthodox states in
the past had suffered.
Speaker 7: I never heard of any state, Protestant, Categic or Orthodox
that had the death penalty for not paying the church tithe.
I've never heard of that.
Speaker 2: Oh no, sorry, not the church tithe. Those were just
examples of.
Speaker 41: You having a duty as a Christian to pay into
like your society.
Speaker 7: You know, I agree with you and the libertarian ethios
that anything like that should be voluntary. I agree, Okay, cool, Yeah,
because I wouldn't equate that with libertarianism though. I mean,
that's a principle that libertarians have, but I wouldn't say
that because I agree with that principle. Therefore Orthodox he
is a libertarian, right. I think we'd have to get
really precise and nuanced, because, yeah, I definitely believe in
private property. I believe in freedom of exchange. I believe
in you know, tithing and and that kind of stuff
being voluntary. I think we should have the lowest taxes
possible at all. I do agree with all those principles,
but that wouldn't mean that. For example, in a if
we had a majority Orthodox Christian society and they chose
to have an Orthodox monarchy, you couldn't erect your crazy
Satanic cult or your chose witness nonsense in that city scenario, right,
you could have a Christian state that outlaws these heterodox things. Misha,
are you the one thumbing down? What do you what
do you want? All you got is raise your hand
if you disagree, you don't have to like thumb down
for the next thirty minute straight. It's like you're just
wasting your own thumb energy doing that.
Speaker 22: What's up, man, I'm mute, all right, I'm actually in Russia.
I'm Christian layman.
Speaker 42: I could didn't really find a new topic videos on
use this topic, but I'll persist. Unfortunately, it's yet another
Middle Eastern question, but it is slightly different. So a
bunch of so called iron field new pagans from fortunes,
politics and banter boards are claiming, like foaming at their mouths,
how but putting is actually secretly just one of the
small heads, like it's a hopeless I.
Speaker 7: Have a hard time understanding what your question is. Can
you enunciate very clearly and slowly in English as best
you can? What's the question?
Speaker 42: So the question is, like some people say, think that
putting is actually just a pone of small heads. The
people's question so like it's a hopeless rational surch Church
is rich. So that's a slightly different topic. I obviously
don't buy any of it, do you.
Speaker 7: You don't what.
Speaker 24: I obviously don't buy any of it. I don't believe this.
Speaker 7: I don't know that he's controlled. I think that everybody
in politics at a high level has to make compromises
and deals. And if he meets with uh, you know, Jabad,
everybody then says, oh, look he's controlled bayha bah well
meeting with them, And if he talks about rising into
Semitism or something like that, I mean there might be
a degree of influence, There might be you know, deals
that are made, but controlled.
Speaker 42: I don't know about that, Okay, So I'd like to
show you like my view, because it's like a kind of.
Speaker 24: Sorry that my.
Speaker 42: It's like how to get the English Speptist speaking English
Baptist in Russia.
Speaker 24: But I don't have any problems to write in English.
Speaker 42: So the whole Russian English bay language very barrier is
only one sided. And we've had the first hand experience
of how the sanctions have impacted us as I see it.
Putting was only flirting with it in the two thousands,
just by Russia time to recover from the catastrophe of
the nineties.
Speaker 24: Those autists, unfortune.
Speaker 42: Want us to believe that one day, for no reason whatsoever,
all of Russia was sanctioned.
Speaker 24: The mainstream superstars have fled to.
Speaker 42: Israel, and Putting was proclaimed a war criminal because he
dad to challenge the field currencies in the new or
large that it was all just controlled somehow, what was controlled,
that all of this that has unraveled on the world
politics stage, with how Russia was sanctioned today, like how
it was supposed to die, like in six months after
sanctions have been people put in place, that all of
it happened because it was all kind of a whole plan,
that it is control. The position I don't buy and
needs it does actually like do you.
Speaker 7: Know I don't agree with that. It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: It does.
Speaker 24: Nathaniel he is the kind of he's quite fond of Putting.
Speaker 7: Of who Nathaniel, Yes, like the monk guy, the monk Oh,
that guy's crazy. Yes, don't appeal to that guy. That's
the worst of them all. Reformed. What's up man? Thank
you for your call. I'm not trying to be rude.
It's just it's really hard to understand.
Speaker 43: What's I was just inquiring about the trendy and I
had a few questions, if you don't mind me asking,
mm hmm, yeah, okay, So I just had a question,
like if you look into there's a if you look
into philosophical language, there's the concept of something called co referentiality.
Speaker 5: I'm not sure if you're familiar with it.
Speaker 43: And what's the securitious Do you know the concept of coroferentiality,
like two things being co.
Speaker 7: Referential, co referential identity.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, like two things being co referential, like they
refer to the same thing in reality. Are you familiar
with it?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 43: No, Yeah, so there's some there's a notion of something
called co referentiality. Withlian philosophy, language just refers to two
things being the same thing in reality, like Clark and
and being the same being co referential with Superman.
Speaker 5: They are just the same thing in reality.
Speaker 43: So you can substitute them in like an extensional context,
like the context where you can substitute these corefering terms
without like altering the truth value. So if I were
to say, like Clark Kent is x feet tall, I
could just substitute Clark and they're with Superman.
Speaker 5: But I just have the question, like, for example, in
the Trinity, believe God des try you.
Speaker 43: And if God is the same, if God picks how
the same thing as the Son, that would mean I
can substitute God there with the Son, which would mean
the Sun is trying.
Speaker 7: This is basic now that you know that there's swing
is of identity and the is of predication.
Speaker 43: Yeah, that's fine, but what so what would the relation
be between the Sun and God? Would they prefer to
the same thing? In reality, God.
Speaker 7: Picks out different things. It doesn't have a single reference.
The word God can pick out a person, you can
pick out the essence, pick out an energy, and even
in the Bible can pick out human beings and devils
and angels. So the mistake that you all Muslims make
is that you think that God just has a single reference.
Speaker 43: Yeah, so when you say God iss trying, what's the
reference there? So what when you say God is trying you,
and what's the reference there?
Speaker 7: That's a reference to both. It could be either the
divine essence or to the persons.
Speaker 43: Okay, so when the traditional state God is trying, presumably
they would refer to the divine essence.
Speaker 7: My question one, because of what I just told you,
The word God can pick out person, or can pick
out essence or energy you, But what do you think
about all laws attributes? It's the same issue.
Speaker 5: I'm not sure, I'm not sure how it but I'm
just curious, like, why are.
Speaker 7: You giggling now that you know that I'm asking you
the same metaphysical problem for your position and you're.
Speaker 43: Saying, what's the metaphysical propement for my position?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 5: What's the metaphysical pubment for my position?
Speaker 7: Are the attributes of Allah? Say? Do they possess the saiety?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 34: What?
Speaker 7: When you say Allah is God or Allah is divine,
does that refer to the essence of all law? Or
does it also refer to his attributes?
Speaker 43: And when I say all is divine, I mean I'm
just referring to you know, I'm just referring to the
essence and attribution.
Speaker 7: So so his attributes are not divine?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 5: What do you mean by divine?
Speaker 1: There?
Speaker 5: Like, attributes aren't identical to the essence?
Speaker 7: Right, So when you consider the attributes in themselves, are
they divine or not?
Speaker 43: I considered the attributes in themselves are the divine and
divine is or something, because I wouldn't say atributes, right,
so you can when you.
Speaker 7: Can be all qualified. I don't know. The word divine
is ambiguous when it comes to your position about Aline
his attributes. But then you try to trap me with
the same problem when it comes to the trinity and
predicating of God. So see, so get out of here
with this nonsense underwater. That was a sixteen year old
Muslim trying to play tricks. I'm not going to do it.
Speaker 16: I don't see elevant when you ask the question to me,
I must drop you in your I must only be
able to trap you in your position.
Speaker 8: Do not ask that of me. What's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 29: Hello?
Speaker 1: Um?
Speaker 44: Yes, I was going to ask a question about the
whole taxes thing about about because I personally don't believe,
unless I'm like wrong here, that most of our taxes
even actually fund much of anything.
Speaker 7: I don't think they do, So what what about it?
Speaker 1: Oh? It's because I always hear like Andrew Wilson.
Speaker 44: Talking about how important our taxes are and how they
fund everything, and it's.
Speaker 5: Like, well, I mean do they I mean.
Speaker 1: Okay, I don't.
Speaker 7: I don't listen to all of Andrew's debates. I don't
share every andrew position, so I don't know what Andrews
says on taxes.
Speaker 2: So oh yeah, well, I mean like, do you have
any I don't want to be like like an asshole.
Speaker 5: I'm just asking do you have any videos?
Speaker 44: Like do I just type in like JEO politics and
maybe I'll somehow run into a video of yours that
that talks about that.
Speaker 7: I don't have a specific video on taxes, but I
just think that I mean, I doubt I mean with
the whole irs all of that. I mean, Robin pushing
bitcoin since since twenty seventeen, so obviously I don't agree
with or like taxes. So anybody who's into bitcoin would
not be a vent of taxes. Then love you want
to try again? C K hundred dollars when Jay, I've
been enjoying your content.
Speaker 25: Yeah, something I notice, like Muslims and atheists can I
the same arguments like, sorry, your religion is dying. Sorry
you're gonna be ripped by Muslims. Sorry, but that's what
they got that from, like an atheist scholar on some
journal from twenty fourteen.
Speaker 7: No, No, that they just repeat atheists all the time.
They used bar Erman We've been seeing that.
Speaker 10: Vice versa, vice versa too.
Speaker 7: It's insane at Muslims.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I've seen it before. But that's really the thing.
Speaker 25: Like atheists at a point are equally theistic because when
you show them like I don't know, they ask for proof.
When you show them proof, they deny it. Like you
show them like they shoutout to turn date, they say.
Speaker 5: It's oh no, it's fake, it's mythology.
Speaker 25: When you show them that thing that they got from
the dating is wrong, you say no, no, no, no,
the new journal is wrong, the old one is right.
At the point, it's anti scientific.
Speaker 7: Well, yeah, they're ultimately just appealing to arbitrary authorities, and
the same authorities that don't believe the Quran. They'll dismiss
it so it's only used. So it's just double standards
and moving the goalposts. Yeah, atheists and Muslims are very
consistent when it comes to moving the goal post and
arbitrary double STANDARDSK yes, please, thank you.
Speaker 4: Do you have a shelter.
Speaker 7: I don't think so. No, c K one hundred dollars.
Been enjoying your content, looking forward to meeting you have
the Ludwell Conference. What's your biggest critique of feminism. I mean,
it's based on faulty anthropology. It's against what we're taught
in scripture, that denies the existence of God. It's ultimately
attack on God, the Father. It's been a source of
a social chaos and upheaval on purpose funded by oligarchical elites.
Rockfellers in their biography talk about funding it. It's a
fabian socialist front. It's intended to destroy the family, it's
intended to reduce population. It's demonic. I mean all of
that and more. Looking forward to meeting you as well.
C K appreciate that. Yeah, we got a lot of critique.
I mean I tried to you know, over the years,
you know, but I would agree with what Rachel talks
about in Heracle Feminism book. I think all of that
is those are all valid components and critiques of feminism.
That's what it's all about. It's a weapon. It's faking
gay Thomas o'nilton ology. Yay, How does your stance against
natural theology square with romans one one that what in
that chapter or that section is natural theology. I think
a lot of you guys, and not faulting you, Thomas
I think a lot of you guys don't know what
natural theology is. Natural theology is not using reasoning, it's
not using logic or doing argumentation. Okay, When, for example,
I debated with Trent Horn, he kept shifting what he
meant by natural theology in order to vindicate natural theology. So,
in other words, natural theology become so broad that doing
any reasoning or logic at all in his mind was
somehow natural theology. That's not what natural theology is. That's
why at the beginning of the debate we agreed on
the Roman Catholic and the Protestant definition of what natural
theology is. It's reasoning about God, apart from any reference
to divine revelation. In Romans One, there's nothing about Aristotelian syllogisms. Okay,
When Thomas and Roman Catholics read Romans One, they actually
think that it's referring to like Aristotle, sitting there and
reasoning out causes and causal chains and first actualizers. That's
nothing to do with Romans one. Romans one says that
all men are guilty because they have an inner sense
that they are wrong when they do bad, and that
inner sense convicts them because of the divine law being
written on every man's heart from birth. That's what Romans
one is about. That's why he says that they're guilty
in their heart. You notice there's nothing in that passage
that Paul talks about syllogisms and Aristotelian and Platonic lines
of abstract argumentation. That alone should tell you that it's
not talking about tomistic natural theology. Paul says multiple times
in that chapter that they are darkened in their heart,
the news the heart. Roman Catholicism doesn't even have a
heart doctrine. It's only the intellect and the body. The
intellect slash soul and the body is the dual anthropology
of rum Catholicism. So the fact that Paul talks about
the heart throughout the passage and not primarily the intellect.
He says the intellect is darkened in that passage because
the heart is darkened. And the fact that Rumanantholicism has
no doctrine of the news or the heart should tell
you that they don't believe Romans won. So the passage
in Orthodox theology is about the natural revelation. So read
Orthodox Dogmatics Volume one and by Father's Done eli ats
and twenty dollars. What is your take on in ethno
state and ethnically homogeneous countries. I mean, I think most
countries historically have been that we have to be careful
about ethnophilotism in the Orthodox Christianity, which places the ethnicity
above the universality of the gospel. But I don't think
that people should have other populations as a form of
weaponized migration, placed into their countries to destroy them, which
is what is done by design. All right, it's open
for them. If you disagree, you go to the headline, Pavel,
what's up? I mean, it's amazing to me that Romancalities
read that past. They don't even think about the fact
that Paul keeps saying in Roman's One the heart, the heart,
the heart. Okay, what's the heart? Oh, that's just the
mind or the intellect.
Speaker 8: What's up?
Speaker 5: Hello?
Speaker 8: Yep?
Speaker 3: I had a question book, Nature of Rationality?
Speaker 7: The nature of rationality?
Speaker 5: Okay, yeah, do you think Satan would be considered irrational?
Speaker 7: Well, he has a rational faculty, as do all of
the angels, but he locked his mind into choosing evil
when he fell before the garden.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 3: That rationality is really expression of being until the being
is what actually defines rationality.
Speaker 7: Well being is one of the most generic terms in
the history of all philosophies. So I have no idea
what that means, even what being means. I have no
idea what you mean by being, because every philosopher has
a different idea and definition of what being is.
Speaker 3: Well being is an entity that has a will.
Speaker 7: Or agency, I mean not necessarily. Everything that has existence
is a being, and most of those those beings don't
have wills. So where are you getting this definition from?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 5: But common sense?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 7: So where in common sense does it tell you that
being necessarily has a will? Do rocks have being? Do
they have wills?
Speaker 3: Well, when we're talking about creatures, like when we do
philosophies really with people with people, and we'll say demons, angels,
So the entities that actually make decisions.
Speaker 7: That think and tells you this, what what common sense
tells you this?
Speaker 5: Well, it's not common that's the point.
Speaker 1: I guess you are laughing.
Speaker 7: I just wasting my time with your stupid laughing and
condescend I can't stand with people come up with that
stupid condescension. He's tie probably trolling moon what's up? The
condescending laugh is probably the most annoying of anything that occurs.
Don't even mind the paget Muslim cooking his armpit burgers
with cussing me out. That's not as annoying as the
condescending snicker of the the genius philosophy man. I'm you
Pakistani dude? On'm you? What's up? Bring that heat?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 10: You know there's nothing.
Speaker 7: I have nothing much to bring in.
Speaker 1: See, I don't know. I just came to your space
and you you you just brought me up.
Speaker 2: Listen, I'm Muslim.
Speaker 1: I'm a Muslim.
Speaker 2: I'm not one of those t Muslims.
Speaker 7: I have a different time of philosophy for me.
Speaker 3: See, you guys are talking about reason.
Speaker 8: Hey, what is your argument?
Speaker 3: But uh, don't give me that butcher and don't give
me that fap, don't give me that accent.
Speaker 7: I don't are you that soft? If I do an impersonation,
you hurt your feeling? Hurt're that soft?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 7: No, no, I don't get those I mean.
Speaker 2: I see, I learned English.
Speaker 1: I never went to an American school.
Speaker 33: I never went to any in school.
Speaker 10: That probably I to speak five languages.
Speaker 7: We gotta we gotta certified genius.
Speaker 8: I think five languages, you're a certified genius. Don't mock
me on Maxine, How dare you?
Speaker 2: So?
Speaker 8: Should that be a rule?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: Is that a law?
Speaker 7: If you if you've learned five languages, no one can
impersonate you. Should that be ab