Speaker 1: Truly understand or know God unless you directly engage with
Speaker 1: how God himself reveals himself. So you have to engage
Speaker 1: with God's revelations in order to come to the understanding
Speaker 1: of God. So natural theology, which is accepted in Catholicism,
Speaker 1: is kind of then rejected. It's because God is not
Speaker 1: like other things in nature that you could rationally understand.
Speaker 1: God is very distinct from those things. You have to
Speaker 1: rely on scripture in order to understand God. So therefore,
Speaker 1: you can't say that Muslims worship the same God, because
Speaker 1: no matter what they worship, it is not the God
Speaker 1: that is in the revelation of the Bible.
Speaker 2: And I just put up the Paul did Anoniasis arguments
Speaker 2: prove that Christians and Muslims don't worship the same God.
Speaker 2: All right, we've got Jay here. Let's bring Jay in.
Speaker 3: All right, yours?
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 3: Jay in the payroom?
Speaker 2: Hey, what's up?
Speaker 4: Thank you guys for bringing me on. I appreciate that. Uh,
Speaker 4: I didn't mean to be annoying. I mean, it's y'all show.
Speaker 4: Of course you you don't have to bring me on,
Speaker 4: but I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I always appreciate having pastor Randy Boles, and.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm here to set y'all straight, because the course
Speaker 4: we all worship Jesus even if we don't know him.
Speaker 4: If we just come down to the Monster truck rally
Speaker 4: this weekend at my megachurch.
Speaker 2: Truck a Pillar versus Ford Zilla, thanks to watch those commercials. Yeah,
Speaker 2: all right, so we got this. We got this. Poll up,
Speaker 2: ladies and gentlemen, Jay, our audience is clearly biased in
Speaker 2: favor of the idea that Christians and Muslims do not
Speaker 2: worship the same God.
Speaker 4: Well, I think you were right when you said that
Speaker 4: the polls could reflect a lot of Protestant perspectives. And
Speaker 4: I have to say that the Protestants have been pretty
Speaker 4: spot on on this one versus the Catholics, because all
Speaker 4: the Protestants I've seen, for the most part, have the
Speaker 4: correct take that it's pretty clearly intuitively just not the
Speaker 4: case that it's the same deity being quote worshiped. And then,
Speaker 4: like you said, there could be some you know, Ortho bros.
Speaker 4: As well in the polls, but there's just something I
Speaker 4: think innately confusing about the idea that it is the
Speaker 4: same God, given how different that theology is. So I
Speaker 4: think and you guys probably already touched on this, but
Speaker 4: the question was worship, and in Orthodox theology particularly, worship
Speaker 4: is not just mental assent, and so there was a
Speaker 4: constant equivocation going on between the idea of mental reference
Speaker 4: or abstract conceptual pointing at or intending a thing versus
Speaker 4: the worship of the thing. And that's why it was
Speaker 4: very important to talk about out the magisterial statements of
Speaker 4: the Roman Catholic Church in terms of how they're supposed
Speaker 4: to view it, because remember Roman Catholicism does have a
Speaker 4: lot of intellectual schools. You've got Tomas, you've got Scotis,
Speaker 4: et cetera. But ultimately it's supposed to be guided by
Speaker 4: the magisterium. And that's kind of what I came to debate.
Speaker 4: We were going to split it between FDA and I. I
Speaker 4: would take the magisterial side and then took the linguistic,
Speaker 4: philosophy and epistemology side of it. But to be more
Speaker 4: specific about FDA, he's working from a paper by a
Speaker 4: guy named doctor garibe And the reason he's relevant is
Speaker 4: that both Gariby and doctor Trent had studied under Swinburne.
Speaker 4: And it's Swinburne, who is a Tomas who came up
Speaker 4: with this idea that there's a rational core doctrine of
Speaker 4: what makes up natural theology's idea of the essential core
Speaker 4: attributes of identifying the one God, and so Gariby argued
Speaker 4: that in his paper, if you could demonstrate that there
Speaker 4: is no rational then the whole natural theology project falls apart.
Speaker 4: And one of the arguments that he makes, there's many.
Speaker 4: It's a pretty long paper. It's really good. I recommend
Speaker 4: anybody read it. But one of the arguments that he
Speaker 4: makes is that you kind of assume from the outset
Speaker 4: what's in question. If you think that, oh, well, of
Speaker 4: course Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have the same core
Speaker 4: doctrine because they all believe in a monotheistic omnipotent, omni president,
Speaker 4: et cetera. You start listing these omnis and so forth, eternal, free, good, creator, personal,
Speaker 4: et cetera. But the problem is that, first of all,
Speaker 4: some of these attributes don't actually apply to a law,
Speaker 4: not at least in the way that the Orthodox conception
Speaker 4: of them, or even the Roman Catholic conception of them
Speaker 4: eventually fleshes them out. For example, Allah when we talk
Speaker 4: about as a creator in the Korean you know, Allah
Speaker 4: is also the creator of evil. Evil seems to have
Speaker 4: a kind of an actual substantial existence. So even the
Speaker 4: notion of what a creator is and Islam is kind
Speaker 4: of already right there, very different from what it is
Speaker 4: in Christianity, perhaps Judaism. You have this idea that God
Speaker 4: desires to be worshiped and obeyed, But what that means
Speaker 4: to worship and obey, this is one of Swinburn's core
Speaker 4: doctrines for natural theology, is very very different. In Islam,
Speaker 4: it's a submission to a kind of Arab war lord
Speaker 4: version of a deity, and in Christianity it's worship involving sacrifice.
Speaker 4: Islam does not have a notion of sacrifice. And so
Speaker 4: that's why I kept pinting out that if the premise
Speaker 4: of the debate is how or the question of worship
Speaker 4: do they worship the same God constantly through the debate,
Speaker 4: you would hear and I've heard Roman Catholics ever since,
Speaker 4: just going back to this idea that well, Muslims assent
Speaker 4: to the mental notion of there being one God, but
Speaker 4: the debate was not just about sin and referent or
Speaker 4: abstract conceptual pointing out and intending a thing. It was
Speaker 4: about worship, and God specifically is worshiped through sacrifice, whether
Speaker 4: we want that or think that in Islam notoriously doesn't
Speaker 4: have that. So ironically, Protestantism, which does admit the sacrifice
Speaker 4: of Christ, is much closer to our position as Orthodox.
Speaker 4: You could argue even Judaism perhaps than the Islamic conception,
Speaker 4: which is further removed just on the question of worship,
Speaker 4: because you would have to restrict the whole debate and
Speaker 4: the idea of worship to an assent to propositions. And
Speaker 4: in the Tomistic conception, I'm not saying that they don't
Speaker 4: believe that worship is about sacrifice or the Mass or
Speaker 4: whatever Christ they do. But if you ask Aptomis or
Speaker 4: Roman Catholic like, what is the faith? Usually it's cashed
Speaker 4: out as assenting to the propositions of that the magisterium
Speaker 4: proposes for beliefs.
Speaker 3: So that's what the faith is.
Speaker 4: And so their idea is, if you can get a
Speaker 4: Muslim to assent to this proposition, this proposition, this proposition,
Speaker 4: this one in common, then aren't we referring to the
Speaker 4: same entity? And you absolutely were spot on, David, in
Speaker 4: the way that you described the argument that FDA is
Speaker 4: presenting there that because God's more like an abstract object.
Speaker 4: Not that he is, but he's more like that than
Speaker 4: a sort of an empirical natural object, that to get
Speaker 4: one thing wrong is enough to disqualify the reference, whereas
Speaker 4: in empirical objects you could conceivably get multiple things wrong
Speaker 4: and still be referring to an attending the same object.
Speaker 4: But God is more like something like a set, and
Speaker 4: not saying that God is a set. But even the
Speaker 4: argument that we have a core set of doctrines, I mean,
Speaker 4: for an orthodox Christian, triad would be a core doctrine.
Speaker 4: So it's very odd that triad is God being Trinity
Speaker 4: or God also being God the Son. It's odd that
Speaker 4: that would not be an essential core identifier or thing
Speaker 4: that picks out this reference. And I think you would
Speaker 4: have to go in that direction to argue it. And
Speaker 4: I think they just never did really establish that. And
Speaker 4: last thing I'll said, I mean to keep rambling on
Speaker 4: it is y'all show it on me to barge in.
Speaker 4: But when he talked about something like a conjunct or
Speaker 4: a set, FDA was basically just saying that if you
Speaker 4: think about, say the niceing Creed, you know, or something
Speaker 4: like the way that God is described in the Creed,
Speaker 4: I believe in one God, the Father, and then it
Speaker 4: talks about the Trinity. Right, that's kind of a set
Speaker 4: that you could say defines the Christian conception of the
Speaker 4: deity of God. And even though a Muslim might have
Speaker 4: sent to agree to certain propositions like eternal and God
Speaker 4: is omniscient or whatever, although you could actually argue that
Speaker 4: because even to me it argues that God isn't omniscient.
Speaker 4: The Koran speaks of Allah updating his knowledge and kind
Speaker 4: of being limited. So I'm not even sure you you
Speaker 4: could argue that Allah is omniscient. But regardless, it's more
Speaker 4: like a set of So if you had a set
Speaker 4: of like if you had a set of numbers right
Speaker 4: one to six, and if I just take out one
Speaker 4: of those numbers, even though there's the other five still
Speaker 4: in common, it's actually a different set because I've taken
Speaker 4: away one of the numbers of the set.
Speaker 3: And so he's.
Speaker 4: Arguing that the way that we ought or speak of
Speaker 4: God is more like that than it is like an
Speaker 4: empirical object like Clark Kenton Superman that you could be
Speaker 4: confused over. And so when you remove those essential attributes,
Speaker 4: even if it's one essential attribute, it actually fails to
Speaker 4: obtain hitting the reference. And that's FDA's argument. So the
Speaker 4: other thing that Garribee points out is that it's kind
Speaker 4: of like and this is more in the domain of
Speaker 4: the critique of natural biology, is it's kind of like
Speaker 4: a card game.
Speaker 3: He says, if.
Speaker 4: You think about go playing Go Fish and if you
Speaker 4: think about playing poker. Between the two, there's a lot
Speaker 4: of things in common. There's cards, there's rules, there's strategies,
Speaker 4: there's techniques, et cetera, betting or whatever. But there's no
Speaker 4: common card game between the two card games. Just because
Speaker 4: there's a bunch of things in common. They're they're mutually exclusive,
Speaker 4: unique sets of games that are determined by the rules
Speaker 4: and structures of that game. So if you start taking
Speaker 4: away rules, it's you know, even if you take away
Speaker 4: one rule, well it's no longer poker, it's no longer
Speaker 4: go Fish. The game is pretty much kind of spoiled.
Speaker 3: At that point. And that's I think what FDA was
Speaker 3: trying to argue.
Speaker 2: Did they I don't I don't know what The response
Speaker 2: to that would be because the examples that people give
Speaker 2: when they want to say, hey, you can have you
Speaker 2: can have completely different, even contradictory descriptions and still be
Speaker 2: referring to the same thing, and then him saying, yes,
Speaker 2: in this world where you where you, you have other
Speaker 2: means of knowing that you're talking about the same thing.
Speaker 2: You can say we're talking about the same thing, even
Speaker 2: if we're describing it differently or in a contradictory fashion,
Speaker 2: and him saying, but that's not what we're talking about.
Speaker 2: We're not talking about something where oh, here's how we
Speaker 2: know we're talking about the same thing. We've got your
Speaker 2: idea or what you know, your creed or whatever, and
Speaker 2: so if yours is different, that's what you got to
Speaker 2: go on, and so you're not talking about the same thing.
Speaker 2: Did they respond to that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: What I recall is that the response is because they
Speaker 4: come from a perspective of empirical theology. And I'm not
Speaker 4: saying they're empiricists, but tomistic philosophy and theology is very
Speaker 4: empiricist empirically based, and so from them, the perspective is
Speaker 4: that the only things that you do know about God,
Speaker 4: whether it's the natural revelation that you get through causation
Speaker 4: in the natural world and reasoning back to the original cause,
Speaker 4: or whether it's the text that you read in scripture.
Speaker 4: They're all empirical and so you're really just sort of
Speaker 4: piecing together from created causation things that you can derive
Speaker 4: about this ultimate principle. So there's natural revelation or natural theology,
Speaker 4: and then supernatural theology from scripture and tradition and the
Speaker 4: Roman Catholic system. So but for them there they would
Speaker 4: not I don't think they would grant the argument that
Speaker 4: God is more like an abstract object and not a
Speaker 4: natural object, because their theology kind of prioritizes God like
Speaker 4: a natural object.
Speaker 1: One question that I have, Jay, I think there's also
Speaker 1: something like this I think came up. I didn't watch
Speaker 1: the whole debate, but I think I saw a clip
Speaker 1: or something like that. But somebody might argue that the
Speaker 1: way it is qualified that Muslims would not be described
Speaker 1: as worshiping the same God because they get certain certain
Speaker 1: core aspects wrong. Would wouldn't it be wouldn't it jeopardize
Speaker 1: or wouldn't this also be in some way or the
Speaker 1: other applied to for example, from the Orthodox of you
Speaker 1: to to Catholics or others who for example hold the
Speaker 1: idea of the filioque, or or to Orthodox or to
Speaker 1: Oriental Orthodox Christians for example, who have even if if
Speaker 1: you want to reduce it to semantics who have a
Speaker 1: different description of the nature of Christ for example.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I just got someone someone raised up the
Speaker 2: I just wanted to put it on the on the
Speaker 2: screen there because we've got the same thing. But Heisenberger, actually,
Speaker 2: I can put these in the middle and they don't
Speaker 2: block people. Heisenberger here said something pretty similar considering FDA's argument,
Speaker 2: couldn't certain Christians not be considered worshiping the same God
Speaker 2: since their exact mental views of God are different? And
Speaker 2: even further, as I was pointing out earlier, I mean,
Speaker 2: you'd have millions of Christians who believed in some sort
Speaker 2: of differences in terms of things God has done or
Speaker 2: how God created or something like this. So wouldn't I
Speaker 2: mean that we're all worshiping different gods?
Speaker 4: Basically, Yeah, this is actually in both of you guys's questions,
Speaker 4: you actually anticipate where the debate goes. So the next
Speaker 4: section of the debate ends up being about knowing God
Speaker 4: through sort of empirical data, and they end up debating
Speaker 4: about the Eucharist because FDA argues, well, no, you also,
Speaker 4: as a Catholic, believe that you are empirically encountering God
Speaker 4: in the Eucharist because you believe that it's body, blood, soul,
Speaker 4: and divinity. And that becomes a really interesting kind of
Speaker 4: detour because they end up saying, as Thomas, not really
Speaker 4: even though they do believe in the real presence in
Speaker 4: the Eucharist, it just kind of goes weird.
Speaker 3: I'll put it that way.
Speaker 4: You can determine for yourself how you think that section goes.
Speaker 4: But then the debate goes to this question and they
Speaker 4: press FDA on this.
Speaker 3: You know, what wouldn't this mean then.
Speaker 4: If you have a heterodox conception of the deity, that
Speaker 4: that would also then kind of negate it, and you
Speaker 4: would it would be basically another kind of false God
Speaker 4: or idol. And actually we would argue as Orthodox that yes,
Speaker 4: in the traditional patristic argumentation, at least in the Orthodox Church,
Speaker 4: and what you see in people like saying Gregory Palamas.
Speaker 4: Palmas has a really good discussion of how heresy creates
Speaker 4: a kind of a mental idol that is the replacement
Speaker 4: fake God. So an idol doesn't have to be, you know,
Speaker 4: a statue of the thuggy cult Collie or whatever like
Speaker 4: in Timbala Dooom, and idol can also be a kind
Speaker 4: of a mental conception that is an idol ideologry you
Speaker 4: could say, so, yeah, actually FDA argues that. But to
Speaker 4: be really clear here, that doesn't mean that everybody who's
Speaker 4: got something wrong is a heretic, because in our theology
Speaker 4: and anthropology we would also say that heresy is something
Speaker 4: that is not so much a sin of knowledge as
Speaker 4: it is mainly a sin of obstinacy and will. So
Speaker 4: you have to be obstinate in the rejection of truth
Speaker 4: to be a specifically a heretic. And that's why you see,
Speaker 4: for example, when Basil is writing against the Arians who
Speaker 4: are basically Chose witnesses or even basically proto Muslims, because
Speaker 4: the Oxford Handbook of Islam says that Islam comes out
Speaker 4: of Arian Christianity. Even the Arians, Basil says, have essentially
Speaker 4: erected a false God, so it's no longer the same reference,
Speaker 4: even though they might intend to be worshiping the one
Speaker 4: True God. If I think a rock, you know, is
Speaker 4: the one true God or the Kabbah, or so if
Speaker 4: I think Iraq is the one true God and I
Speaker 4: worship it as the one true God, like, it's not
Speaker 4: me accidentally worshiping Jesus for the Trinity, because it's still
Speaker 4: an idol, And so you can also have a heterodox
Speaker 4: conceptual idol as well. Now we don't know god men's hearts.
Speaker 4: God only knows men's hearts, and so we can't sit
Speaker 4: here and like judge every single individual Protestant. But a
Speaker 4: person who obstinately persists creates their own kind of idol.
Speaker 1: This, this is the This is what I meant earlier
Speaker 1: when I said that that within the Orthodox theology, the
Speaker 1: discussion here generally seems to be focused much more on
Speaker 1: something something deeper than about what what what can be
Speaker 1: on the surface or you know, legally be said to
Speaker 1: be true or you know, what could be considered appropriate
Speaker 1: for example. What I'm trying to say is when father
Speaker 1: Deacon and Ayas made his point here, it seems to
Speaker 1: really bring forth the difference in what the Orthodox side
Speaker 1: is actually talking about and what the Catholic side it
Speaker 1: is actually talking about. So, uh, the two seem to
Speaker 1: have a completely completely different understanding of what it actually
Speaker 1: means to worship God in the sense. So uh, the
Speaker 1: Catholic side simply says, well, you know, if they direct
Speaker 1: themselves towards Our God in one way or another, and
Speaker 1: you know, say that they do, then to us they
Speaker 1: worship God, whereas in the Orthodox from the in the
Speaker 1: Orthodox perspective, it is it goes much further than that
Speaker 1: in order to be qualified as worshiping the same God.
Speaker 1: Because you have to be right.
Speaker 4: There when you said meta earlier, you said, it's like
Speaker 4: a bigger it's holistic versus the kind of like bottom up,
Speaker 4: like the Rumman Catholic project is kind of like a
Speaker 4: bottom up, and then the other perspective is just holistic.
Speaker 3: So I think you're absolutely right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's why we have the Eastern Orthodox Protestant
Speaker 2: Brotherhood alliance.
Speaker 3: On this on this issue.
Speaker 4: It's weird because, like you know, for so many years
Speaker 4: you wear, oh, the Catholics and the and the Protestants
Speaker 4: are so close, I mean Catholics and Orthodox are so close,
Speaker 4: and then it's like this comes.
Speaker 3: Up in the last few days. It's like we will
Speaker 3: every Protestants or like we're on the same.
Speaker 1: Page, wouldn't you say that this is also one of
Speaker 1: the grievances that Protestants have had historically with the Catholic
Speaker 1: Church and what kind of developed to this level as well,
Speaker 1: where hre where the Catholic Church went a little bit
Speaker 1: far in terms of scholasticism and uh legalism and making everything,
Speaker 1: defining everything with one hundred percent rationality and not letting
Speaker 1: it go unless you can, unless you can totally rationally
Speaker 1: define it. And Christian theology is generally a little bit
Speaker 1: different from that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like a Quinta said, you know, it's almost like
Speaker 4: by the Middle Ages they want a kind of a
Speaker 4: scientific definition of win exactly within the mass the confecting
Speaker 4: of the euchars actually occurs, and it's like, how are
Speaker 4: you going to scientifically define that? It's like, you know,
Speaker 4: in the Orthodox conception, it's like there's no scientific like, oh,
Speaker 4: it's at this point and then if you and then
Speaker 4: if you scale it down, this is the essence of
Speaker 4: the mass, And I mean that's literally this Inroolic Roman theosism,
Speaker 4: you have mad form, an intention, and all of those
Speaker 4: are necessary to have a sacrament. So it's very like
Speaker 4: you said, it's very scientific, or at least it tries
Speaker 4: to be. And yeah, absolutely, like the paradigms determine even
Speaker 4: things like the worship, Like we don't we wouldn't restrict
Speaker 4: the worship to merely mental assent. And I'm not saying
Speaker 4: that they restricted to that. But in order for this
Speaker 4: argument to work that Muslims and Christians worship the same God,
Speaker 4: worship has to be restricted to mental assent. To God
Speaker 4: is won, God is eternal. But wait a minute, worship
Speaker 4: is according to you know, the Book of John and
Speaker 4: the Book of First John, like directed to the Son
Speaker 4: who directs us to the Father, and it's in the
Speaker 4: Holy Spirit. So you can't really divorce this trinitarian relationship
Speaker 4: from worship in the Christian scheme. And that's that's what
Speaker 4: you would have to do to retool this idea that well,
Speaker 4: they're not worshiping the Trinity or Christ, but they're worshiping
Speaker 4: these sort of like abstracted attributes over here. But in
Speaker 4: orthodox Trinitarian theology, like there's no attributes that come to
Speaker 4: you from the essence of God that aren't Trinitarian attributes.
Speaker 4: So Basil says, for example, that all the energies that
Speaker 4: come down, or the attributes or operations that come down
Speaker 4: to us from God come to us in the mode
Speaker 4: of from the Father, through.
Speaker 3: The Son and the Spirit.
Speaker 4: So the attributes are in the mode of the triad
Speaker 4: from where they come. So there could never be attributes
Speaker 4: divorced from or understood abstracted from God is triad. And
Speaker 4: once I read Loski saying that, I read Loski saying
Speaker 4: that a long time ago when I was still Roman Catholic,
Speaker 4: and I was like, whoa, I never thought about that.
Speaker 4: And Loski's like, not just an Orthodox do like he
Speaker 4: studied under Etiangilson, who was like the premier Tomas. So
Speaker 4: you had somebody studying under the top tone who became,
Speaker 4: you know, very famous Orthodox theologian, and so he knew
Speaker 4: Tominism very well to critique it, and that kind of
Speaker 4: transformed this whole discussion natural theology for me.
Speaker 1: So this, this is why you could basically say that
Speaker 1: if you don't, if you don't, well oh yeah, one second,
Speaker 1: I don't know how long everyone wants to go.
Speaker 2: I'm good all night long, but I'm dying of thirst
Speaker 2: and I need some more betveror so you guys go
Speaker 2: ahead and chat for a second while I grab some water.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, so this is why, No, I forgot my thought. No, no,
Speaker 1: this is this is why. So this is why you
Speaker 1: would say that if unless you have the right, unless
Speaker 1: you know God truly through the through the revelation, through
Speaker 1: the way he reveals himself, and therefore then established correct
Speaker 1: worship as you just described it, you could describe any
Speaker 1: other form of worship as idolatry. Whether the Liberator, Yeah.
Speaker 4: John Damascus wrote a book, sen John Demscus wrote a
Speaker 4: book called on Heresies, and he goes back to the
Speaker 4: very beginning in Genesis and he says, when Adam and
Speaker 4: Eve fell, that's the beginning of paganism and idolatry. And
Speaker 4: he says that's the original heresy. And he argues as
Speaker 4: satan as a kind of heretics. So basically, even all
Speaker 4: the world religions could generally be speaking, be classed as heresies.
Speaker 4: And so that I think ties into this notion that
Speaker 4: you're saying right there, Like if you look at Romans One,
Speaker 4: the way that a Roman Catholic or a Tomas would
Speaker 4: usually explain Roman's One, where Paul's talking about the pagan world.
Speaker 4: Roman Catholics usually execute that as kind of like the
Speaker 4: highest elements of pagan society, like Plato and Aristotle were
Speaker 4: able to sort of reason from the created order to
Speaker 4: a principal, first principle, a monad, a first cause, or
Speaker 4: something like that. But in the Orthodox perspective, it's more
Speaker 4: so like if you read Singer or Palomas on it,
Speaker 4: it's like, no, no, no, it's not a problem in
Speaker 4: their intellect, it's a problem in their heart or their news.
Speaker 4: So Paul says that they exchanged the worship and love
Speaker 4: of the true God, going back to Adam and Eve
Speaker 4: for universal idolatry, and Paul says in verse twenty five
Speaker 4: that they changed the truth about God into a lie
Speaker 4: and worshiped and served the creature, not the Creator. So
Speaker 4: that's specifically saying that when you go after false gods,
Speaker 4: like Deuteronomy thirteen says, or Deuteronomy eighteen, you know, God
Speaker 4: warns the Israelites. He says, do not go after other gods,
Speaker 4: or else you're no longer worshiping me. Right In the
Speaker 4: Song of Moses, Moses says that they sacrificed to devils,
Speaker 4: to gods they didn't know, and they forsook the God.
Speaker 4: They did know the one true God. So we would
Speaker 4: argue that those are texts kind of making the same point.
Speaker 4: Like Paul says the First Corinthians ten. He says, the
Speaker 4: things that the gen tele sacrifice, they sacrificed to devils
Speaker 4: and not to God. And so every heresy, every false
Speaker 4: religion is basically making a fundamental mistake in not worshiping
Speaker 4: God the way that He has to be worshiped according
Speaker 4: to the Tin Commandments.
Speaker 1: Wow, I was just gonna.
Speaker 3: This is actually a very Hebrew principle. This is this
Speaker 3: is like.
Speaker 5: For example, your camera went out, buddy, Oh.
Speaker 3: It's my my battery died on my Yeah, I'll fix
Speaker 3: on a second.
Speaker 4: But yeah, it's a Hebrew idea that like it's not
Speaker 4: all intellect, it's actually more of a heart problem. And
Speaker 4: this is what I tried to stress in the debate too,
Speaker 4: is like it's not really an error in reasoning, it's
Speaker 4: more so a spiritual kind of a heart issue.
Speaker 3: I liked.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so it seems like there's kind of two different
Speaker 5: arguments running. One is kind of more of a relational
Speaker 5: one and more is like understanding the attributes of God,
Speaker 5: but you're kind of blending them though with the idea
Speaker 5: of worship.
Speaker 3: In Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 5: But I really like the first argument where you're talking
Speaker 5: about just the intuition of how this doesn't seem like
Speaker 5: the same God, because intuition is a huge part of language,
Speaker 5: and really what we're arguing about is like what this
Speaker 5: term God, how it should be used, and the idea
Speaker 5: that you were talking about putting it into a story.
Speaker 5: And I had that same contention where like, the way
Speaker 5: we'll understand God is in a story. In the Christian story,
Speaker 5: he's worshiped with sacrifice and with love, and he's wanting
Speaker 5: this loving relationship, and that's so completely different.
Speaker 3: And so.
Speaker 5: It would be like knowing a person in my normal
Speaker 5: life and they just get so many facts completely wrong
Speaker 5: about me. At what point do I just say they
Speaker 5: don't know anything about me? Where it's like they, you know,
Speaker 5: they think that I want them to go and kill
Speaker 5: people so that they can sleep with hoories for all eternity.
Speaker 5: It's like, at what point do you just say that
Speaker 5: they just don't have any knowledge of me?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 4: Yeah, And again, even knowing you could equivocate on that
Speaker 4: because in the passage in John four with the Woman
Speaker 4: of the Well, Saint Futini, right, Jesus is talking to
Speaker 4: her and he says very specifically that you do worship
Speaker 4: this thing, this idea that you have of the God
Speaker 4: of Jacob, but you don't know it.
Speaker 3: So there has to be.
Speaker 4: Some kind of knowledge in order for her to quote worship,
Speaker 4: but it's not a true knowledge. And this is where
Speaker 4: in scripture will find pretty consistently, both Old and New Testament,
Speaker 4: two different notions of no. Right, like Adam knew his
Speaker 4: wife Eve, that's an intimacy, that's an intimate knowing, and
Speaker 4: that's the true kind of knowing that we're talking about here,
Speaker 4: knowing God in a true loving way, love and adoration way,
Speaker 4: versus what James says about the demons who know God
Speaker 4: but do not love God and cannot love God.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: And I think the best argument that actually ended up
Speaker 4: being made on my side of things in the day
Speaker 4: was the topic of Jake. When Jake came up, I
Speaker 4: pointed out that, and I think this is a key
Speaker 4: point that you guys will definitely understand. And the reason
Speaker 4: this is resonating with people like David and ap very
Speaker 4: well in terms of not agreeing that it's the same
Speaker 4: deity being worshiped is because you guys know, you know,
Speaker 4: you know Islam. The people that were talking about they don't.
Speaker 4: I don't think they actually know much about Islam, because,
Speaker 4: for example, Tomashevsky, he didn't seem to know much about
Speaker 4: it at all, especially not the history of the He
Speaker 4: thought that that the Middle Ages was the early period
Speaker 4: of Islam. The medieval popes were already into a well developed,
Speaker 4: you know, warfare based movement and religion on the part
Speaker 4: of Islam. It wasn't early. And so what that means
Speaker 4: then is that if you understand that Islam, for example,
Speaker 4: rejects that God is father, Allah is no father, has
Speaker 4: no sons, then you can't even say that it's the
Speaker 4: same reference of the God of the Old Testament anymore,
Speaker 4: because that would be one of the fundamental things that
Speaker 4: say a Jew or you know, ancient Hebrew would say, well,
Speaker 4: you know, Yahweh is our father. And if a Muslim
Speaker 4: is from the outset saying that that Islam is predicated
Speaker 4: on rejecting the Trinity and rejecting the deed to Christ,
Speaker 4: then the religion is not like a pagan Even if
Speaker 4: I granted natural theology and where we're talking about a
Speaker 4: pagan who's out in the middle of nowhere, and he
Speaker 4: happens to reason from the created order that there must
Speaker 4: be some first thing that is not what Islam is.
Speaker 4: Islam is already a religion that has some knowledge of
Speaker 4: Christianity and explicitly rejects it. So that's why it was
Speaker 4: so I think damning to point out Jake the Muslim metaphysician,
Speaker 4: because Jake used to be in our discord for many
Speaker 4: years and he acted as if he was interested in
Speaker 4: Orthodox Christianity and all this, and really what he's doing
Speaker 4: is learning what our theology was.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: So when Jake had a very i would say, pretty
Speaker 4: advanced idea of what we believe the Trinity is and
Speaker 4: the dety of Christ and all that, I would say
Speaker 4: amongst the Muslims, I don't. I mean, I think he's
Speaker 4: kind of kooky, but he probably understands the Trinity better
Speaker 4: than all the other Muslims. But he explicitly rejects and
Speaker 4: does not at all love God, the Trinity, or love Jesus.
Speaker 4: So the idea that he's still worshiping the same deity
Speaker 4: just is patently absurd, And they affirmed that in the debate,
Speaker 4: and I think that was probably the weakest point, and
Speaker 4: I think people are noticing that that just makes absolutely
Speaker 4: no sense. Jake knows a lot about the Trinity, but
Speaker 4: he doesn't know the Trinity in a loving, intimate sense.
Speaker 4: And that's exactly what happens.
Speaker 3: With the woman at the well. Jesus says. The Samaritan conceptions.
Speaker 4: That you have, they might be of a God, but
Speaker 4: it's not the one that the Jews have, because salvation
Speaker 4: is of the Jews. And that's very important because that
Speaker 4: restricts the conception and the worship to a specific way.
Speaker 3: And that's the point.
Speaker 5: Well, they're just so drastically different it gets ridiculous. It's
Speaker 5: you either have to say that's two different gods, or
Speaker 5: you have to say the word God basically does not
Speaker 5: mean anything at all.
Speaker 4: That's and at that point you would be at the
Speaker 4: position like perennialism or something, or or you would be
Speaker 4: at this position like, well, all religions then are just
Speaker 4: unknowingly worshiping God. And some of the Vaticans, some of
Speaker 4: the post Vatican two statements actually do say that. In fact,
Speaker 4: I found one today and it was actually Lofton that
Speaker 4: that was making this point.
Speaker 3: So props to.
Speaker 4: Michael Lofton, because I mean there's post Vatican two documents
Speaker 4: that I've got right here that say that basically the
Speaker 4: Holy Spirit is operating in Islam and other religions to
Speaker 4: say people in the religions.
Speaker 5: That can be true, but there's still not the same God,
Speaker 5: you know. And I think even a Muslim might have
Speaker 5: an earnest prayer that they're trying to get to Allah
Speaker 5: and God would hear it and take it as a
Speaker 5: prayer coming to him. But that does not mean that
Speaker 5: the God of a law is the true God of
Speaker 5: you know, that created creation.
Speaker 4: Well, I think again, like even if you did, like
Speaker 4: or the actually might say that the Holy Spirit could
Speaker 4: reach anybody and anybody could be given a revelation of Christ.
Speaker 4: We've heard, you know, for example, many Muslims who these
Speaker 4: stories have been going around for a long time that
Speaker 4: Muslims sometimes have dreams and Christ comes to them and
Speaker 4: they learned that Islam's fall. So that's definitely possible, but
Speaker 4: that's still some kind of specific like revelation of the
Speaker 4: person of Christ. And even in the Roman Catholic Church.
Speaker 4: This is interesting. I've found this in Denzinger. I think
Speaker 4: it's very pertinent to this discussion. You can go back
Speaker 4: to the seventeen hundreds in the Roman Catholic Church, and
Speaker 4: there were certain doctrines that were considered quote absolutely necessary
Speaker 4: to receive quote the faith and baptism. One of those was,
Speaker 4: according to the Holy Office under quote Clement in the
Speaker 4: seventeen hundreds, you had to quote admit.
Speaker 3: This is for the baptism of Muslims or Muhammedans.
Speaker 4: If a Muslim or Mohammedan wanted to be baptized, the
Speaker 4: response to the Holy Office is that they must first
Speaker 4: be told the Trinity and the Incarnation, the two quote
Speaker 4: central doctrines of the faith. And then there's another question,
Speaker 4: a proposition that comes up earlier in the sixteen hundreds
Speaker 4: in Denzinger. Is faith in just one God necessary or
Speaker 4: must there be also the confession of God as the
Speaker 4: rewarder and belief in the Trinity and the incarnation. Least so,
Speaker 4: Rum at least at one point, did not think that
Speaker 4: having the faith was merely having some assent to the
Speaker 4: idea of a generic creator. It was also necessary to
Speaker 4: profess the that the trend of the incarnation to receive baptism,
Speaker 4: and thus to receive the Catholic faith.
Speaker 1: Jay, have you ever read the I spoke about it
Speaker 1: earlier during the stream, But the Declaration Dominusisus, published in
Speaker 1: two thousand by the Catholic Church, approved by John Paul
Speaker 1: the Second, it seems to I don't know, I've I've
Speaker 1: kind of I haven't read the whole thing through. I've
Speaker 1: only looked at certain parts of it. I want to
Speaker 1: go through it, but it seems to actually kind of
Speaker 1: disagree and contradict with the idea that these that that
Speaker 1: Cameron or Trent or the other guy were presenting, And
Speaker 1: it seems to actually elaborate on the position of the
Speaker 1: Catholic Church and seems to say that they don't actually
Speaker 1: properly worship or that they don't actually they worship the
Speaker 1: same God, they actually lack the assent to God.
Speaker 3: So I don't know.
Speaker 1: I have to watch the whole debate to see how
Speaker 1: that fits in.
Speaker 3: But it's a great question.
Speaker 4: I haven't actually thought about this document since I was
Speaker 4: used to be a tradcat, so I'm not I'm not
Speaker 4: even sure I'm looking at it now. I don't remember
Speaker 4: exactly what what all is going on, but I would
Speaker 4: I would just simply say that when I was looking
Speaker 4: at a lot of the medieval texts and the medieval councils.
Speaker 3: You especially have that one.
Speaker 4: From fourth Ladder and Council No Council of vienn excuse me,
Speaker 4: Council VNN is the one that said that the Muslims
Speaker 4: adore their reprobate faithless prophet Mohammed who is and then
Speaker 4: it was also called Antichrist earlier on by Innocent the third.
Speaker 4: It's like, I mean, just look at the change of
Speaker 4: language right like between if you're Antichrist, which is consistent
Speaker 4: with first John talking about how if you don't confess
Speaker 4: Christ coming in the flesh as fine son of God,
Speaker 4: you are spirit of Antichrist versus this idea that well,
Speaker 4: you know, we're all kind of on a spectrum, and
Speaker 4: you know, maybe you worship God sixty percent, but the
Speaker 4: Catholic Church worships God one hundred percent. It's like, you
Speaker 4: either do or you don't. Like, I mean, you can
Speaker 4: have false conceptions, but in terms of what defines worship,
Speaker 4: I think you're gonna say my point is simply that
Speaker 4: the Catholic Church has said a lot of different things,
Speaker 4: and so you can kind of paste onto it what
Speaker 4: you want, like if you want to be like Mother Teresa,
Speaker 4: where you can go into Hindu shrines and pray, which
Speaker 4: he actually did on record. If that's what you think
Speaker 4: Catholicism is, it can be that for you. If you
Speaker 4: think it's medieval crusaders following Innocent the Third to fight
Speaker 4: anti Christ Mohammed, you can make it into that. So
Speaker 4: there's enough documentation to kind of like paste together type
Speaker 4: of Roman Catholic system that you want. And that's I
Speaker 4: think both a strength and a weakness. I don't think
Speaker 4: it's true, but it's a strength because a lot of
Speaker 4: people can find ammo to make it what they want.
Speaker 4: But it's also a weakness because at a certain point
Speaker 4: it's like, what exactly is Romatholicism. Is it calling a
Speaker 4: crusade in multiple crusades for many centuries to fight against
Speaker 4: the godless race of the Heathen Sarras and Muslims, or
Speaker 4: is it pacha mama Like we're praying, you know, to
Speaker 4: this human sacrifice idol, and we're gonna notice it's the
Speaker 4: same argument. The argument for why pacha Mama is okay
Speaker 4: is like, well, but it's kind of like Mary okay,
Speaker 4: But like every action, I mean satanic abuse, right or
Speaker 4: something like that, like if I human sacrifice, if I'm
Speaker 4: in the Thugie call we watched Temple of Doom. Well
Speaker 4: there's some I mean there's some sacrifice going on. They
Speaker 4: have a liturgy, right, so there's.
Speaker 3: Some things in common, so like what's wrong with it?
Speaker 4: That was like when they did the watch Himama thing,
Speaker 4: like there was actually Roman callies were arguing it's okay
Speaker 4: because it's kind of like Mary, she's a goddess.
Speaker 3: And she you know, likes to be honored and you
Speaker 3: know whatever. It's like. But no, it doesn't work like that.
Speaker 4: Like it's not a thing where it's acceptable because there's
Speaker 4: some things that are similar. It's like there's a specific
Speaker 4: way that God has always been worshiped and it can't
Speaker 4: be mixed with the ways that the gods of the
Speaker 4: nations are worshiped.
Speaker 5: So they might both be like necessary beings. But I
Speaker 5: don't think it's it helps because it feels immoral to
Speaker 5: me because it would be like you know, calling God
Speaker 5: saying that he's affirming everything Mohammad did, sleeping with.
Speaker 3: Kids, mass murder.
Speaker 5: So it would be like if I said, you know,
Speaker 5: jay Dire is a mass murderer and the mass murderer
Speaker 5: jay Diar, then thinking up has to be the same guy,
Speaker 5: because the real Jay Dire and the one I'm thinking
Speaker 5: are both human. It's like, just because your conception of
Speaker 5: God is necessary being, doesn't mean it's the same God.
Speaker 5: It feels it feels immral to attribute the horrible actions
Speaker 5: of a lot to God. It feels like satanic to me,
Speaker 5: deceivers right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the counterpoint I'm making this argument as well, and
Speaker 1: I also posted about this earlier when I made a
Speaker 1: list of how of how the Islamic God is different
Speaker 1: from the Christian from our from our understanding of God.
Speaker 1: While I can talk about the moral differences and how
Speaker 1: the Islamic God is completely morally messed up, the counterpoint
Speaker 1: that Catholics in this discussion, for example, would bring up
Speaker 1: probably is that is that they can have a completely warped,
Speaker 1: completely messed up understanding of God while still turning toward
Speaker 1: the same God and therefore being described as worshiping that
Speaker 1: same God from their perspective. But then again, we have
Speaker 1: to have a we have to have a long discussion
Speaker 1: about what do you mean by worship?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I think this, Yeah, I mean God can draw and
Speaker 4: does draw anybody at all times who's sincere and sincerely
Speaker 4: seeks him. You know, Paul says this in Act seventeen
Speaker 4: when he's talking to the Pagan philosopher, you know, the
Speaker 4: Greeks and everybody says, you know, God has set the
Speaker 4: times in the seasons and the nations, and you know,
Speaker 4: arranged providence such that if anyone should seek out right,
Speaker 4: that he should that he might be found. So I
Speaker 4: think God does meet us where we are, but.
Speaker 3: We don't conclude from that.
Speaker 4: I don't think that therefore anything counts as getting you
Speaker 4: to that referen And I mean, I just think that
Speaker 4: the way of the evidence and so many passages is
Speaker 4: just the only thing I can think of that even
Speaker 4: kind of speaks this way as Romans one. But even that,
Speaker 4: I think is the heart being darkened. And Paul specifically
Speaker 4: says they exchange the worst but the true God for darkness,
Speaker 4: and they're in Pagan darkness. So even though they might
Speaker 4: get some things right, it's sort of like, I mean,
Speaker 4: there's a great critique that Father surfrom Rose has of
Speaker 4: Hinduism in the book Orthodoxy in the Religion of the Future,
Speaker 4: and he says the push for the sort of ecumenist
Speaker 4: one world religion movement is first premised on the idea
Speaker 4: that will many of the religions believe in one God.
Speaker 4: And he says, but if you look at the way
Speaker 4: that the Hindus conceive of that one God, and by
Speaker 4: the way, Vatican two in no Stratat actually says, Hindus
Speaker 4: seek have a flight to the to God capital ge
Speaker 4: and love and trust. So even it almost acknowledges like Shakti,
Speaker 4: which is a version of Hinduism, which is quote monotheistic.
Speaker 4: And it's like but I mean saying that you're monotheistic,
Speaker 4: but also having this like pantheon of other deities in
Speaker 4: a kind of hinnotheism. I mean, at this point anything
Speaker 4: could be monotheistic. You see, it can be so broad
Speaker 4: as to encompass. I mean, you know, you know there's
Speaker 4: theistic Satanists, right, there's people that the who work yeah, exactly,
Speaker 4: the Temple of Set believes there's one God. He created everything,
Speaker 4: he sustains everything. I don't know about all the other attributes.
Speaker 4: But like, and they say, but it's Set. It's the
Speaker 4: Set of Egyptian theology, which is the Satan of the
Speaker 4: Jewish Hebrew Christian Bible. So would we conclude then that
Speaker 4: as these people do in the day, that they're like, yeah,
Speaker 4: it's still worshiping the Trinity.
Speaker 3: It's like, that's still Accidentally, it's just ludicrous to.
Speaker 4: Me, especially as a religion premist on rejecting the Trinity
Speaker 4: in the deed of Christ. I think that's the hardest
Speaker 4: thing for them to really get over, because.
Speaker 3: Jesus says, you know.
Speaker 4: Jesus says it in John five, John eight, and then
Speaker 4: in one John two it says, if you don't have son,
Speaker 4: you know the body.
Speaker 1: So we were all kind of visibly confused when I
Speaker 1: keep forgetting his name. But the second Catholic speaker when
Speaker 1: he yeah, when when he said that that they wouldn't
Speaker 1: qualify everything as believe as worshiping the same God. For example,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't, uh, he wouldn't describe Mormons as worshiping the
Speaker 1: same body. And we were all a little little bit
Speaker 1: confused about that because it seemed from Trent Doherty's reasoning
Speaker 1: that Mormonism would have to be described as worshiping the
Speaker 1: same God as well, and uh, from from everything else
Speaker 1: that they described, let's leave aside all the all the
Speaker 1: implications of Mormon theology and how we can describe that
Speaker 1: Mormon theology results in actually worshiping like an infinite number
Speaker 1: of gods that are kind of in the loop or
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it. They do claim to
Speaker 1: worship the God of Abraham, and they do claim to
Speaker 1: be monotheistic. They do claim to it does it does
Speaker 1: emerge within the car takes of the Bible narrative and
Speaker 1: so on. So it seems rather arbitrary that they would
Speaker 1: say we don't qualify Mormonism as worshiping the same goal.
Speaker 4: And this is that point of the core doctrine thing.
Speaker 4: It's like, okay, so what's the core doctrine? Oh well,
Speaker 4: it's clearly Richard Swinburne's nine or ten list. Okay, but
Speaker 4: if we're going to include the Mormons, like doctor Trent does,
Speaker 4: then it can't be that ten list because the Mormons miss.
Speaker 3: About half of those right.
Speaker 4: Because God the Father is a man with a body,
Speaker 4: who's created and who evolved to become God.
Speaker 3: That's the official Mormon doctrine. For those that don't know.
Speaker 4: Matter is also eternal, so God is not when a
Speaker 4: Mormon says creator, it's the architect rearranging existing premium materia.
Speaker 4: They do not believe that God created matter. Matter is
Speaker 4: also eternal, and Mormonism so they believe in many principles
Speaker 4: and so it is fundamentally polytheistic. Even though a Mormon
Speaker 4: says our one God, though, is God the Father. Who's
Speaker 4: a dude, just a dude. So it's like, well, so
Speaker 4: does that count as a model. So in other words,
Speaker 4: it's arbitrary exactly. So for doctor Trent, Mormons making the
Speaker 4: cut for Thomas Chevsky because he's a Thomas Mormons do
Speaker 4: not make the cut.
Speaker 3: They don't get enough of the quote essential attributes.
Speaker 2: And then even even when coming up with a list,
Speaker 2: there's to include Islam, he had to be kind of
Speaker 2: arbitrary by not including like God is triune or something
Speaker 2: like that. And so that's kind of the issue with you.
Speaker 2: If you're going to say, hey, if you if you
Speaker 2: have if you have this on your list, then you're
Speaker 2: you're in, and if you don't have this list, then
Speaker 2: you're out. Well, you know who's making the list. Here,
Speaker 2: who's making the list, And you can easily add one
Speaker 2: thing and rule out Muslims, and you could easily take
Speaker 2: off a few, and then you get Mormons back in
Speaker 2: there and so on, and so yeah, Trent's Trent's argument. Basically,
Speaker 2: I don't even understand how how Trent's argument would rule
Speaker 2: out polytheists. I mentioned this earlier, Like.
Speaker 4: Debate progresses, he actually says that if you worship he
Speaker 4: says literally, that you can worship God and demons at
Speaker 4: the same time.
Speaker 3: He makes this argument that yeah, he said.
Speaker 4: He says that because Israelites, for example, at one point
Speaker 4: were including Yahweh amongst the pantheon. They were worshiping demons
Speaker 4: and Yahweh, and so he was arguing that sea so
Speaker 4: it's it's so Muslims are worshiping even if they got
Speaker 4: it wrong, even it's still the same. But that's not
Speaker 4: the same, And that's the whole The point is that
Speaker 4: when God castigates the Israelites again, this is where the
Speaker 4: golden calf comes in as a great example. It's like, no,
Speaker 4: you can't say the golden well, here's here's your Yahweh.
Speaker 4: Here's this you know, golden calf right here right? I
Speaker 4: mean it, It just doesn't work.
Speaker 5: It would be like sleeping around with a bunch of
Speaker 5: people and then being like, but I'm still married to
Speaker 5: my wife, which is actually that's the metaphor.
Speaker 3: The Old Testament, wild stuff, wild stuff.
Speaker 2: You want to talk about it? Should I jump into some.
Speaker 1: This is the this is the issue that I just
Speaker 1: want to I just want to go back to that
Speaker 1: point just for a second again. This is the issue
Speaker 1: where I mean when, when, when when Trent says that
Speaker 1: that you can worship demons and also worship God, and
Speaker 1: you that you are worshiping the same God, and to
Speaker 1: you and to us, this is and of course completely unacceptable.
Speaker 1: This once again brings to the surface the whole difference
Speaker 1: between the whole difference of the two perspectives. As I said,
Speaker 1: the whole that that the meta which we are arguing about,
Speaker 1: versus the very surface level worship that they are talking about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, last thing, I don't want to take too much, y'l. Tom.
Speaker 3: I appreciate you having me on.
Speaker 4: Last thing I would say is just and I'll let
Speaker 4: you guys move on and finish her the debate. But
Speaker 4: I was saying, so a lot of them were using
Speaker 4: this analogy of like, okay, so look like let's say
Speaker 4: there's Superman, there's Clark Kent, and you can get the
Speaker 4: reference wrong, but it's still the same. But this was
Speaker 4: funny because the in this if you use the Superman's story,
Speaker 4: this doesn't really work very well because Superman is actually
Speaker 4: cal L Right, So he's actually this sort of deity
Speaker 4: that's tricking people with two different identities that aren't really
Speaker 4: who he is.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: Some people know him as Superman, but some people know
Speaker 4: him as cal Ls, as Clark Kent, but he's actually cal.
Speaker 3: So this analogy that they kept wanting.
Speaker 4: To go back to actually works to disprove the position
Speaker 4: because it means that basically, the true God is sort
Speaker 4: of like hiding amongst the different religions, right, and you
Speaker 4: don't actually you're actually worshiping him, but you don't know
Speaker 4: even though you think you're worshiping you know, colleagues. Actually,
Speaker 4: I mean so that analogy I don't think worked very
Speaker 4: good for them, and.
Speaker 3: I thought of a better. Now I'll leave you guys
Speaker 3: with this.
Speaker 4: Here's my last analogy for the for how I think
Speaker 4: this really works, And I'm gonna say it's the Bill
Speaker 4: Cosby analogy. So let's say that people think that Bill
Speaker 4: Cosby is the great American comedian. It's nineteen seventy eight.
Speaker 4: Funny dude, Yeah, right, even though this is not true.
Speaker 4: But let's just say that Bill Cosby is like the
Speaker 4: premier comedian in nineteen seventy eight, and these group of
Speaker 4: clever marketers come up with this idea that no, actually
Speaker 4: didn't you know the whole time the real source of
Speaker 4: the comedy was his cousin, Charlie Cosby, and he's the
Speaker 4: real funny man. In fact, he's ten times funnier. And
Speaker 4: here look at all these posters we've got, and doesn't it.
Speaker 3: Look like him. It's his cousin.
Speaker 4: And they just took pictures of Bill Cosby and they
Speaker 4: tweaked it a little bit with nineteen seventy eight photoshot
Speaker 4: whatever that was, and they put a hat on him
Speaker 4: and that he's still got all the.
Speaker 3: Same feeble fobbles, ebels, abew jokes and a haha haa.
Speaker 4: And they sell the ticket one hundred dollars to sell
Speaker 4: out the stadium and people come. Turns out there is
Speaker 4: no Charlie Cosby.
Speaker 3: It was a gimmick and it's a fraud. It's a fake.
Speaker 4: There was only Bill Cosby the whole time. But these
Speaker 4: demonic marketers came up with this clever con and this
Speaker 4: clever scam. And that is I think the key point
Speaker 4: that you guys understand because you know Islam so well.
Speaker 4: Most of the Roman Catholics that we're talking about in
Speaker 4: this sphere, except for perhaps Shamun, who has seemingly completely
Speaker 4: changed his position on this, by the way, they don't
Speaker 4: actually know what Islam teaches. And I didn't know ten
Speaker 4: years ago. I thought, oh, Islam's very similar. You know,
Speaker 4: they think there's one God. But once you really get
Speaker 4: into Islam and see how different it is, then you
Speaker 4: see it's just kind of silly to say this, and
Speaker 4: it Bill Cosby fake Charlie Cosby scam, I think is
Speaker 4: a much better analogy. And after you debate the Muslims
Speaker 4: a bunch, as you guys have a million times more
Speaker 4: than me, like you realize this is a con. As
Speaker 4: you said, perfectly, that's the way better. It's a it's
Speaker 4: a scam. It's like you know, a fake, you know,
Speaker 4: blue Market special and Kmart version of something versus the original.
Speaker 4: That's a better description than the Superman Clark Ken analogy.
Speaker 1: Well, the funny thing is both of the analogies that
Speaker 1: you just gave, the whole Superman analogy and also the
Speaker 1: Cosmy analogy would actually totally make sense and point to
Speaker 1: what a true god if Allah was a true god.
Speaker 1: Considering that Allah is a deceiver works perfect.
Speaker 3: It's a deception.
Speaker 4: It's like it's like a it's a con it's not,
Speaker 4: it's not We're all looking at the same thing trying
Speaker 4: to kind of see through the fog and figure out
Speaker 4: what it was. It's like there's this one true thing,
Speaker 4: and then there's these con men copies of it.
Speaker 2: Hey, I think you could actually uh, I think you
Speaker 2: can use someone else for the Bill Cosby thing, because uh,
Speaker 2: remember Gallagher. I think he had like a twin brother
Speaker 2: or something like that who used to tour as him. But
Speaker 2: I mean you might be able to like.
Speaker 4: Oh, he smashes canthe lopes. It's way better than smashing watermelons.
Speaker 2: You gotta I forget the story because this was a
Speaker 2: long time ago. But I think Gallagher eventually had to
Speaker 2: like sue his brother for stealing his act and pretending
Speaker 2: to be him because he's still Gallagher, right, that was
Speaker 2: his name too, So I think it was something like that.
Speaker 2: You could actually because there you had, you actually had
Speaker 2: someone who was a different person who was nevertheless imitating
Speaker 2: what did.
Speaker 3: He like rip him off? And he tried to do
Speaker 3: the same type of stuff.
Speaker 2: I forget that. I forget the details, but I think, yeah,
Speaker 2: he would. He would also tour as like Gallagher and
Speaker 2: stuff like that.
Speaker 3: And then he's like, wait a minute, you can't perfect. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Back where I did criminal law, my partner had a
Speaker 5: case where the client was saying, no, it was my
Speaker 5: twin brother that did the crime. Turned out actually his
Speaker 5: twin brother really did do the crime, arrested for it.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: Mc craig John McCrae has a twin brother. He said
Speaker 2: that was just natural if one of them got in trouble. No,
Speaker 2: that was my brother and you couldn't tell who did it,
Speaker 2: so you didn't get in trouble.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well, thank you guys.
Speaker 4: I appreciate you letting me come and yap and uh
Speaker 4: come on, and I'll let you guys continue on with
Speaker 4: if you don't if if you get if I keep yapping,
Speaker 4: it'll never happen.
Speaker 3: So this is a long, longest question.
Speaker 1: So we are we even going to continue We're reviewing this.
Speaker 1: I't know.
Speaker 2: No, We're not going to go through the debate anymore.
Speaker 2: I am going to go through super chats. AP, I
Speaker 2: know you're sick, uh, so I can basically stay here
Speaker 2: by myself or anyone who wants to hang out. Can
Speaker 2: I'm going to go through super chats.
Speaker 1: What day it's been four and a half hours.
Speaker 2: Jeez, it's been a long time, man. No, AP, you're sick.
Speaker 2: You're sick. Man, you want to go to sleep or something,
Speaker 2: Go to sleep. I'm basically going to be up. I'm
Speaker 2: going to be up all night anyway, so I don't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, he waived.
Speaker 1: He did, like a little well, thank you, Jay. That
Speaker 1: was very very helpful and very very good.
Speaker 2: Actually, and yet, now did you even tell him that
Speaker 2: tomorrow you're going on with his nemesis, Cameron Bertuzzi