Speaker 1: Agree with like if it's a package deal. So to me,
Speaker 1: it's perfectly befitting that if she's the new Eve, she
Speaker 1: would be like Eve, and instead of being a fallen
Speaker 1: creature in the sense of actual sin, she would be
Speaker 1: preserved from that, like Eve would have been had she
Speaker 1: not sinned. So I think it's a consequence of her
Speaker 1: as the mother of God that she was preserved from that,
Speaker 1: so that she could be in that intimate, special role
Speaker 1: of being the one that gave birth to the Son
Speaker 1: of God and gave to him his human nature and
Speaker 1: so forth. But if we think about sin as a
Speaker 1: specific act and not as a state of being, as
Speaker 1: most Calvinists and reform people do. They think of sin
Speaker 1: as a state of being, it's not. It's defined as James,
Speaker 1: excuse me by James, as an action of the will.
Speaker 1: There's another reason why infants aren't quote sinners, because infants
Speaker 1: don't commit actual sins. They don't commit sins of the will.
Speaker 1: The only sense in which an infant is a quote
Speaker 1: center is that they are deprived of the grace of
Speaker 1: Eden and they are fallen, and so they feel the
Speaker 1: effects of the sin. And sometimes Paul speaks of that
Speaker 1: whole class of human beings under the descent of adam
Speaker 1: as in sin. That does not equate to them being
Speaker 1: actual sinners. It equates to them having the effects of sin.
Speaker 1: So this is and literally no one believes this anymore,
Speaker 1: that infants are damned except Calvinists. Roman Catholics don't believe
Speaker 1: that infants are have inherited guilt. Maybe Lutherans do, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure, but there's literally no one else that believes
Speaker 1: this except for Calvinists. So you're not going to be
Speaker 1: Orthodox or Catholic if you believe that infants have actual sin,
Speaker 1: which is kind of stupid if you think about it. Yep,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Africa, you've made all these videos about me.
Speaker 1: Go ahead. I guess you can't get an internet connection
Speaker 1: because he keeps dropping off Africa without borders. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: I'm guessing your internet doesn't work, dude, I don't know, James.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd like to talk about fruits of the spirit
Speaker 2: is defined in the Epistle of the Glicians, and why
Speaker 2: you seem to think they're optional and deride them as
Speaker 2: what was the term you use, like piety signaling, like.
Speaker 3: The I'd like you to explain that.
Speaker 1: So why what does that have to do with today's discussion?
Speaker 2: You defended mocking and demeaning people with a petty of
Speaker 2: use and imitation.
Speaker 1: Right, How pious are you? Are you praying right now?
Speaker 3: Are you capable of?
Speaker 1: Are you? Are you? Are you on the internet to
Speaker 1: talk about how much you pray?
Speaker 3: I just told you why I am on the internet
Speaker 3: and asking.
Speaker 1: You these questions? Is that right? Is that right? Do
Speaker 1: you have the fruits of the spirit right now?
Speaker 3: You have nothing to say?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I can't defend myself against point millers like yourself. You're
Speaker 4: the most plious Orthodox person on the web right.
Speaker 2: Now, so pas they can like read the Bible. Well,
Speaker 2: you know, but you're a malignant narcissist people.
Speaker 1: Is that right? Is that right?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: It is right?
Speaker 4: Can you demonstrate that I'm a malignant narcissist?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: You do that for me actually by opening your mouth?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you spew all this venom, but I'm a
Speaker 1: malignant narcissist.
Speaker 2: Well, two things can be true simultaneously. I mean, perhaps
Speaker 2: you can fund.
Speaker 1: You can spew a venom. You just admited the here's
Speaker 1: being venom? Is that afraard of the spirit speing venom?
Speaker 1: Silence only you are entitled.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean I.
Speaker 1: Don't think jugs are being venom.
Speaker 2: I mean you've refused to defend your position and you've
Speaker 2: refuse to explain yourself.
Speaker 5: You just I don't even think you're a real person.
Speaker 5: I think you're faired. I think you're a faired. I
Speaker 5: think you're a faired. You just said that you can
Speaker 5: spoil all, you can spere all the fenom.
Speaker 3: Well that this is what cry bullies do.
Speaker 1: It's like they don't I'm a cry bully. I mean
Speaker 1: I'm letting you say all this stuff. How are you?
Speaker 1: Are you getting bullied?
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I think.
Speaker 1: Sir, Well, we all need to get underneath you so
Speaker 1: that you can pray over us, so that we have
Speaker 1: the fruits of the spirit. Go ahead, Hell yeah, Well hello, Jake, what.
Speaker 3: I on my own?
Speaker 6: I wanted to talk about soda scriptures.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you do after all your videos.
Speaker 6: Yeah, just to say that I've watched a lot of
Speaker 6: your videos.
Speaker 1: I know you've made a lot of videos. What about it?
Speaker 6: And I found it helpful going to speak as corner
Speaker 6: to use peace of positionism mm hmm yeah, solar scriptura.
Speaker 6: My first point is when we look at Jesus. Did
Speaker 6: Jesus use tradition in the way that you would envision
Speaker 6: it in your definition of tradition?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 7: Could you show us.
Speaker 1: That well he specifically.
Speaker 6: Could you give us the Eastern Orthodox definition and then
Speaker 6: show us.
Speaker 1: He specifically said that the Word of God was himself
Speaker 1: and not the books to the Pharisees.
Speaker 6: No, you're not listening to me.
Speaker 3: Here we go.
Speaker 6: I'm asking you to give me the definition of Orthodox
Speaker 6: field standing tradition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's the full revelation, whether containing the written text
Speaker 1: or the oral preaching of the apostles.
Speaker 3: How's that okay?
Speaker 1: The faith once we're all committed to the saints.
Speaker 6: Yeah, no, I think you still don't give it a.
Speaker 1: Full definition, right, So you go make more YouTube videos?
Speaker 6: You're not You're not bringing in the more.
Speaker 1: Yeah, goodbye. This is a person who just wants content.
Speaker 1: He makes endless live streams, talks about soul scriptural that's
Speaker 1: all he wants to talk about. So I give him
Speaker 1: very simple, clear definitions as to what the tradition is
Speaker 1: the fullness of the divine revelation, written and textual. He
Speaker 1: doesn't care. He just wants something to talk about in
Speaker 1: his live stream. Does anybody who's a Protestant or disagrees
Speaker 1: wants to come on anybody else. There's still fifteen people
Speaker 1: or any of you Protestant. They might have an actual
Speaker 1: argument today. There's something going on. It's it's a lot
Speaker 1: of ferile people today.
Speaker 8: Really, you're remember your nerds is just there. Either fruits
Speaker 8: are the spirit or an argument. The fruits are the spirit,
Speaker 8: fear true, your.
Speaker 1: Spirit, leaguer, Ligair, Ligair, I'm you. The year of love
Speaker 1: is being severely tested. All right? Moving on? Was raising
Speaker 1: their hand? Lee, Oh my gosh, here we go. I'm mute,
Speaker 1: and then we'll go to the tridentine Catholic Lee, I'm mute.
Speaker 9: Yo.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me barely? What's up?
Speaker 10: So I might have a disagreement. Maybe what's your position?
Speaker 10: Because I was I watched some of your videos and
Speaker 10: I was wondering. I heard you say that you don't
Speaker 10: think that there's reproduction like giving birth in the Escaton?
Speaker 3: Is that? Did I get that right?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Are you a Mormon?
Speaker 8: No?
Speaker 11: No, I'm just I'm just agnosticconnessy which one fits best
Speaker 11: for me? Okay, So if you don't think there's a
Speaker 11: reproduction in the Escaton, if we go back to Genesis.
Speaker 3: It actually describes that, however, became painful as a punishment
Speaker 3: of the fall.
Speaker 10: It seems like that there is birth, there is reproduction
Speaker 10: in the Esketon, but it just became painful.
Speaker 1: Would you agree with that Eden is not the Esketon?
Speaker 10: Yeah, but it's a close that's the closest thing that
Speaker 10: we can get, right.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that every feature of Eden carries over
Speaker 1: into the Esketon. So it's a non sequitor.
Speaker 10: Well, we car we care, we can, we carry our
Speaker 10: bodies with us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that doesn't mean that everything that our bodies
Speaker 1: do in the fallen state translates into the same functions
Speaker 1: in the eternal state.
Speaker 10: So then why do you not think that there's reproduction
Speaker 10: specifically any eston.
Speaker 1: There's not any reason to think that there is. There's
Speaker 1: no tradition or statements that I'm aware of about it.
Speaker 1: And seems to speak as if we will be like
Speaker 1: the angels and not being involved in biological quitas.
Speaker 3: Okay, is there.
Speaker 1: When he says that we will be like the angels,
Speaker 1: not marrying or being given in marriage?
Speaker 3: Yep ollo, yep, Yeah.
Speaker 12: I just have a question. I'm not sure you're familiar
Speaker 12: with like True Orthodoxy dot Org. I just have a
Speaker 12: question why they like criticize the toll House, Like is
Speaker 12: this like just like them being like unique, just criticizing
Speaker 12: like personal belief saying it's like the lastmis and heretical,
Speaker 12: Like how the dominies kind of do like for the
Speaker 12: coredemtrics or is there like a historical basis behind like
Speaker 12: the condemnation.
Speaker 3: For it that they make.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a room for interpretation as to how
Speaker 1: literal the toll hases out are versus a degree of
Speaker 1: symbolic imagery in the iconography or the lives of the
Speaker 1: saints and that kind of stuff. But I mean it's
Speaker 1: not dogma in the sense of it being spoken of
Speaker 1: at a council, but I think it is part of
Speaker 1: the Orthodox liturgical mystical tradition.
Speaker 12: But do you know why that, like other groups like
Speaker 12: True or than Us, Like, what's the reasoning for like
Speaker 12: condemning it?
Speaker 3: Is it because because they look.
Speaker 1: For anything to try to bring people into their groups
Speaker 1: and say that they've got everything wrong in their heretics,
Speaker 1: so they just look for something.
Speaker 12: So it's kind of like the Diamond Brothers in a way,
Speaker 12: like how they can them like the Curry dimtrics and
Speaker 12: all that like that.
Speaker 1: In a sense, yeah, I think that the set of
Speaker 1: a contests are perfect parallels to I mean, true Orthodoxy
Speaker 1: is like not even a thing. It's like infinitely smaller
Speaker 1: even than traditional Catholicism. It's like a few thousand people
Speaker 1: on the internet.
Speaker 3: So yeah, all right, that was my question.
Speaker 1: Bro see them man, thank you? Well that didn't that.
Speaker 1: He was a lot cooler than I expected. So when
Speaker 1: I see tradcat, I'm like, oh, no, yep, hello.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Yep, yeah, Hi.
Speaker 13: I wanted to come in quite earlier just to address
Speaker 13: I know there was someone in the beginning that was
Speaker 13: asking about the veneration of the model of God, and
Speaker 13: I wanted it to actually interject and to just add
Speaker 13: just a quick, a quick quick on this on the scripture,
Speaker 13: just because I'm not sure if you know, but Jesus
Speaker 13: himself when he gets his feet, I think his feats.
Speaker 3: With by the woman, he.
Speaker 13: Actually says that that woman, because of what he did
Speaker 13: it you will be commemorated. Yeah, poor generations. And so
Speaker 13: that's that's basically, you know, that's basically what we do.
Speaker 13: We we we we venerate her and we celebrate. We've
Speaker 13: got our own feet day with her. If you know,
Speaker 13: if if that's what Jesus is saying about how we
Speaker 13: appreciate certain people you have done virtuous acts?
Speaker 1: Yes, what what?
Speaker 13: Why Why couldn't it be you know, the same thing
Speaker 13: for the Virgin Mary, you know, the Mother of God,
Speaker 13: who is you know, almost infinitely more blessed and virtuous.
Speaker 3: Than the.
Speaker 1: Woman. That's actually a great point. I appreciate that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and and if you think about it too, it's
Speaker 1: also kind of an indirect argument for liturgy and the
Speaker 1: beauty of the worship of God. Right, Jesus rebukes the
Speaker 1: other woman for fussing about the costly oil of spikenard.
Speaker 1: So no, we should have honor and worship for God,
Speaker 1: and there's nothing wrong with it being done in a beautiful,
Speaker 1: esthetically pleasing way. Priest Haka, this is a black Eber Israelite.
Speaker 14: My main man, Jay, can you hear me? Yeah, I
Speaker 14: was just trying to see because I did a video.
Speaker 3: Well, I did.
Speaker 14: A response video to your video when you were searching
Speaker 14: us up and you were looking at Captain Saizari. I
Speaker 14: gotta believe it was and a few other Israelites in
Speaker 14: our community.
Speaker 1: Are you the one that threatened to whip me until
Speaker 1: my flesh fell off?
Speaker 14: What I remember saying that?
Speaker 1: But I mean, are you the guy that did the video?
Speaker 3: Well much video?
Speaker 1: I don't know, the black keeper Israelite guy that did
Speaker 1: a video call me out. I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: know which one you are.
Speaker 14: I may not be the only one who did a
Speaker 14: video on you, Okay.
Speaker 3: So I was just.
Speaker 14: Trying to see if you are interested in any form
Speaker 14: of the base with any leaders in the community.
Speaker 3: No, okay, don't worry. Thanks man, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's
Speaker 1: you know, that's that's like one of the craziest insane
Speaker 1: cults I've ever heard of.
Speaker 3: So I don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are the people who think that the
Speaker 1: word Jewish means kind of jew That's what they think.
Speaker 1: I'm not joking. That's like that's what they literally, that's
Speaker 1: their theology, Like they can't do grammar. The cult is
Speaker 1: based on not being able to do grammar. Uh huh?
Speaker 3: Hey how you doing?
Speaker 15: Jay?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 3: Everyone else?
Speaker 16: Hey Jae, I came here because I'm a Protestant. Well,
Speaker 16: I guess you could say former Protestant, but because I've been,
Speaker 16: you know, converting to Catholicism. But I kind of wanted
Speaker 16: to ask a question about Easter because I see a
Speaker 16: lot of difference and I don't want to know.
Speaker 3: Your thoughts of philioquey.
Speaker 16: Okay, go ahead, yeah, so yeah, so do you what's
Speaker 16: the orthodox position?
Speaker 3: Do y'all?
Speaker 16: Do y'all deny that there's any procession of the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 3: Through the Sun.
Speaker 1: No, there is a procession through the Sun, but it
Speaker 1: is not his existential hypostatic origin.
Speaker 16: Okay, But if it's the case that the Holy Spirit,
Speaker 16: if it's the case that the Holy Spirit proceeds through
Speaker 16: the Son, right, then then what really is any difference
Speaker 16: between the ultodox position of PHILIOKOI.
Speaker 1: Are not Philly because that's not the position that's laid
Speaker 1: out of the Council of Lions in Florence. That position
Speaker 1: says that there's a double eternal hypothetic principle from the
Speaker 1: Father and the Son, who function as a single principle
Speaker 1: of the origin of the Holy Spirit. And that's something
Speaker 1: that we could never accept because it gets to the son,
Speaker 1: the unique hypostidic property that identifies the Father.
Speaker 16: Well, you would agree that there's going to be a
Speaker 16: distinction between being begata and being preceded.
Speaker 1: Right, that has nothing to do with what I just said.
Speaker 16: Well, yes it does, because the Catholic, like like you said,
Speaker 16: the Catholic position is going to be that the.
Speaker 3: Father and the Son is the one.
Speaker 16: Principle that the Holy Spirit inspire rates from.
Speaker 1: There's nothing that two persons in the Trinity share, as
Speaker 1: the Cappadocians say that one lacks, and so you've created
Speaker 1: a diad. So you reject you created that case because
Speaker 1: the Father and the Son are a united principle of
Speaker 1: power and causation that the Spirit does not have. So
Speaker 1: that's an imbalance, that's a diad.
Speaker 16: That but that's that's what distinguishes being forgotten or the
Speaker 16: Son being forgotten and the and the Spirit being preceded.
Speaker 3: Right, because of.
Speaker 16: The amount of people that takes uh that takes part,
Speaker 16: are the amount of persons that take part.
Speaker 3: In preceding the Holy Spirit, right, at least.
Speaker 16: In the Catholic view, Right, we can make the case
Speaker 16: that the Holy Spirit truly is preceded and not just
Speaker 16: be gotten right from the Father.
Speaker 1: So you're repeating Roman Catholic apologetic pap apologetics. That doesn't
Speaker 1: even address like the level of which we're talking about
Speaker 1: this question. So can you repeat to me what my
Speaker 1: argument was?
Speaker 17: Yeah?
Speaker 16: Yeah, Yeah, the argument was that, well, you pretty much
Speaker 16: just laid out.
Speaker 3: Of our position.
Speaker 16: Then you said that, oh, I've created a diead because
Speaker 16: it's going to be like the two persons is the
Speaker 16: father and son being the one principle in which, right,
Speaker 16: the Holy Spirit pretty much originates from or essence from that?
Speaker 1: Is that your position? And why is that a problem?
Speaker 18: Okay?
Speaker 3: I don't see the problem.
Speaker 1: Why did I say that's Why did I say that's
Speaker 1: a problem?
Speaker 16: Well, you said you said it was a problems because
Speaker 16: I created a diead, right.
Speaker 1: And why is that? I said specifically there's a reason why.
Speaker 16: Yeah, because the father and the son is the one principle?
Speaker 1: And why is that a problem?
Speaker 3: You tell me?
Speaker 1: Okay? I mean, I'm trying really hard to be patient
Speaker 1: with you guys, but like I literally stated explicitly what
Speaker 1: the problem is, and you've come with like level one
Speaker 1: understanding and you want to debate it, which is fine.
Speaker 1: I don't mind doing it. But did it never occur
Speaker 1: to you? Did it ever occur to you to maybe
Speaker 1: read some of the arguments on this before you want
Speaker 1: to debate it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I know, so I I what from?
Speaker 1: But you can't restate my argument? So you're not Are
Speaker 1: you not listening to what I said? Or you just
Speaker 1: didn't catch it. You want me stated again?
Speaker 16: Well, will your position on the matter would be that
Speaker 16: the Father is the only principle?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: And who said that? Anybody in church history?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean I'm asking you.
Speaker 1: Do you know of any famous church fathers that were
Speaker 1: involved in any ecumenical councils that maybe said that, I.
Speaker 16: Know church fathers that believe in Philly open Do you yeah, Augustine,
Speaker 16: mm hmm?
Speaker 3: Do you accept that or do you deny that?
Speaker 1: No? I mean I don't accept his teaching. No, it's wrong.
Speaker 3: Oh oh so he does, so he does accept fully absolutely,
Speaker 3: But he's the same thing your church.
Speaker 1: Do you really think that these are owns that we
Speaker 1: haven't addressed these arguments probably five hundred times? I mean.
Speaker 3: No, I mean that's I know the coopium that you
Speaker 3: guys use.
Speaker 1: So let's let's get into that, all right, you want
Speaker 1: to do this, let's do it. What council confirmed the
Speaker 1: Doctor of the Trinity for the Universal Church the council.
Speaker 3: I see that.
Speaker 1: No, so you see, you don't even know the first
Speaker 1: of this. You don't even know level one of this debate.
Speaker 1: It's the second Econmoical Council. Who are the three fathers
Speaker 1: that are the most important of the second Ecamoical Council?
Speaker 7: The second was.
Speaker 1: So you don't know anything, and you're trying to debate.
Speaker 16: Are you talking about the goal of Philio exactly?
Speaker 1: So you don't even know the Cappadocian doctrine of the
Speaker 1: trinity that's outlined at constant double one.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean, I is it like monarch correct?
Speaker 1: Yes? Yeah, yeah, And that's not a filioquy doctrine because
Speaker 1: tell me what the hypostatic property of the father is?
Speaker 3: The hypostatic property.
Speaker 1: So you don't even know the basic Cappadocian terms. You
Speaker 1: don't even know our basic position, and you're trying to
Speaker 1: argue with me and call it you call it code.
Speaker 16: To tell you, Yeah, the hyposthetic property of the father
Speaker 16: is that he's the one that again he's he's the
Speaker 16: one principal, right.
Speaker 1: Oh, he's the one principal. But you just said a
Speaker 1: minute ago that you agree that the son is also
Speaker 1: a co principal with him, so he's not the one principal.
Speaker 1: How many principles are how many principles are there?
Speaker 3: We believe there's one principal.
Speaker 1: No you don't. You believe there's one. And you contradicted
Speaker 1: by saying that the father and the son together are
Speaker 1: a principal. That's two.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's the one principle. It's not gonna be
Speaker 3: two principles.
Speaker 1: You just said the father is the principal, and then
Speaker 1: you said the father and the son are a principal.
Speaker 1: That's two. Can you count the father?
Speaker 3: And what do you this dowel argument?
Speaker 1: Are you this dumb? You don't even know our position?
Speaker 1: You said, you said the father is the principal, right.
Speaker 3: The father and the son are the one principal.
Speaker 1: At first you said the father is the principle. I
Speaker 1: asked you his hyposthetic property. You said it was to
Speaker 1: be the principal. That's just hype. Well yeah, you said that,
Speaker 1: don't lie you said that, yeah, no.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I understand that the father is going to
Speaker 3: be the principal.
Speaker 1: Oh, then there you go. Now you contradicted because the
Speaker 1: father and the son together are now a principal. That's
Speaker 1: the problem. So that's two principles.
Speaker 3: I never negated that the son is a principle.
Speaker 1: If the father is the principle and the son also
Speaker 1: with him, is also a principle, that's two.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know, they're both the same principle.
Speaker 1: Okay, now you're motal. Now you're a modalist because now
Speaker 1: you've said the father and the son together are a principle.
Speaker 1: That's modalism.
Speaker 3: How does that follow?
Speaker 1: Because that's the argument that the Cappadocians made against the Eunomians.
Speaker 1: You're confusing hyposthetic properties with common powers and energies.
Speaker 3: Where are you getting this notion from?
Speaker 1: Have you read Basil on the Holy Spirit? Have you
Speaker 1: read Basil against Eunomius?
Speaker 16: Oh, same Basil against sat basilik.
Speaker 1: As what you would be? I thought you knew all
Speaker 1: this stuff. You're not familiar with those works Basil on
Speaker 1: the Holy Spirit and Basil against Unamias. Have you read those?
Speaker 1: I guess amousious don't even know the word what.
Speaker 16: Doesnious anonymious?
Speaker 1: So you're not even familiar with this. You're not familiar
Speaker 1: with it? Is you're a clown that because it shows
Speaker 1: that you're not familiar with the literature, and you're trying
Speaker 1: to debate it.
Speaker 3: Why that's not true?
Speaker 1: True, you don't know the terms. You're demonstrating your ignorance
Speaker 1: of the whole scope of this.
Speaker 3: Oh, because I pronounce wrong?
Speaker 1: No, it means that you're not familiar with the literature.
Speaker 1: You couldn't even tell me two of the works.
Speaker 7: This is no.
Speaker 1: No, have you read this? Have you read this literature?
Speaker 1: Have you read this literature?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 3: The literature?
Speaker 16: Onsous?
Speaker 3: Why does that matter? Can you show me where?
Speaker 1: Because it shows that you don't. It shows that you're
Speaker 1: not familiar with the topic. You don't know to pronounce
Speaker 1: the basic terms, right. No, No, you're about to cry, dude, Like, Look,
Speaker 1: it would be whove you to go and understand this
Speaker 1: stuff before you try to debate it. And you did
Speaker 1: come here to debate.
Speaker 3: Can you please just show me where? Saint Basil against.
Speaker 1: Who's the who's the soul cause? Who do they argue
Speaker 1: is the sole cause?
Speaker 3: The soul cause? What do you mean by soul cause?
Speaker 1: So you're not, again, not familiar with common terminology throughout
Speaker 1: all the cappadotions. Soul cause, soul cause, Father is the
Speaker 1: sole cause, the Cappidotion dictum. Shut up, shut up, all right,
Speaker 1: you're gone.
Speaker 3: Running.
Speaker 1: No, you made it a fool of yourself. I'm not
Speaker 1: running from you. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to explain it to you. You won't shut up,
Speaker 1: Shut up, and I'll tell you.
Speaker 3: That's fine.
Speaker 1: Sole cause their dictum is anything that is a hypostatic
Speaker 1: property is unique to the person's and non communicable or shareable.
Speaker 1: Anything that is not a hypostatic property is common to
Speaker 1: all three. That's a cappadoc dictum. That's why the Philioko
Speaker 1: is wrong, according to the Cappadocians, because the father's principle
Speaker 1: what picks him out his hypostatic property is to be
Speaker 1: soul s o l e cause rka fount principle. Yea,
Speaker 1: all it does because it means that what he has
Speaker 1: that marks him out cannot be shared. That's the Cappadocian dictum.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, well, the thing that marks them.
Speaker 1: Out is no, it does not relation itself. Is a predicate,
Speaker 1: not a subject. Persons are subjects, not relations. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: that's so you would know that if you've read the Cappadocians,
Speaker 1: So you have no knowledge of this topic, and you're
Speaker 1: trying to debate what does persona at rola mean?
Speaker 3: Oh? Now he wants Now he wants to speak Greek.
Speaker 1: Persona at rolatio's Latin, you idiot. Oh and I don't
Speaker 1: know Latin. I don't care about Latin. But this guy
Speaker 1: just showed a. This is the arrogance of these people,
Speaker 1: no knowledge of these topics. They want to debate it.
Speaker 1: Persona at rolatio is aquinas is dictum, person is relation.
Speaker 1: So the first person to say that is that I'm
Speaker 1: aware of is perhaps Augustine, but at least for sure aquinas.
Speaker 1: I'm looking for people who disagree. Dank, It's about to
Speaker 1: get smoky up in here. The Greek dictum persona at rolatio.
Speaker 1: Oh hell, Hellulu.
Speaker 3: Is too there?
Speaker 1: Can you yep?
Speaker 3: Hi about?
Speaker 7: How are you doing?
Speaker 1: I'm here? What's up?
Speaker 6: I just wanted to talk about you with the Exodus?
Speaker 19: Are you familiar with it?
Speaker 7: To the Old Testaments?
Speaker 1: I've never read at what's it about?
Speaker 7: Well?
Speaker 18: I only know a few quotes from it, and I
Speaker 18: wanted to debate you about it.
Speaker 7: I personally I don't identify with any religion. I would
Speaker 7: say maybe agnostic.
Speaker 1: How about we debate agnosticism.
Speaker 7: We can debate agnosticism. Sure, I just wanted to ask
Speaker 7: you your stance on for example, Exodus twenty one seven.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you're familiar with it, let me
Speaker 3: pull it up.
Speaker 7: Sure, sure, sure, sure, yeah sure. Also I'm really a
Speaker 7: beginner to all of this.
Speaker 8: So I arse right, yeah, you know what.
Speaker 1: I don't even just the laugh is already that I
Speaker 1: don't do, the condescending laugh.
Speaker 7: So whoa what do you mean?
Speaker 1: I can't do it? That's my number one pat peeve
Speaker 1: is that condescending laugh? And if you repeat my name
Speaker 1: over never never Ryan so Exous twenty one seven. If
Speaker 1: a man sells his daughter to be a slave, she
Speaker 1: shall not go out as the male slaves do so.
Speaker 1: At a time when there were people as property, this
Speaker 1: is putting stricters on what you can do with humans
Speaker 1: that you have as property. And this is a unique
Speaker 1: revolutionary principle in the ancient world to introduce the ideas
Speaker 1: that slaves have rights, have dignity, and they cannot be abused.
Speaker 1: And you'll find that all throughout mosaic law. So I
Speaker 1: don't like, don't waste my time with this stupid Reddit
Speaker 1: level stuff of how God's a evil, mean person or something. Ryan,
Speaker 1: what's up, hey, J can you hear me? Yep?
Speaker 3: Cool.
Speaker 20: So I'm a relatively new Christian. I've been attending a
Speaker 20: reform Baptist church. This was before I really knew anything
Speaker 20: about reform theology, specifically Calvinism, and since I've actually been
Speaker 20: turning away from Symtism in exploring Orthodoxy. But something that
Speaker 20: within Calvinism that was appealing to me or something that
Speaker 20: made sense, was this idea of God's total sovereignty. And
Speaker 20: I'm wondering from an Orthodox perspective, how you would square
Speaker 20: God's sovereignty with you know, with man's free will or
Speaker 20: or you know, versus like Christ Timothy two four, where
Speaker 20: God desires all people to be saved.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I've done multiple talks critiquing Calvinism at great
Speaker 1: lengths for multiple hours, so you can go watch those.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be rude, but like, it's just
Speaker 1: not like I can't enter into that whole repeat discussion again, Seth.
Speaker 1: There's a two part series on my Cliff channel critique
Speaker 1: and Calvinism. There's a whole thing on Sam Chimun's channel
Speaker 1: critique and Calvinism. There's a whole thing on David Patrick
Speaker 1: Carrey Cotel's channel critique and calvinism. So, guys, most of
Speaker 1: these kinds of questions I don't mind them. I look
Speaker 1: for people who disagree. I want a debate. But when
Speaker 1: you ask me, what's your opinion on PSA, how do
Speaker 1: you refute calvinism and predestination and sovereign grace? Like, dude,
Speaker 1: there's a million live streams where we have addressed this
Speaker 1: countless times. I just can't repeat the same argument for
Speaker 1: the thousandth time and go through the whole shabang again. Matt,
Speaker 1: what's up? People are saying, turn on super chouts on
Speaker 1: your channel. Bro, use stream labs. I got demonetized in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen. There's no super chats on my channel. That's
Speaker 1: why you use stream labs. Right here, go to stream
Speaker 1: labs and feel free. Twitter tonight is like TikTok used
Speaker 1: to be. TikTok used to be like just the most
Speaker 1: just brain to just drive you insane level of debating.
Speaker 1: What's up, Mankja. Yeah.
Speaker 21: So, one thing that I've heard from Orthodox as far
Speaker 21: as veneration of icons is that the ability to venery
Speaker 21: icons occurs through the incarnation of Christ. But at the
Speaker 21: same time, I'm looking at some of the stuff around,
Speaker 21: like Christ's existence before, So looking at like the hymn
Speaker 21: of where it says like the that shall kiss the
Speaker 21: feet of.
Speaker 3: Those who tried in Eden. So just trying to understand, like.
Speaker 21: Where is there what what's the reasoning behind that delineation.
Speaker 1: Hymn of what? I don't know what you're talking about?
Speaker 21: I'm sorry, what understanding is? It gets sung on on
Speaker 21: Holy Wednesday?
Speaker 1: And what now?
Speaker 22: Uh?
Speaker 21: Just talking about the the presence of Christ's physical body
Speaker 21: before his incarnation?
Speaker 1: How could he have a what? I don't know what
Speaker 1: that means? The presence of his physical body before the incarnation? Sure,
Speaker 1: so like what are you talking about?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess it would.
Speaker 21: It's hard, That's what Maybe where I'm trying to understand
Speaker 21: of Like is this a theophany or it's talking about
Speaker 21: like a as far as I understand, like the icon
Speaker 21: of Christ, where it's uh him making Adam Adam has
Speaker 21: the same body as as Christ does.
Speaker 1: Essentially, Yeah, Adam is created after the prototype, after the
Speaker 1: pattern of Christ.
Speaker 21: Right, So I guess in that case, where is it
Speaker 21: Like why would icons not be Okay? Then before the
Speaker 21: incarnation or is it just based on the that the
Speaker 21: incarnation happens.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are any of types of icons prior
Speaker 1: to the incarnation, So I don't know what you mean.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you read the Bible and it describes
Speaker 1: through written texts and sentences theophanies, those are created symbols
Speaker 1: that are referring to theophanies. And the Torah itself is
Speaker 1: a holy book. The Temple had all kinds of images.
Speaker 1: The arc is a kind of a icon.
Speaker 21: Yeah, I guess, I mean specifically of God versus of
Speaker 21: holy things.
Speaker 3: And maybe there's not a good reason.
Speaker 1: To do well. The reason according to like when this
Speaker 1: comes up at the time of the seventh that Cumunical Council,
Speaker 1: the reasoning is that the incarnation hadn't happened yet.
Speaker 21: Yeah, it's so maybe that's where I'm trying to draw
Speaker 21: the distinction of though the incarnation hadn't happened. Maybe this
Speaker 21: is where I'm getting the confusion. Like, so we're saying
Speaker 21: Theophanes before, even though it's the incarnation's the moment of
Speaker 21: those that same body being recognized in the past.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not sure that that is the case, because
Speaker 1: there's not just Theophanes that are quote body. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's Theophanes that are the form of the cloud, the fire.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not just a you know, man like
Speaker 1: image like the wrestling with the Jacob, russels with the Angel.
Speaker 19: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So in other words, we can't say that it's Christ's
Speaker 1: human body back in time or something like that, at
Speaker 1: least not in all of them.
Speaker 21: I've heard from a variety of sources that it's like that.
Speaker 21: The concept is that it is Christ's human body, because
Speaker 21: God exists outside of.
Speaker 8: Time, right.
Speaker 1: So I'm aware of this, and I think Bishop Irena
Speaker 1: has the opinion that you could say that the prototype
Speaker 1: is the deified, out of time, resurrected flesh of Christ.
Speaker 1: I'm aware of all that. But I'm making a different point,
Speaker 1: which is that that's not the only theophany that we
Speaker 1: see in the Old Testament. We see the cloud, we
Speaker 1: see the fire, we see all that kind of stuff
Speaker 1: which is not a body. I mean, it's not a physical,
Speaker 1: not a manlike body. So the theophonies are mysteries. We
Speaker 1: don't know how God does that.
Speaker 3: No, I can understand that.
Speaker 21: It's more just trying to understand how the argumentation then
Speaker 21: goes of of if the glorified body is recognized before
Speaker 21: the incarnation.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not. I don't. I've never I've never argued that.
Speaker 21: Okay, yeah, some so it's some argue. But maybe that's
Speaker 21: not your line.
Speaker 1: That's not my line of reasoning because I don't think
Speaker 1: it's it's intended to solve this question. And if you
Speaker 1: if I bring in cloud and fire, it doesn't solve
Speaker 1: a question.
Speaker 21: So Okay, No, that's helpful, thanks.
Speaker 1: Fair question. And I'm not trying to be dismissive. I
Speaker 1: just I don't. I don't know. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: there's when we get into these mysteries like that, I
Speaker 1: think there's limitations of like what we do and don't
Speaker 1: know you know, Oh my gosh, Okay.
Speaker 3: Hey, j Yeah, how's it going?
Speaker 22: Hey?
Speaker 23: I just want to ask, why do you think the
Speaker 23: Holy Spirit is God?
Speaker 1: Because he's all throughout the Old Testament as a personal being,
Speaker 1: and he's all throughout the New Testament John fourteen, fifteen, sixteen,
Speaker 1: et cetera, and acts and the epistles as a personal being.
Speaker 23: Well, I think that he could be a being that
Speaker 23: I don't think.
Speaker 3: That he's God.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean he's called God, and.
Speaker 3: Where would that be.
Speaker 22: See my position is that Jesus and the Father of God,
Speaker 22: but the Holy Spirit cannot be goped.
Speaker 24: So there's about i'd say one, two, three, four, six, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen,
Speaker 24: eighteen twenty, it's.
Speaker 1: About twenty two three, about twenty five passages throughout the
Speaker 1: Old Testament that refer to him as Yahweh and as God.
Speaker 25: Well, look whatever you and the Roman Catholic teach, I
Speaker 25: don't accept.
Speaker 1: I don't care that. I mean, I just list you
Speaker 1: wanted the passages you want to go through one by
Speaker 1: one or what? Oh he ran away? So there you go,
Speaker 1: Biblical benitarianism. So lunatic heretic who doesn't want to go
Speaker 1: through twenty five passages I have right here in front
Speaker 1: of me that refer to in the Old Testament the
Speaker 1: deity of the Holy Spirit and that he is Yeahweh.
Speaker 1: And so what do you do? He ran And for
Speaker 1: those that would like those passages here, okay, do you're
Speaker 1: right here? Almost all these are Old Testament references. So
Speaker 1: here you go.
Speaker 26: If you want to, you can screenshot that. There is
Speaker 26: at least twenty five references right there too. The full
Speaker 26: deity in personhood of the Holy Spirit. And once you
Speaker 26: have this ready to go, what a heretics do?
Speaker 1: They run? So we're looking tonight. I know a lot
Speaker 1: of you guys want to bring Orthodox questions. I'm looking
Speaker 1: for people who disagree. You know a lot of people
Speaker 1: want to come get their FAQ questions answered. They don't
Speaker 1: want to read the books. They want to be lazy guys.
Speaker 1: Go to the church. Go get catechized in the church.
Speaker 1: I'm not your catechizer. I'm an Internet clown. So don't
Speaker 1: come to me for catechistis find an Orthodox church and
Speaker 1: do that. And now this guy wants to come back,
Speaker 1: so it's a waste of time. You'll notice that none
Speaker 1: of the Protestants showed up. Interesting I message. I'll see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
Speaker 1: eight Protestants today. That's d MS. I'm not I don't
Speaker 1: know a lot about old believers. Man, that's not your
Speaker 1: that's not my I'm sorry, man, it's just not I'm
Speaker 1: not a historian on old believers, and that's not my domain.
Speaker 1: In Schultz, go ahead, I'm you. If we're going keep
Speaker 1: it budget, why won't you debate?
Speaker 8: Budge?
Speaker 1: So I've sent multiple dms to voice of reason. I
Speaker 1: don't know if he just ignores dms, but why does it?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 19: Yeah, go ahead, I'm sorry, Yeah, I have a question.
Speaker 27: I'm I'm currently considering orthodox I want to argue against
Speaker 27: my friends.
Speaker 3: One of my friends has an argument for logic.
Speaker 27: He says that logic just is an abstraction of the
Speaker 27: physical So what is the argument you would use to
Speaker 27: kind of dismantle that?
Speaker 1: And well, that's an assertion, that's an assertion. Just saying
Speaker 1: it just is an abstraction really doesn't tell us anything.
Speaker 1: How does he know that? And what does it mean
Speaker 1: to say that it's an abstract? Does it mean that
Speaker 1: it has an actual ontological status? Does it is an
Speaker 1: invariant over time? Does it change? I mean, like that
Speaker 1: doesn't really tell us anything. That's an assertion, And how
Speaker 1: does that work? Like how do you abstract something from
Speaker 1: molecules that you're saying is somehow an invariant? Imaatey real law?
Speaker 1: Is it law?
Speaker 7: Like?
Speaker 1: How is something law? Like if matter is always in motion?
Speaker 27: Well, I think the argument he would say is that
Speaker 27: there's the laws of physics, except it derives from that,
Speaker 27: Like it's just a.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But saying that it derives from. It is not
Speaker 1: answering what the law is and how does he know
Speaker 1: that it's a law? Is it universal on what basis?
Speaker 1: So you can't when people are doing this kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: and when you're debating with people, you can't let them
Speaker 1: get away with assertions. Everybody wants to debate, and I'm
Speaker 1: an experienced debater. I don't care if you hate me
Speaker 1: or not. Like I am an experienced debater. I've been
Speaker 1: debating since age nineteen and that was I don't know,
Speaker 1: a long time ago. So people in debates they want
Speaker 1: to assert positions and move and blow past it. But
Speaker 1: you got to as a debater, be like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: that's an assertion. You're just saying that it is this
Speaker 1: like you're some sort of dogmatic pronunciation from the papal
Speaker 1: throne of logic or something. What is that mean? How
Speaker 1: do we know that that's the case. What's your justification
Speaker 1: for the desertion? Those are metaphysical claims. Logic just is
Speaker 1: an abstraction from federal called objects. That doesn't tell us
Speaker 1: how you got to that step, what that is, what
Speaker 1: the justification for it is, how it is? It's just
Speaker 1: an assertion, what just happened?
Speaker 3: Nice one?
Speaker 1: Hello, Yeah, man, I'm sorry. I'm not gonna repeat all that.
Speaker 1: You can go back and rewind or something. Not repeating
Speaker 1: all that.
Speaker 22: I love how atheists they just stay there like it's
Speaker 22: just like we all know.
Speaker 19: We all know this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's abundantly clear that this is the case. Even
Speaker 1: though it's like the most highly debated thing ever.
Speaker 28: Its little abundantly clearer. All rational people believe in my position.
Speaker 28: Go ahead, Well, I don't know. I thought there was
Speaker 28: a dude here. Well you're you're free to go ahead
Speaker 28: as well. Well if you want to.
Speaker 1: I'm free, yes, free to do what I wow any
Speaker 1: old time.
Speaker 29: It's just so stupid because like most people see on here,
Speaker 29: they're not even familiar with the literature that like, first
Speaker 29: of all, you can't reduce.
Speaker 3: Suppose you weren't a platonic realist or something like.
Speaker 29: That, where or like like a position like ours that
Speaker 29: they're actually transcendent laws of logic and stuff like let's
Speaker 29: say you're oristitos conceptualist.
Speaker 22: It's still objective and you can't reduce. What's so funny
Speaker 22: is that categorically it just doesn't even make sense.
Speaker 3: Universals are not particulars. So there's no way that you
Speaker 3: can actually.
Speaker 30: Take particulars and make, you know, and reduce it, sorry,
Speaker 30: take abstractions, diversals and just say, well, it's identical to
Speaker 30: the opposite thing that.
Speaker 1: It is exactly. It's just like it's nonsensical just by
Speaker 1: the meaning of the words, right. It's like that Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic guy that was in here saying that created grace
Speaker 1: is uncreated.
Speaker 3: Usurper the creature.
Speaker 1: Yeah, created Grace is a creature, but it's God. So
Speaker 1: there's a created God.
Speaker 3: But by the way, check out.
Speaker 1: E Polamists are polytheists, but there's created God.
Speaker 3: It's a good argument against them.
Speaker 1: Actually, what's up?
Speaker 3: Herry?
Speaker 31: What was up?
Speaker 7: Jay?
Speaker 18: So so generally speaks not for so much a Protestant
Speaker 18: question per se, but I just wanted to ask in terms.
Speaker 32: Of the the the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church,
Speaker 32: if that's something you're into, uh.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, I mean I am somewhat. I'm not a
Speaker 1: liturgical scholar, but I'm interested in Orthodox liturgy right right.
Speaker 18: So it's just so it's just curious. I mean, if
Speaker 18: you won't, well you say you know so much school,
Speaker 18: but I wanted to know about how it's musical tradition
Speaker 18: sort of developed distinctly through the sort of Gregorian Chian system,
Speaker 18: which the.
Speaker 1: Music, Yeah that I don't know much about. You could. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's a guy on here named Pano. Pano is a
Speaker 1: chanter and knows a lot about Orthodox musical history. He
Speaker 1: would know a lot more than me. Joe, God's forgive
Speaker 1: me five dollars. You of low gain on your microphone. Well,
Speaker 1: I'll try to turn it down because the last time
Speaker 1: when we were traveling down here, it got jacked all
Speaker 1: the way up in the last live stream, which was
Speaker 1: a fun live stream, it got all all out of
Speaker 1: whack and it sounded like crap. So I turned it
Speaker 1: way down, but I tried to get it in the
Speaker 1: mid zone. So it doesn't my Does the audio sound
Speaker 1: better tonight? Is it right? Do I need to do
Speaker 1: a little different? Verrilla? The second ten dollars give us
Speaker 1: an impression of a MAGA influencer chick who's like, look
Speaker 1: at my boobies. I love trumpling at my babies. How's that?
Speaker 1: Is that what you wanted? Strange and bizarre at three dollars.
Speaker 1: Don't call them Calvinists, just call them heretics jumble one
Speaker 1: of four dollars. Manifest manifects your dreams. Dog. Hey, if
Speaker 1: you got the one ring, you can manifest your dreams.
Speaker 1: What's up, Joe, you want to talk? I'm you.
Speaker 3: I'm hey Jay. I'm kind of a new listener.
Speaker 33: So I just had a question for you, uh, in
Speaker 33: terms of the Western Right Orthodox Church. I know this
Speaker 33: isn't necessarily a Protestant or versus Catholic debate, but my
Speaker 33: question for you is online the Western Right Church, I
Speaker 33: think it's I wouldn't say demonized, but some people argue
Speaker 33: that it's the bridge between the Catholic Church and the
Speaker 33: fullness of the faith of the Eastern Orthodox Church. So
Speaker 33: do you think the Western Right Church is the fullness
Speaker 33: of the truth or do you think it is a
Speaker 33: temporary bridge for converts.
Speaker 1: It's not a church, it's a right or a liturgical allowance,
Speaker 1: so it's not like a jurisdiction, and it's either under
Speaker 1: roc Or or it's under the Antiochians. And I'm not
Speaker 1: a huge fan of it, not because of the liturgy itself,
Speaker 1: just that so many of the times people want to
Speaker 1: bring in Latin errors and Latin theological mistakes and they
Speaker 1: don't get a good catechisas and it always ends up
Speaker 1: being a problem. And usually when people quote leave Orthodoxy
Speaker 1: for Rome. There are people who get into the Western right,
Speaker 1: so huge fan of it. But that doesn't mean there
Speaker 1: aren't good Western right pritorts and people there are. But
Speaker 1: like father in Saint Louis, the Western right up there
Speaker 1: was good because Father Hirschmier I think is his name,
Speaker 1: he's really good about Catechists. So there are some exceptions,
Speaker 1: but it just seems to constantly be an issue low quality.
Speaker 1: What's up? What is the problem with predestination? Big dirp
Speaker 1: ten dollars? In the Orthodox view, it's not a problem.
Speaker 1: We would see it as something that we would interpret
Speaker 1: through Christology. Go watch my multiple talks on Calvinism.
Speaker 3: Hey, I want to say something real quick. Sure, Uh
Speaker 3: notice it's.
Speaker 29: Not predetermination, it's predestined difference.
Speaker 1: I mean I didn't know those things. I just thought
Speaker 1: they meant the same thing.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, to have a.
Speaker 29: God know your destiny doesn't equate to that you're determined
Speaker 29: in the sense of overriding your free will.
Speaker 3: And so I find it interesting that.
Speaker 29: The word used, the phrase used is predestined, not predetermined,
Speaker 29: because I think determination carries with I don't think it
Speaker 29: has to.
Speaker 1: Oh, I say, we're saying, well, I think a Calvinists
Speaker 1: will just say that.
Speaker 3: Of the ability to do otherwise or something like that.
Speaker 1: Well, Calvinists is going to say that the word predestination
Speaker 1: means predeterminism. So I don't know the etymological history, so
Speaker 1: I don't know how that would be sust out. Mar
Speaker 1: Dario three dollars redeem Zoomor had a tantrum in the discord.
Speaker 1: He called me autistic when I left it, and can orthodoxy. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm about to re upload to X the redeem Zoomer debate,
Speaker 1: so look forward to that later on this evening. What's up, Low, Hey?
Speaker 9: Uh, just a quick question for you. I think this
Speaker 9: is something that you and I would disagree on. I
Speaker 9: don't necessarily see kind of the more pop science origin
Speaker 9: of the world as being conflicting with the creations were
Speaker 9: within the Bible, if you understand the Bible to be
Speaker 9: using more symbolic language and not necessarily like a literal
Speaker 9: six rotations around the sun. I know that this is
Speaker 9: something that people will hit you up on to try
Speaker 9: and you know, make you say something that you know
Speaker 9: pop science people will have soy face reactions to But
Speaker 9: it's the year love. I'm not trying to trip you
Speaker 9: up or anything, But where's the line in the creation
Speaker 9: story in Genesis? Is it something to be taken so literally?
Speaker 9: I mean, it's not really going to make or break
Speaker 9: my faith or anything. But what's why is so much
Speaker 9: weight put into the years or the calendar timeline? Like
Speaker 9: what's what are the stakes to the conversation?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 19: Am I missing something?
Speaker 1: So the seven day, the day, the week cycle that
Speaker 1: we have, where do you think that comes from?
Speaker 9: I mean, ultimately it was made up by by somebody.
Speaker 9: I know, there's been several calendar reforms. It's it's kind
Speaker 9: of a just a human interpretation of movements based on
Speaker 9: you know, crops, based on tradition, based on long.
Speaker 1: Way saying, do you think the seven day week is
Speaker 1: based on crops?
Speaker 9: I mean calendars were used by different cultures to notate
Speaker 9: different things.
Speaker 1: Well in the ancient world. In the ancient world, when
Speaker 1: the Hebrews talked about a seven day calendar, what what's
Speaker 1: it based on?
Speaker 19: I don't know.
Speaker 3: What's the Sabbath, the seventh day of rest?
Speaker 1: Where where does that? Where does that.
Speaker 19: Come from Yeah, the scriptures.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that's what I'm saying, is like, if the
Speaker 1: seven day week that we have is a seven days,
Speaker 1: why wouldn't we think that what's mentioned in Genesis is
Speaker 1: intended to be seven days?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 9: Because it doesn't seem to be lining up with what
Speaker 9: is being.
Speaker 19: Found out? I mean, I.
Speaker 1: Guess by who? What do you mean found out? Like
Speaker 1: I just so, there's a paper out today that the
Speaker 1: universe isn't real? Is that was that? The soayance man
Speaker 1: that you're following. You're laughing, but that's literally what Forbes said.
Speaker 19: No, it's and I get your point. You know, people.
Speaker 9: Worship science, but it's a pro Thats not a not
Speaker 9: a knowledge claim.
Speaker 1: Oh really, okay, how do you know? It's a process, it's.
Speaker 19: A hypothesis, it's Is.
Speaker 1: That not a knowledge claim? Wait a minute? Is that
Speaker 1: not a knowledge claim?
Speaker 19: No, it's suggesting.
Speaker 1: Whoa wait a minute, So you made a big mistake.
Speaker 1: You don't see that.
Speaker 19: I mean, I'm I'm not.
Speaker 7: I don't.
Speaker 1: Science is a process. That's not a knowledge claim.
Speaker 19: I mean, I'm taking.
Speaker 9: The air out of the validity of using science quote
Speaker 9: unquote as a foundation for much of anything. Which I
Speaker 9: suppose is kind of, you know, contradicting.
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, well, I mean again, I think
Speaker 1: it's a question of where we put priorities and what
Speaker 1: we think is certain and what we think is less certain.
Speaker 1: So for me, and this is probably where I'm out
Speaker 1: of a stet with most people in the modern world,
Speaker 1: I don't put the syance world very high on my
Speaker 1: category of authorities because I've watched it for many years,
Speaker 1: and I've been in academia, and I see how driven
Speaker 1: it is by fads, how many false papers there are,
Speaker 1: how much peer review research is bullshit. So I'm not
Speaker 1: saying at all is but a large large portion of
Speaker 1: it is. So I don't put much stock in that.
Speaker 1: And I'm a skeptic when it comes to most of
Speaker 1: those things. So whenever I hear people positing these kinds
Speaker 1: of positions, I'm always open to hearing it. I went
Speaker 1: through college and grad school endlessly hearing all the Darwinian dogmas,
Speaker 1: and I was debating my professors publicly on this topic
Speaker 1: back in my freshman or some my sophomore year. I
Speaker 1: debated my philosophy science professor at Philosophy Club publicly on
Speaker 1: the question of the epistemic basis for the scientific method
Speaker 1: when I was a sophomore. So I'm not bragging, but
Speaker 1: I'm saying, like I've thought about this a lot, and
Speaker 1: I'm not saying there's not some smart suoyance man that
Speaker 1: could come in and give me a good basis for
Speaker 1: a pistemology. But what I've already heard from what you're
Speaker 1: positing is a fundamental contradiction in the claims. So to me,
Speaker 1: I don't understand why I would even listen to the
Speaker 1: rest of what you're saying. In terms of argumentation. I
Speaker 1: don't mean it against you personally, but in terms of
Speaker 1: the argumentation, you said that you're not making knowledge claims,
Speaker 1: and then you said, but before that you said science progresses.
Speaker 1: I forget how you worded it. That's a knowledge claim.
Speaker 1: So it's like, have you do you know anything about
Speaker 1: epistemology at all?
Speaker 19: Yeah, the basics.
Speaker 9: I mean, I'm not going to pretend to be I
Speaker 9: did study philosophy.
Speaker 19: I was an economics guy, so it's.
Speaker 9: A different school than what I was putting time and
Speaker 9: energy into in Fairness Solved. I'll happily admit that I've
Speaker 9: got a lot.
Speaker 19: More to learn on it. However, I guess the question kind.
Speaker 9: Of boils down to whenever it comes to scripture and
Speaker 9: whenever it comes to divine revelation, what is the delineation
Speaker 9: for a literal interpretation for an exacting rather than something
Speaker 9: that can be interpreted more loosely, or perhaps you know,
Speaker 9: isn't revealed in such a black and white one.
Speaker 19: And zero way.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I never said that it's a
Speaker 1: black and white fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
Speaker 1: I didn't say anything about anything like that. I just
Speaker 1: simply pointed out problem in the pistemology. But the strictures
Speaker 1: would be the mind of the church over time. So,
Speaker 1: for example, the six Secumentical Council points out that you
Speaker 1: can't say that there's death before the fall, and you're
Speaker 1: positing a position that would require AONs millions of years
Speaker 1: of death before we even get the existence of Adam,
Speaker 1: and even in fact, aon's of death is what produces
Speaker 1: Adam and Eve. To me, that seems preposterous just on
Speaker 1: the basis of Romans eight, because Romans eight makes it
Speaker 1: clear that Adam's fall is what introduced all forms of death,
Speaker 1: whether physical, spiritual, whatever. So I mean, you're free to
Speaker 1: disagree with Christianity, but if we're going to be honest
Speaker 1: about Roman's eight and the six Secum Medical Council, then
Speaker 1: it's not It doesn't make sense for a Christian to
Speaker 1: hold to theistic evolution all this stuff. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: many that do, and I understand we're all kind of
Speaker 1: brought up in this idea and it's the air that
Speaker 1: we breathe. But I approach it as a skeptic and
Speaker 1: from a philosophical perspective, I don't understand what the argument
Speaker 1: is that's supposed to convince me of this, and I've
Speaker 1: been hearing it since I was eighteen in college. Feel
Speaker 1: free to present some new argument that addresses my philosophical
Speaker 1: concerns with the system. Because most people who argue in
Speaker 1: this way, I'm not talking about you specifically, but they
Speaker 1: take the approach that you do. They take empirical scientific
Speaker 1: data as a kind of a given and the most
Speaker 1: certain type of knowledge. Now maybe you don't, but most
Speaker 1: people operate that way, and they never do good in
Speaker 1: debates because they've never thought about the philosophy of these things.
Speaker 1: They don't think about what does the scientific method assume
Speaker 1: for it? To be possible. And that's what philosophy does
Speaker 1: that it gets us to ask these more fundamental questions
Speaker 1: about our assumptions. And so when I start doing that,
Speaker 1: that's usually where people duck out because people in the
Speaker 1: sayance realm, people in the domain of scientism, they're just
Speaker 1: not taught any of this. They don't know anything about
Speaker 1: these things unless they happen to take a philosophy of
Speaker 1: science class, which is very few of them.
Speaker 19: Yeah, no, I think you're right.
Speaker 9: I think a lot of people are trying to appeal
Speaker 9: to the system that at a really fundamental level directly
Speaker 9: contradicts the system that's being taught at the university, at
Speaker 9: the you know, academic you know.
Speaker 1: But I would argue that those people contradict themselves too,
Speaker 1: So I don't understand. I mean, the academic establishment now
Speaker 1: says that men are women and can be women.
Speaker 9: Well that's and that's why, you know, I started off
Speaker 9: by saying that science, quote unquote is better understood as
Speaker 9: a process. I think a lot of people fall into
Speaker 9: the trap of, you know, anytime a white paper is published,
Speaker 9: they say, oh, my god, like capital t truth in
Speaker 9: my hands, black and white.
Speaker 3: Here it is.
Speaker 9: But that's clearly not the case, because give it six
Speaker 9: months and some other white paper will totally.
Speaker 19: You know, fundamentally change the world.
Speaker 3: Men.
Speaker 19: But I don't want to take your whole night. I
Speaker 19: really appreciate your time, man a lot to think.
Speaker 1: Well, I even I even I could even agree to
Speaker 1: you that. Yeah, in a mundane sense. Sciences, you know, theorization,
Speaker 1: it's theory. It's a progressing in a in a very
Speaker 1: strict niche way. And that's precisely why science and scientific
Speaker 1: discoveries by the very nature cannot tell you grand narratives.
Speaker 1: So how is it like, if I'm studying this rock
Speaker 1: without the assumptions of AONs of time, it's not going
Speaker 1: to get me to the gigantic metaphysical leap of AONs
Speaker 1: of time to produce the raw.
Speaker 9: Yeah, And I think that's why a lot of people are,
Speaker 9: you know, they can't get down.
Speaker 19: To that root level of cause you know.
Speaker 9: They're still unanswered questions, and you know they'll have a
Speaker 9: panic attack when you're like, Okay, how did this thing
Speaker 9: that cannot have a beginning?
Speaker 19: You know, how did it come to be?
Speaker 9: And if science can't prove it, there's no answer, and
Speaker 9: that just you know, you'll you'll see them squirm, you'll
Speaker 9: hear them just get really uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: But well, why should I mean if I begin with
Speaker 1: the position of the scientific method, how do I know
Speaker 1: the scientific can the scientific method tell me the scientific
Speaker 1: method is true?
Speaker 3: It's not. No, it's true.
Speaker 19: It's not self justifying.
Speaker 15: What you can do say, well, it's it is, you know,
Speaker 15: it just it just.
Speaker 19: Works, you know.
Speaker 15: There's yeah, you telling me, but there's I think that
Speaker 15: it's you know, it's good for recording observations, and it's
Speaker 15: it's good.
Speaker 19: It has a purpose.
Speaker 9: I'm not going to say, you know, throw out observation
Speaker 9: and questioning totally out the window as its place. But
Speaker 9: it can't find it can't.
Speaker 19: It's got linen.
Speaker 5: Sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a tool for understanding the natural world.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 1: And it does really well for you know, engineering and
Speaker 1: inventing things and figuring out patterns, you know, for you know,
Speaker 1: but it's not going to tell you what the monkey
Speaker 1: was telling the snake eleven million years ago in the tree.
Speaker 34: Connor, Yes, sir, Hey, how's it going.
Speaker 3: I was reading some story the other day and he.
Speaker 31: Made a statement of God is a tool we've created.
Speaker 3: But out room and in that I kind of saw two.
Speaker 31: Preconceptions maybe like we were touching on it earlier, of
Speaker 31: like God, you know, not being created, and of course
Speaker 31: kind of being good. And I feel like if you
Speaker 31: make both of those mistakes, you're usually falling in the
Speaker 31: atheist camp, and if you make one or the other,
Speaker 31: you're falling in a maybe Jordan Peterson style like Bostic
Speaker 31: camp or a Gnostic you know, God exists.
Speaker 3: But nondod Just wondering how you approach that.
Speaker 31: If you approach the God's you know, God being not created,
Speaker 31: that God is the creator, or if you'd approach that
Speaker 31: God is good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you can approach it either way and
Speaker 1: just ask for the justification for the possibility of speaking
Speaker 1: and in those ways at all? What is a meaningful
Speaker 1: phrase when you call something the good? At all? What
Speaker 1: is the good? And the great thing about bringing up
Speaker 1: something like the good is that it immediately gets you
Speaker 1: in the domain of both ethics and metaphysics at once,
Speaker 1: because it's pretty clearly something that's both. It relates to
Speaker 1: both areas the good as a moral ethical element, where
Speaker 1: we contrast it with the lesser or the bad. There's
Speaker 1: an assumption that we should prefer or we ought to
Speaker 1: prefer the good versus but not good. And it also
Speaker 1: relates to metaphysics, do you know in some sense talk
Speaker 1: about being? What is the good? Where is the good?
Speaker 1: How do we know the good? This kind of stuff
Speaker 1: that so it also touches on epistemology. So the good
Speaker 1: is a great thing to bring up with any of
Speaker 1: these people who oftentimes make value judgments and talk as if, well,
Speaker 1: we all have you know, the idea about the good.
Speaker 1: But there's no metaphysics, there's no God, there's no ethics,
Speaker 1: there's no you know, it's just a really quickly I
Speaker 1: would say, a collapsing position if you really drill into it.
Speaker 1: Connor Rachel Wilson fifty dollars. You're cracking me up today.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Rachel. Appreciate that big fat super chat. I
Speaker 1: think she left the chat, but appreciate you being so
Speaker 1: generous tonight, meet Mento's morey three dollars trick question Yakoub
Speaker 1: is a rabbi? Oh just blew my mind. Well, Emmanuel
Speaker 1: five dollars unblock. Does he want a debate? Jason? I
Speaker 1: don't know who that is, but you know what, I
Speaker 1: appreciate your five dollars superchat. But tonight's track record of
Speaker 1: me unblocking the people that I had blocked is not
Speaker 1: a very good track record. I'm gonna stick with my
Speaker 1: intuitive sense that I was right to block whoever you're
Speaker 1: talking about. Honeybee double on hundre one hundred dollars, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Always a big fat champion super chatter
Speaker 1: with those big fat superchats to Connor, what's up, hey?
Speaker 22: Ja?
Speaker 33: Come from a Protestant background to a lot of evidentialism
Speaker 33: and running into issues with people.
Speaker 10: I talked to, and I really get the pushback of
Speaker 10: the brute fact objection.
Speaker 3: How do you counter that with the transmental lookument.
Speaker 1: Well, roote fact doesn't, in my mind, constitute an objection,
Speaker 1: It constitutes an assertion. So just simply saying that there
Speaker 1: are brute facts number one doesn't solve the criteria problem,
Speaker 1: and it kind of begs the question because like, well,
Speaker 1: how do we know that's a brute fact versus all
Speaker 1: the things that are supposedly not brute facts. So that's
Speaker 1: another element of a standard or criterion. It would need
Speaker 1: to suss out the brute facts from the non brute facts.
Speaker 1: So either criteria problem or sussing out the brute facts
Speaker 1: from the non brute facts. What I would think would
Speaker 1: be enough to refute the silly idea that there's quote
Speaker 1: brute facts.
Speaker 3: Oh yes, I'm basically ask you, how do you determine
Speaker 3: what is a brute factor? What do you require more
Speaker 3: justification for?
Speaker 1: So, again, the criterion problem would be that in order
Speaker 1: for me to have a knowledge claim, I need a
Speaker 1: theory of knowledge. And if I have a theory of knowledge,
Speaker 1: that also is a knowledge claim. So it's kind of
Speaker 1: a box that people that have this sort of found
Speaker 1: date classical found national self evidence ye view, can never
Speaker 1: get out of. It's a trap that they can't solve.
Speaker 1: And usually when they try to solve it, they just
Speaker 1: ignore the problem and restate something about something just being
Speaker 1: the case. Why are we supposed to just assume that
Speaker 1: your assertion or your dogmatic pronouncement of these things being
Speaker 1: the case is the case? How do we know that?
Speaker 1: Why ought we believe that? So I don't think they
Speaker 1: can ever really give a clear answer as to the
Speaker 1: epistemic grounds for believing in that as a brute fact.
Speaker 1: And then another element of that problem is to say, well,
Speaker 1: to call this thing a brute fact assumes that there's
Speaker 1: some class of things that are brute facts versus the
Speaker 1: things that are not brute facts. And on what basis?
Speaker 1: And how do you know what the brute facts are?
Speaker 1: It's very ad hoc, you see, and you need another
Speaker 1: standard to say, oh, here's the ten things that are
Speaker 1: the brute fact. Okay, what's the basis? What's the standard
Speaker 1: the presupposition that tells you the ten brute facts versus
Speaker 1: all the non brute facts.
Speaker 3: And then it's John's.
Speaker 30: And if you appeal to if you have a criterion
Speaker 30: that has to explain the brute fat, then they're not
Speaker 30: brute facts exactly.
Speaker 3: Is one of the problems.
Speaker 23: I guess that people I speak to are a little
Speaker 23: bit less sophisticated, and.
Speaker 3: Argument really comes down to from them.
Speaker 10: It's not really even an argument, but what they say
Speaker 10: is essentially things are generally as they appear to be
Speaker 10: until otherwise.
Speaker 1: That's again, that's that's exactly.
Speaker 30: So that's what we're asking is they have a criterion,
Speaker 30: But what's their justification for their justification criterion? Well, it's
Speaker 30: just because I made it up. Yeah, it just is
Speaker 30: I made it up.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'll have to think about that, thank you.
Speaker 30: I just think about saying the opposite. Well, actually it's
Speaker 30: the opposite. Well how do you know that, Well, the
Speaker 30: same way that you do. If you're allowed to make
Speaker 30: up is a criterion, then I can take the opposite
Speaker 30: of your position to say the same thing.
Speaker 3: Thank you, guys, appreciated.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. You notice a lot of what goes on in
Speaker 1: philosophy is a lot of just so, well it's just.
Speaker 3: So exactly in word games semantic. What if I made
Speaker 3: up another word exactly?
Speaker 30: And like I was reading like some guy's critique of me,
Speaker 30: and he was he said, well, it's not circular to
Speaker 30: appeal to your cognitive faculties, you know, if you're wondering
Speaker 30: if your cognitive faculties work, because we have a name
Speaker 30: for them philosophy. It's called faculty circularity. And I see
Speaker 30: that's allowed.
Speaker 35: Like, oh, okay, thanks, thanks really, I didn't know that
Speaker 35: you thanks for making.
Speaker 1: Up a word problem, James.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a ja, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 36: So I am a Catholic labs Catholic, and I've been
Speaker 36: looking into Orthodoxy, so that's kind of.
Speaker 3: Hang on that I'm coming from.
Speaker 36: I try I hold you to kind of highest standard
Speaker 36: as far as consistency goes and so I was curious
Speaker 36: about watching you kind of completely smash this Muslim cleric
Speaker 36: and debate.
Speaker 3: At one point you asked him, it's an hour in.
Speaker 36: To be fair, I don't know if you'll be able
Speaker 36: to recall this specifically, but to make the argument that
Speaker 36: his line of reasoning relies on asserting that God has changed.
Speaker 36: At some point, you ask him, does creation come about
Speaker 36: because God willed it at.
Speaker 3: A certain point?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're talking about Shabiro, I mean Azra Rashid. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I remember those.
Speaker 36: Yeah, And I don't feel like he made a good
Speaker 36: showing in general. But like, just if I were arguing
Speaker 36: with you for arguing sake, I might say something like, well,
Speaker 36: creation includes time. Time is a prerequisite to change. Therefore, God,
Speaker 36: being uncreated, acts eternally and is unchanged.
Speaker 3: I just wondering how you would refute that.
Speaker 1: Well, the act in question was that he was supposedly perfect. Well,
Speaker 1: let's go back to what I was trying to argue
Speaker 1: in that debate. So Islam relies a lot on this
Speaker 1: idea of Allah's perfections, and so Allah possesses all supreme
Speaker 1: perfections in himself as he is. And my argument was that, well,
Speaker 1: if he's perfectly eternally perfect, and then he wills to
Speaker 1: do something different that he wasn't willing, such as creating.
Speaker 1: And it doesn't matter if you say, okay, yeah, he
Speaker 1: creates time. That's a difference, right, because there was a
Speaker 1: Allah without creation and others Allah with creation. So now
Speaker 1: Allah has actualized attributes that he didn't previously actualize, such
Speaker 1: as being providential or exercising interaction with the world or whatever,
Speaker 1: or revealing the Quran to Gabriel. Right. And you'll notice
Speaker 1: in Islam they oftentimes go back and forth on this
Speaker 1: problem when you bring it up, because you can see
Speaker 1: this and the reflected in the debate over whether the
Speaker 1: Quran is the eternal speech and thus an eternal Quran
Speaker 1: that then the created one is a copy of, or
Speaker 1: whether there's just a eternal Allah and then a created Quran.
Speaker 1: Most Muslims hold that the Quran is also, alongside Allah,
Speaker 1: an eternal thing. But now we're getting into multiple eternals,
Speaker 1: multiple which would be polytheism, right. So I was doing
Speaker 1: a different route of argumentation with him, where I was
Speaker 1: saying that if Allah is perfect from all eternity and
Speaker 1: holds all the perfections, and he's also creator, but then
Speaker 1: he creates at a point where he wasn't previously creator,
Speaker 1: Then that's some kind of change because Allah would no
Speaker 1: longer be all would have exercise attributes that he had
Speaker 1: not exercised previously to that.
Speaker 3: Okay, So the.
Speaker 36: Sticking point for them, for the Muslim position is that
Speaker 36: is this kind of line in the sand in terms
Speaker 36: of God being perfect and having always been perfect, in
Speaker 36: change being an implication of some point at which he
Speaker 36: was imperfect.
Speaker 1: If there's change, it would imply imperfection. Yes, So but
Speaker 1: my argument was, well, did he go from being a creator?
Speaker 1: Did he go from not from not creating to creating?
Speaker 1: And how would that not be some change? Yeah?
Speaker 36: Yeah, just curious what I'm still trying to grasp all
Speaker 36: the presupp musicians that underpin all this in the first place.
Speaker 3: But what why is that not a conflict for us?
Speaker 36: And I've got another question about what's not a conflict
Speaker 36: for us that is a conflict for them.
Speaker 1: Well, we believe in the essen center distinction. They don't
Speaker 1: believe in the essence sentator distinction. So we have multiple
Speaker 1: distinctions in God that they do not agree to. Okay,
Speaker 1: So no, we have a much more elaborate sort ofitarian metaphysic.
Speaker 1: Islam is not very elaborate in their metaphysics except.
Speaker 3: For its beautiful simplicity.
Speaker 1: Right right, well supposedly, but then when you get into
Speaker 1: the attributes, they do get pretty crazy with trying to
Speaker 1: figure out and debate the attributes.
Speaker 3: But yeah, that's that's that was pretty funny. The foot
Speaker 3: that's not a foot.
Speaker 1: Well, what I'm saying though about yeah, specifically the act
Speaker 1: of creation is that I was getting them to undertrying
Speaker 1: to get them understand like, well, if Allah's action of
Speaker 1: creating is eternal, then the effect would also be eternal.
Speaker 1: You see, So there would be an eternal world, and
Speaker 1: some of the Muslims, like I would assume Khalil holds
Speaker 1: his position like he's in neoplatonists, and so he probably
Speaker 1: wouldn't have a problem with that. Yeah, there's external worlds.
Speaker 1: Allah has always generated worlds over which he's lore or something.
Speaker 1: He's the lord of the world. So but that would
Speaker 1: mean that, oh so there's these all these other eternal
Speaker 1: things alongside a law that are not a lot. So
Speaker 1: you're apologeist.
Speaker 3: Okay, gotcha, gotcha.
Speaker 36: At another point that debate, you said that you replied
Speaker 36: something to him, like my model. He did it to
Speaker 36: coke fallacy. He said, my model allows for circularity. That
Speaker 36: came as kind of a surprise to me. I was
Speaker 36: just wondering, is there a point is there in any
Speaker 36: juncture where our model relies on circularity.
Speaker 1: Well, I believe that all authority claims or worldview claims,
Speaker 1: at a certain level, they bought them out and they
Speaker 1: rely on some form of recursion or self referencing. So
Speaker 1: what I meant by circularity was not the fallacy of
Speaker 1: circular reasoning, but that every position at some point becomes
Speaker 1: self referencing. That's all I meant. And that's a part
Speaker 1: of the point of presubpositional transcendal augmentation, is that if
Speaker 1: there's not something that's self evident or just is, or
Speaker 1: that everything is theory lighted, and if everything is stery lighted,
Speaker 1: and then at a certain point you're going to reach
Speaker 1: the ultimate authority in your worldview. For us, it would
Speaker 1: be God, to which there could be no other thing
Speaker 1: to appeal to. So, in other words, at that point
Speaker 1: in our worldview, it's not the fallacy of authority if
Speaker 1: God exists, because he's the ultimate funnel authority.
Speaker 3: Gotcha? Okay? Jae, that's all I had. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great questions. I'm glad that somebody was going back
Speaker 1: through that. The one of the other problems with that
Speaker 1: debate with Osbar Rashid is that a lot of the
Speaker 1: Muslims a lot of the metaphysical, theological, philosophical terms that
Speaker 1: we use, and they don't translate into their system and so,
Speaker 1: for example, they don't really have, as far as I'm aware,
Speaker 1: like an actus purest conception of God or Allah's essence.
Speaker 1: They would say He's perfect and so all that possesses
Speaker 1: all the perfections. But I was trying to relay that
Speaker 1: idea of the fact that if He's willing something now
Speaker 1: that he didn't previously will, if Allah is his will
Speaker 1: and so forth, then that would be a change in him.
Speaker 1: And it was difficult to convey that because I only
Speaker 1: had the toolkit of working with all his perfections but
Speaker 1: not the notion of act as puris, And so I
Speaker 1: was trying to translate a modal collapse argument into Islam.
Speaker 1: And it kind of worked because he was kind of
Speaker 1: saying at one point that well, he's eternally the creator,
Speaker 1: but he creates in time. And my point was yeah,
Speaker 1: I get that. I know you believe that. But if
Speaker 1: the action of creating is an eternal action, then it
Speaker 1: seems to follow that the effect of that action would
Speaker 1: also be eternal, namely a world. So if there's a
Speaker 1: doing of something new, then that would suggest a change
Speaker 1: in a law according to their perfections model. That's what
Speaker 1: I was.
Speaker 36: Trying to which would make that world uncreated, which would
Speaker 36: make that world.
Speaker 1: God, yeah, we be polytheism. It would refute their position.
Speaker 3: Yeah, gotcha, thank you.
Speaker 1: But I don't know that I conveyed that argument to him,
Speaker 1: because he doesn't. He didn't seem to have many of
Speaker 1: those same philosophical kind of ideas. Ethics. You gotta unmute ethics.
Speaker 1: I want to thank you guys for being so degenerate, generous,
Speaker 1: not degenerous. So many degenerous men. Tonight and ladies, Allula
Speaker 1: five dollars day, happy, happy lou Yer say this in
Speaker 1: a Boston accent. I look forward to telling you, the
Speaker 1: pumpous liberals that not one of the heroes can beat
Speaker 1: you in a debate. You're my favorite philosophy gladiator. No homo,
Speaker 1: that was a dude. I thought I was a girl.
Speaker 1: My bad Alula I just got homo with you. Michael
Speaker 1: generon five dollars greens from the gener Repelic Do you
Speaker 1: consider promoting Holy Trinity Monastery? Everything I've seen coming out
Speaker 1: of Jordanville is good, looks like going there for Somemary
Speaker 1: eventually teaching there, Like, oh, you're asking me, No, I
Speaker 1: don't think I would be fit to be a any
Speaker 1: kind of a professor or anything like that. I'm a
Speaker 1: comedian man, jmil thirty dollars. You have thoughts about the
Speaker 1: validity of famous Catholic priests when they talk about exorcisms
Speaker 1: on all these podcasts, I mean, it's entirely possible.
Speaker 5: I don't.
Speaker 1: I can't say, But I also know that even if
Speaker 1: the exorcisms are authentic and happening and helping people, that's
Speaker 1: because of the name of Christ. It's in spite of papism,
Speaker 1: not because of papism. Radical.
Speaker 29: Yeah, professors and comedians are one of the same.
Speaker 1: So well, I think of you as a very funny person,
Speaker 1: So yes, you're you're a comedian to me, You're a
Speaker 1: comedian in my heart. Real Cali Prepper three dollars. Can
Speaker 1: the church air in a canon? Canon is of a
Speaker 1: saint I mean, there might be some localized mistake, but
Speaker 1: I think over time the mind of the church would
Speaker 1: know and wouldn't ultimately universally err in that way or
Speaker 1: the dox. These canonizations are typically local or not, Like
Speaker 1: we don't have the ghostbusters in Rome that do all
Speaker 1: this la gear. What's up man?
Speaker 4: The gear?
Speaker 1: Ethics?
Speaker 3: Do you take it that God has propositional knowledge? Yes
Speaker 3: or no?
Speaker 1: Not in a creature really sense?
Speaker 3: Sorry, should just be clear. Do you take it that
Speaker 3: in order for God to know, XS be acquainted with
Speaker 3: the proositional content.
Speaker 1: That as God's I don't think we should think, as
Speaker 1: doctor Branson says, that God's knowledge is anything like our knowledge.
Speaker 3: So it's not going to be the case that God
Speaker 3: has proposition knowledge. Breck.
Speaker 1: We just may not understand how he has knowledge. What's
Speaker 1: your point, what's your argument? I'm not gonna know. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna agree, So you're not going to get an argument.
Speaker 1: You just want to get on here to get First
Speaker 1: of all, I don't accept the premise that it's a
Speaker 1: yes or no because that involves a lot of metaphysical
Speaker 1: theological issues. So you're poisoning the well from the outset
Speaker 1: to force me into trying to argue as if it's
Speaker 1: a yes or no, either or question, and I might
Speaker 1: reject that from the outset, And the fact that you
Speaker 1: just yap and you're not going to make an actual
Speaker 1: argument is a waste server that's time.
Speaker 3: What isn't that already giving you like a false economy?
Speaker 1: From his own point, most likely it's just a but.
Speaker 30: You're just added Mesburg energy to and you can transform
Speaker 30: to any fallacy into a legitimate argument.
Speaker 22: Yeah, but I didn't even understand what he said. He
Speaker 22: said it like so spurring, and he didn't even make sense.
Speaker 1: What's on that? What's on your mouth?
Speaker 22: Look, first of all, thank you for bringing me on here,
Speaker 22: But I wanted to just like ask a little bit
Speaker 22: of questions about several quotes that I have here.
Speaker 3: It's from some type of transcript that.
Speaker 22: I got from debate that you know, you know who
Speaker 22: made by Jim bob Is.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 22: Yeah, So there was this you know, how fucking stupid
Speaker 22: TikTok gets right, and how idiotic the philosophers right there are.
Speaker 22: So there was this guy who really had a horrible
Speaker 22: type of position. Because I'm just going to tell you
Speaker 22: right now, what's his main arguments?
Speaker 3: So the guy didn't believe in absolute truth.
Speaker 22: He was a subjectivist of logic, and he didn't actually
Speaker 22: have any type of view of truth. He said that
Speaker 22: he had a deflationist view of truth. What do you
Speaker 22: think about that.
Speaker 1: Deflationist? I have no idea what that means.
Speaker 22: Some type of manner that it classifies logic as no, No,
Speaker 22: it classifies truth as being contextually within linguistic manners or
Speaker 22: something like that. I don't know, something like it's based
Speaker 22: on the context of a linguistic discussion.
Speaker 3: So let's say that as the.
Speaker 22: Snow is white, and that makes it truth for a
Speaker 22: main context or or something.
Speaker 3: I guess it's very stupid.
Speaker 1: Well, I would just ask, how do we know that
Speaker 1: the break the first premise is true, that all truth
Speaker 1: is reduced to some form of linguistic discussion.
Speaker 22: Yeah, I mean the other thing is that. So just
Speaker 22: to tell you the level of stupidity this guy, thus
Speaker 22: made by Jimbub made an excellent question to this guy,
Speaker 22: which is.
Speaker 3: To the night the law of identity.
Speaker 22: You need to use the law of identity to prove that.
Speaker 3: And it's just like a very much a what's the
Speaker 3: name of this fallacy?
Speaker 22: It's a I don't exactly remember the name of the fallacy,
Speaker 22: but it's show how inconsistent the position is.
Speaker 3: Because to deny logic you need to use logic, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just called reetortion in Aristotle.
Speaker 22: Yeah, so this this guy's literally made up presupposition and
Speaker 22: then beg the question because he then responded that you
Speaker 22: can you can deny the law of non contradiction because
Speaker 22: you're a.
Speaker 3: Because you could be a subjectivist about logic. You see
Speaker 3: how stupid that is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's I mean, that sounds like the
Speaker 1: standard TikTok sphere for sure. I don't. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: no subjectivist to count for logic that would be coherent.
Speaker 3: Noelan Hello, Yeah, Hey, what's going on, Jay?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 10: So?
Speaker 35: I have a Russian buddy of mine who was talking
Speaker 35: to me about some Russian Orthodox priests having multiple wives.
Speaker 35: I was curious on what your take is on what
Speaker 35: the Orthodox of you is on poligion.
Speaker 1: I've never heard of that. I mean, I know I'm
Speaker 1: saying it's not possible, but no, I don't think that's
Speaker 1: There's a lot of people who in the Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: operate non canonically. Probably I would say a lot but
Speaker 1: I'm saying the history of the church. I'm sure there
Speaker 1: have been many priests bishops who have you know, not
Speaker 1: lived according to their calling. So but I've never heard
Speaker 1: of any Orthodox arguing for polygamy. Luke, thank you guys
Speaker 1: for the super chest and I MKG ten dollars. Most
Speaker 1: of the ex Muslims that our Iranians want some kind
Speaker 1: of Jesus without the rules. Many of them convert because
Speaker 1: they hate Islam. It's very common they think Christianity is
Speaker 1: an American non denominational religion that they see in Hollywood movies.
Speaker 1: I mean, unfortunately that's probably true. So that guy was
Speaker 1: I I just I'm in the Year of Love. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to learn to exit situations that are gonna be
Speaker 1: not going anywhere. Luke, what's up, hey, j what's on
Speaker 1: your mind?
Speaker 17: Well, I'm gonna sure if you've spoken to like crazy
Speaker 17: Baptists like me.
Speaker 3: But I'm one of those of beliefs that the Baptists
Speaker 3: like trace their origins back to the First Church.
Speaker 17: And honestly, there's like so many topics who you probably
Speaker 17: talk about.
Speaker 3: I don't even really know where to start.
Speaker 1: But why would you want to trace your origin through
Speaker 1: people like the all Virginsians and people that are heretics
Speaker 1: and were anti trinitarian. That's crazy.
Speaker 17: Don't necessarily chase my origins through them.
Speaker 1: So like, well, hold on, are you are you trailed blood?
Speaker 19: Think?
Speaker 3: Well, I think like even as you said.
Speaker 1: Are you trail of blood?
Speaker 17: Not like like in the perfection of that book, like
Speaker 17: not like saying that that book is perfect and it
Speaker 17: has all historical accounts accurately. But I mean it's you
Speaker 17: you can like basically you know, look at books like that,
Speaker 17: just like I'm sure like there's orthodox historical books that
Speaker 17: have airs.
Speaker 1: In them that you know need to be Okay, So
Speaker 1: it's all of the people in church history and the
Speaker 1: Trail of Blood that are not anti trinitarian that you follow. Like, so,
Speaker 1: who are the Baptists in those centuries when the Trail
Speaker 1: of Blood cites the anti Trinitarians?
Speaker 17: Well, I think like just I mean, I mean the
Speaker 17: argument I think that the Trailer Blood makes it it
Speaker 17: does have a degree of accuracy, is that is that
Speaker 17: those those that did believe the truths were slaughtered there.
Speaker 1: Okay, so name the Baptists in those centuries.
Speaker 17: Well, the way that I look at it is kind
Speaker 17: of like a representative type group. So like one one.
Speaker 17: I guess you could say powerful argument and I'd like
Speaker 17: to hear what you thought, so are on it is
Speaker 17: that like the Waldensis Uh.
Speaker 3: Basically when they came out of the out of hiding.
Speaker 17: So to speak, uh, in the Reformation period, they they
Speaker 17: they declared like just straight up like we we we
Speaker 17: were the original, we were founded by the apostles, like
Speaker 17: we we did not start with Peter Waldo.
Speaker 1: And you believe that there were Waldensians in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth,
Speaker 1: seventh century.
Speaker 17: The it's it's a possibility that the Vaudois in the
Speaker 17: in the house of Italy, uh, that that they did
Speaker 17: actually trace the roots by that time.
Speaker 1: Okay, and give me some examples of Waldensians in the
Speaker 1: first seven centuries. I don't have anything because it doesn't exist.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I guess.
Speaker 1: Meta.
Speaker 3: Hello, yep, hey, so that was pretty abrupt. I just
Speaker 3: have a quick question. So I heard this from an atheist,
Speaker 3: and I honestly didn't really know how to answer it.
Speaker 25: So essentially what he told me was that he agrees
Speaker 25: with Christianity's metaphysical claims to a certain extent, but he
Speaker 25: wants to separate the derivatives of it from the divinity
Speaker 25: of Christ.
Speaker 3: Is that possible?
Speaker 1: I think that's a unique, honest Muslim situation, I mean
Speaker 1: atheist situation, like, yeah, I want all the Christian metaphysics
Speaker 1: but not the Christian God. Well, the metaphysics are grounded
Speaker 1: in the Christian God. So how would you get how
Speaker 1: would you get that? I don't understand meretheism. What's up
Speaker 1: anonymous one dollar? How do you respond the doorcs that
Speaker 1: act like monks in the world, they act like their
Speaker 1: Orthodox talk about all the time. They say to avoid
Speaker 1: all non orthodox, we should only be praying at our
Speaker 1: jobs and at our work. I mean everybody's going to have,
Speaker 1: you know, temptations and flirtations with pre last I mean
Speaker 1: usually what happens to those situations is that they eventually
Speaker 1: burn out and then kind of don't become so annoying.
Speaker 1: Hopefully storm the cat ten dollars, buy your cube. You
Speaker 1: better behave yourself, okay, disciple X one dollar? Reach out
Speaker 1: to Donnie or Marlin at Gospel Truth again. They people
Speaker 1: can come debate here. I'm not going to chase down
Speaker 1: every evangelical quack. Eugenia ten dollars. Thank you, Paul said,
Speaker 1: there's different gifts. I'm glad you found yours. Don't change
Speaker 1: your retorted fund. I won't God forgive me ten dollars lmao,
Speaker 1: Big goon, ten dollars, Lucas dupam, three dollars. Jay from
Speaker 1: Brazil shout out. I did the same trick. I was Protestant,
Speaker 1: traditional Catholic and Orthodox, trying to find something Portuguese to
Speaker 1: help my Pentecostal ex girlfriend. Yeah, hopefully something will come about.
Speaker 1: Jordan Flora's ten dollars call into Andrew's debate, ask the
Speaker 1: gay pastor about epistemic questions. I didn't even realize he
Speaker 1: was doing a debate until we had already gotten a
Speaker 1: few hours into those van five dollars. What's your opinion
Speaker 1: on the kilshot argument against Protestants if you had to
Speaker 1: choose one, I start Catechism this week over your content.
Speaker 1: You helped me see God. I respect you word to Christ.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so many Protestants Protestant problems.
Speaker 23: I don't.
Speaker 1: I think the Canada Scripture is the strongest argument because
Speaker 1: they're always just going to default to that, and if
Speaker 1: you can remove that out from under them, the whole
Speaker 1: thing collapses mirror what's.
Speaker 37: Up either, Jay, I'm a theist, and I'm also someone
Speaker 37: who holds to biological evolution. I'm aware of some of
Speaker 37: your broader philosophical critiques of evolution, and.
Speaker 7: I sympathize with those a lot.
Speaker 16: But have you.
Speaker 37: Addressed any of the specific empirical evidence scientifically for evolution?
Speaker 1: Just in that the empirical evidence requires some sort of
Speaker 1: narrative paradigm interpretation. I don't think that the evidence is
Speaker 1: self interpreting or brute fact or anything like that. So
Speaker 1: they sort of attach, usually some sort of vast assumption
Speaker 1: to the so called evidence, which in many cases is
Speaker 1: I would argue, pretty minuscule.
Speaker 37: And see what you mean? How would you respond to
Speaker 37: the notion that if we take different scientific fields, you know, astrology, biology, geology,
Speaker 37: and then the sub fields of all of those different
Speaker 37: lines of.
Speaker 3: Evidence astrology, and we take our.
Speaker 37: Working assumptions that we have for them presently astrology, and
Speaker 37: stack all of the evidence together, it lines up.
Speaker 1: Bro Astrology is not a science, So I thought that
Speaker 1: was going to be like a scientism man, and he's
Speaker 1: over Henna talking about astrology, Mars monkey.
Speaker 23: I need an alien huh, I need an alien yo.
Speaker 23: Top up long of the year right there. It would
Speaker 23: overthrow any people's heads. People have to look up I
Speaker 23: need an alien on YouTube.
Speaker 1: It's an overlooked cringe corp for sure.
Speaker 3: Question what do you.
Speaker 6: When?
Speaker 23: How do you use the argument or how do you
Speaker 23: if I'm trying to bolster an argument using the church's.
Speaker 3: Age and how long we've.
Speaker 23: Been practicing the faith and consistently for all this time.
Speaker 23: But if somebody just says if it's old, just because
Speaker 23: it's oldest mean it's true.
Speaker 3: How do you frame it in.
Speaker 23: A way where it's still valid and you're not falling
Speaker 23: into that fallacy?
Speaker 1: Well, again, it depends on the specific claim that you're refuting.
Speaker 1: So if a Protestant said something like the Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: isn't ancient, like, at that point it would be appropriate
Speaker 1: to prove that it is ancient, that it is old.
Speaker 1: But I do agree that just being old doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: prove anything because error is old and ancient. So so what.
Speaker 38: Yeah, Okay, one more I had for you was, I mean,
Speaker 38: the way I would transform that argument would be to
Speaker 38: say something like, it's not just a matter of being old,
Speaker 38: but that you have to actually be in historical continuity
Speaker 38: in every generation with the first century Church and.
Speaker 1: The Apostles, and that's what Apostolic succession is partly about.
Speaker 1: So that's where I would take the argument. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: try to argue that, well, we're old. I mean, so what.
Speaker 3: Got it?
Speaker 23: I remember this argument recently from my old Calvinis days,
Speaker 23: and I remembered it.
Speaker 3: I wanted to hear how you.
Speaker 23: Would respond to someone who says, how do how can
Speaker 23: you trust the writers of scripture if they didn't have
Speaker 23: free will or if they yeah, if they didn't have
Speaker 23: free will, Well.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how that relates to Calvin.
Speaker 23: Or rather, if they do have free will, how can
Speaker 23: you trust that the scriptures weren't written in error or transcribed?
Speaker 1: Well, that assumes that that assumes that men aren't necessarily
Speaker 1: going to sin or that they're going to, you know,
Speaker 1: pervert the text. And we believe in synergy that the
Speaker 1: human writers did use their mind and their will, but
Speaker 1: they synergize and harmonize with the divine will. So there's
Speaker 1: no it's not like God possessed them and that they
Speaker 1: had no human interaction. I mean, the scripture is a
Speaker 1: tribute the writings to the human beings that wrote them,
Speaker 1: but also, as Peter says, under the direction and inspirational
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit, we got the banana teen Emperor is here
Speaker 1: to set us straight. What's up?
Speaker 3: Hello? Is this me? I just want to give you
Speaker 3: the kings through the kingdom.
Speaker 39: I Protestant earlier was saying, because Banantheum was gone, there's
Speaker 39: no orthodoxy right if you will be the king?
Speaker 1: Though, thank you, well again, it was just a weird argument,
Speaker 1: So I may just changed the account. See that's what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. Like people want me to unblock these people
Speaker 1: for entertainment value, but like every time there's somebody that
Speaker 1: I blocked, it was for good reason.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah. But seriously, I have a question about.
Speaker 39: Like the Vine liturgy, and you know, you were previously
Speaker 39: a trad cat for a little while, and I was
Speaker 39: wondering if there was anything around the change of the
Speaker 39: Novus Ordo and like post Vatican two, like that went
Speaker 39: against cannons that said you shouldn't change liturgy or anything
Speaker 39: like that, because it just I've been to both masses
Speaker 39: and the lack of reverence just makes me just like
Speaker 39: unconvinced by.
Speaker 3: Walking in the doors.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, every trad cat will immediately argue that
Speaker 1: Pius the Fifth's uh dogmatic statement about the unalterable tridentine
Speaker 1: mass was violated by Vatican two.
Speaker 22: Oh okay, interesting, what about other little things of liturgical practice,
Speaker 22: like the what's the name for when they face ad orientum?
Speaker 3: Is that the term.
Speaker 1: To the east?
Speaker 3: No, when they face in Roman.
Speaker 1: Is to the east. You're talking about facing the people?
Speaker 3: Yeah, what is that term again?
Speaker 1: Add popular? I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 39: Yeah, but they started facing it away or towards the people.
Speaker 1: I would say, yeah, that's that's a Protestant influence on
Speaker 1: the liturgy. Okay, interesting, I was just you know, did
Speaker 1: you know they brought in Protestant Lutheran liturgist to help
Speaker 1: craft the Novasorto?
Speaker 3: How specifically? Did not? I know that? That's kind of hilarious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it's his own record. It's not a conspiracy there,
Speaker 1: it's really true. Let me, I'm gonna get you the
Speaker 1: name of the trender. If it's a bull, Uh, it
Speaker 1: is quote primum. Yeah, so that is Pius the fifth supposed.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: Every trade cat will say that, every true trade cat
Speaker 1: will say that this was the papal bull that said
Speaker 1: that you had to use in all Latin rites the
Speaker 1: tridentine missile, and that it's not supposed to be altered.
Speaker 1: It is quote in perpetuity. So that's what the trade
Speaker 1: cats will appoint to.
Speaker 3: And what's the justification from that?
Speaker 39: And then I remember there was something I forget which
Speaker 39: povid was but changed the direction of the cross.
Speaker 1: What's the destigation hold on? What's the dessication for what?
Speaker 39: What's the justification for the fact that one pope said
Speaker 39: never change the direction, and then there was a future
Speaker 39: one that changed the direction.
Speaker 1: That the popes can revise and change their predecessors pronouncements, but.
Speaker 3: They're infallible about safe and morals.
Speaker 1: Who knows. Maybe just just believe it, dude. It doesn't
Speaker 1: have to make it doesn't have to make sense.
Speaker 39: You do have a question about the rosary in all seriousness,
Speaker 39: because I do pray like the Jesus Prayer on a rope,
Speaker 39: but I've heard that some Eastern Orthodox do pray obviously
Speaker 39: the Hail Mary because it is biblical. I mean, the
Speaker 39: whole goal is just not that to be imagined if correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think the problem is the problem is
Speaker 1: not the statements themselves. But I mean, it's kind of like,
Speaker 1: what's the point of digging through all the Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: specific things to try to find the things that are
Speaker 1: somewhat Orthodox or amenable to Orthodox? Like, ohle mindset just
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense, and it's almost all always used by
Speaker 1: acuminous minded people. And the other thing is that using
Speaker 1: the rosary and promoting the Rosary gives the impression and
Speaker 1: suggests that Saint Dominic is a saint as well, and
Speaker 1: because he was, Mary gave the Rosary to Saint Dominic.
Speaker 1: It just suggests all these Roman Catholics things, the Catholic
Speaker 1: things that we wouldn't affirm. I don't. I don't believe
Speaker 1: that Mary gave the Rosary to Dominic, But if I
Speaker 1: follow and do the Rosary, it implicitly suggests that, oh well,
Speaker 1: we're all in the same page. We all believe, you know,
Speaker 1: Saint Dominic was cool, and we don't believe that, gotcha.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's fair, all right. I just wanted to give
Speaker 3: you the keys.
Speaker 1: And thank you for you and thank you. That was
Speaker 1: the banana Tine Emperor Augustine, Augustin Augustin, thank you guys,
Speaker 1: hit like and share what's up man, I'm mute, all right,
Speaker 1: he can't connect. Well, we're uh widowing it down, tim
Speaker 1: whittling it down, Widow, not whittling it down, Timothy, Tim
Speaker 1: or Timothy? What's up? I'm seventy five years old. For
Speaker 1: those that are wondering, are you there, tim we can't
Speaker 1: hear you trying to turn your mic on seth.
Speaker 19: Hey, how's it going?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Yes, sir, sweet I just had
Speaker 3: a couple quick things. This is from a.
Speaker 40: I guess I've got a couple of questions from a
Speaker 40: Protestant perspective. I've got some people who have questions for
Speaker 40: me because I'm actually, I don't know if you remember,
Speaker 40: I'm the Lutheran, but I'm actually going to my local
Speaker 40: ro core right now and I'm becoming a cat Ofcuman.
Speaker 40: But there's some there's some stuff it's hard to I
Speaker 40: guess addressed with certain people.
Speaker 19: So I guess I'm gonna argue from their perspective.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 40: So one of the one of the big things that
Speaker 40: I've I haven't really brought this up specifically because I'm
Speaker 40: not sure exactly how to defend it, but I've heard
Speaker 40: you say and I've heard a lot of people say
Speaker 40: that the Bible is specifically a liturgical text, and that
Speaker 40: devotional reading is good and fine, but that's not the
Speaker 40: primary usage, which seems good and.
Speaker 19: Can correct from what I can tell.
Speaker 40: But I guess, in what sense would it be like
Speaker 40: just read in a liturgy like that's the that's the
Speaker 40: main purpose of it.
Speaker 3: How would you defend that specific view.
Speaker 1: I don't think that it's controversial. If you read liturgical
Speaker 1: scholars or historians of liturgy, I think you'll find them
Speaker 1: being pretty candid about that. I mentioned a couple of
Speaker 1: books earlier that were Protestant books that helped me, uh,
Speaker 1: get out of the soul scripture and mindset. One is
Speaker 1: Formation Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon by Lee McDonald.
Speaker 1: The other one is F. F. Brus's Canada Scripture. So
Speaker 1: two pretty well known famous Protestant evangelical scholars that really
Speaker 1: point out that you can't divorce the scriptures from their
Speaker 1: liturgical setting a milieu. So uh. I think also the
Speaker 1: Hebrew tradition is part of this as well. I mean,
Speaker 1: certainly you could meditate on God's Law Dan Knight, but
Speaker 1: David psalms for example, are written to be sung in
Speaker 1: the liturgical worship of God at the temple or the
Speaker 1: Tabernacle or wherever. So you know, that's the purpose of them.
Speaker 1: You would hear the hearing of the law. Faith comes
Speaker 1: by hearing here by the word of God.
Speaker 18: Right.
Speaker 1: Uh, the hearing of the law would be done by
Speaker 1: the priest. It would be interpreted by the priest the
Speaker 1: synagogue system, right, that's a liturgical setting as well. And
Speaker 1: so just the entire ethos of the Hebrew tradition is
Speaker 1: not about your you know n IV study Bible in
Speaker 1: the park next to the you know, to the oak
Speaker 1: tree or whatever.
Speaker 40: Yeah, if I could, if I could just jump in
Speaker 40: there really quick too.
Speaker 3: I think obviously when.
Speaker 40: Jesus says that to the Pharisees that you search the
Speaker 40: text because you think it is in them that they
Speaker 40: have eternal life, I think it actually applies really well
Speaker 40: to the products mindset.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I cite that all the time.
Speaker 40: Yeah, And so I guess that's like I've I've been
Speaker 40: out of the soul in scriptori mindset for a while
Speaker 40: and I've just been kind of wrestling with certain with
Speaker 40: certain questions before.
Speaker 1: I Yeah, I would say, uh, you know, get a
Speaker 1: book like the Williams and Anstall book on the Orthodox Littery,
Speaker 1: and then get Hugh Weiber's book Byzantine Liturgy, because Weiber
Speaker 1: is a Protestant, he's an Anglican and he wrote a
Speaker 1: really good book on the history of that Byzantine Liturgy,
Speaker 1: which you know, for example, the first few chapters refused
Speaker 1: Gavin Ortland because he talks about imagery and the you know,
Speaker 1: the structure of the church with an altar and all that.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, that's if that's the early Church, then
Speaker 1: I mean Protestantism is not true because they're having altars,
Speaker 1: which are eucharistic altars. Altars are where you do sacrifice.
Speaker 1: That's not a table Protestants.
Speaker 41: Spencer Coo uh huh, Hey yeah, Jay.
Speaker 3: So I was wanting to ask a question.
Speaker 41: I've been studying a lot of Greg Bonson and Cornelis
Speaker 41: van Hill from a Protestant perspective. That's all I've really known,
Speaker 41: and I understand that you are familiar with those works
Speaker 41: as well. So I wanted to ask the question, what
Speaker 41: do you think about the presuppositionalism of also Gordon Clark.
Speaker 3: Are you familiar with him?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I read a couple of Clark things back in
Speaker 1: the day. But I always sided with Van Till over Clark,
Speaker 1: especially when you get into this idea that the Logos
Speaker 1: is a bunch of propositions, the Bible is a set
Speaker 1: of propositions. I think that, oh, that's just completely stupid.
Speaker 41: Sure, yeah, I really think is empiricism. His critique on
Speaker 41: empiricism quite well, and I think Van Till and everyone
Speaker 41: like Bonsan would agree with him. But at the end
Speaker 41: of the day, I think he ended up concluding that
Speaker 41: you don't get knowledge by sense perception. The only thing
Speaker 41: you could know is from scripture. Just kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: I think you would if I remember. That sounds like
Speaker 1: what he would argue.
Speaker 41: Yeah, that is a that was I was just curious
Speaker 41: if you heard anything from Gordon Clark. I asked Jim
Speaker 41: Bob this while back, and he seemed like he didn't
Speaker 41: know anything about Gordon.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: Now, Jim Bob didn't have like a Calvinist you know,
Speaker 1: uh upbringing or or time. I was really into that
Speaker 1: for a long time. But I remember reading this one thing,
Speaker 1: Hammer of the Heretics by Gordon Clark or something like that.
Speaker 1: I remember reading God's Word that's it, And I read
Speaker 1: his critique event Hill. But the rest of it I
Speaker 1: think is pretty silly, honestly, But thank you for your comment. Interference.
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 1: We have an altar from which those who serve the
Speaker 1: tabernacle no right to eat. Here's Paul calling the eucharistic
Speaker 1: offering an altar that we eat from. And he's contrasting
Speaker 1: the bodies of the animals with the body and blood
Speaker 1: of Christ on our altar, and that we are sanctified
Speaker 1: by Christ's eucharistic blood offering. What's up, man, interference? What's up?
Speaker 3: Oh? Hello, Jay? You believe that God can only know
Speaker 3: all truths?
Speaker 19: Right?
Speaker 1: You're asking them? So you want to ask the same
Speaker 1: guy's question earlier?
Speaker 3: Excuse me?
Speaker 1: Are you in here for the other guy that was
Speaker 1: doing this earlier.
Speaker 3: I want to hear this.
Speaker 2: I want to hear what the argument is from.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 25: I don't know what you're referencing, Jay, but I just
Speaker 25: want to know if you take it that God only
Speaker 25: knows all truths, you can't know falsehoods.
Speaker 1: Uh? Well, knowing falsehoods would be propositions that he would
Speaker 1: potentially know.
Speaker 25: Sure, so would he know the proposition that this statement
Speaker 25: is not true?
Speaker 3: Jay?
Speaker 1: Why are you repeating my name with that. Yes, if
Speaker 1: we can know a proposition, God can know it. But
Speaker 1: I don't think that God's mode of knowing is the
Speaker 1: same as the human mode of knowing.
Speaker 3: God knows.
Speaker 36: If God knows all truths and falsehoods, then what about
Speaker 36: the statement that this statement is not true?
Speaker 1: Yeah, God knows paradoxes as well. That's a paradox. What's
Speaker 1: wrong with saying God knows paradoxes but his mode of
Speaker 1: knowing is not ours?
Speaker 3: Well, the problem is would it be true or false
Speaker 3: that he knows it.
Speaker 1: It's a false dichotomy because it's a paradox.
Speaker 9: Read.
Speaker 1: So he just repeats your name, that's what That's what
Speaker 1: these people do. Say it again. Probably didn't go.
Speaker 3: And meta language like these aren't gods.
Speaker 1: Dude, Yes, thank you your ignorance. He just wanted to
Speaker 1: repeat my name because they know that. That's and then
Speaker 1: they repeat the name and then when I boot them,
Speaker 1: they'll say, they'll go clip that put it on their
Speaker 1: channel that I ran bald Man's opinion.
Speaker 3: Hello, O can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Hey, how's it going. I've never been on one of
Speaker 3: these before, so they're like an allotted time or something
Speaker 3: or uh.
Speaker 1: No, what are you? You have an argument or what
Speaker 1: do you? What's up? What's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 42: Uh, I don't know much about you, but I got
Speaker 42: sent here by Rachel Wilson's saying Protestants or Baptist or whatever.
Speaker 3: Should come to you, should come to you if they
Speaker 3: want to talk to somebody who's Orthodox. Cath Are you orthodox? Okay?
Speaker 42: So yeah, yeah, sorry, I had to run away, get the.
Speaker 3: Run away to a private room.
Speaker 42: So I have a contention about I think most Orthodox
Speaker 42: or Catholics don't believe.
Speaker 3: That salvation is by grace through faith, and I make the.
Speaker 7: I'm gonna make the claim that it is.
Speaker 1: Based on Well, we believe that it is, but we
Speaker 1: believe that those words mean different things from you. So
Speaker 1: it's not that we reject the scriptures or don't believe
Speaker 1: in salvation by faith or by grace, but we don't
Speaker 1: believe that it's a legal standing that's imputational, which is
Speaker 1: based on a heretical trinitarian theology, like.
Speaker 3: A legal standing. The word justified is a legal term,
Speaker 3: is it not?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's not a purely fictional imputational legal standing.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying is impossible because nobody in the
Speaker 1: ancient medieval world were nominalists, and you need nominalism to
Speaker 1: have that position.
Speaker 3: What do you mean by nominalists?
Speaker 5: Sorry?
Speaker 1: Right, So the reformers like Luther relied on medieval nominalists
Speaker 1: like Akham and Bile to figure out how it was
Speaker 1: possible for God to declare people to be a legal
Speaker 1: state that they weren't ontologically that thing. So that's nominalism.
Speaker 1: That it's a name only position, a legal standing position
Speaker 1: that doesn't reflect an actual ontological change in the being.
Speaker 1: And since nobody in the ancient image of the world
Speaker 1: were nominalists until Aukham, that means Paul didn't teach your view.
Speaker 3: Doesn't it say? Everyone's four to five? That's let's see,
Speaker 3: let me call it up here.
Speaker 1: So you're not gonna address what I said. You're gonna blow.
Speaker 2: Past you know.
Speaker 3: I'm trying. I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I'm
Speaker 3: not trying to ignore it.
Speaker 1: Have you read Alistair McGrath? No, what is that funny?
Speaker 1: I don't understand.
Speaker 3: No, I'm just I'm not laughing at you. I'm just saying, no,
Speaker 3: I haven't.
Speaker 1: Well, but you laughed, so I don't understand why it's funny.
Speaker 3: I don't. I don't know it. Just chuckle, dude. Okay,
Speaker 3: I'm a little I've never done one of these before,
Speaker 3: so it's a bit new to me. Maybe more of
Speaker 3: a nervous laughter.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, McGrath is one of the most famous modern
Speaker 1: Oxford Protestant scholars. He wrote a book called Eustacia Day
Speaker 1: and in that book admits that nobody in the ancient
Speaker 1: medieval world until about fifteen hundreds had the idea of
Speaker 1: justification by faith alone.
Speaker 42: Okay, let me pull up some quotes here, then, didn't
Speaker 42: let me fall some quotes with some church fathers.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, church fathers who believe in appisodic succession and
Speaker 1: the real presence. You think they taught justification faith. Pull on,
Speaker 1: You're going to pull up a bunch of quote minds
Speaker 1: that don't say what I'm saying. They say what you
Speaker 1: think they're saying. So you're going to read into these
Speaker 1: church fathers who also teach the necessity of works and
Speaker 1: they use the real presence. You're going to try to
Speaker 1: quote mind them to prove the Protestant doctrines. Okay, I
Speaker 1: used to be a Protestant, dude, I did all this.
Speaker 1: Don't you think I know what you're going to do?
Speaker 3: What do you you mean?
Speaker 23: I'm just trying to put out a position here and
Speaker 23: I don't I don't.
Speaker 1: Know, like I'm not particularly the Romans for Let's go
Speaker 1: to Romans for when Paul who does? Where does Paul
Speaker 1: site in general? Assistant Romans for.
Speaker 42: Okay, let's just read it here, Romans for three four?
Speaker 42: What say the scripture Abraham believed God and it was kind.
Speaker 3: Of him for righteous? Yes?
Speaker 1: Where is he citing a.
Speaker 3: Romans death Genesis chapter fifteen, verses three.
Speaker 1: Six, Right, Now, tell me this in the Protestant view
Speaker 1: in terms of the transition from rath to grace, as
Speaker 1: the Reformer spoke of, When was that in Abraham's.
Speaker 42: Life Genesis chapter fifteen when it says he believed God?
Speaker 1: Ah, thank you for refuting. Yes, thank you for reputing,
Speaker 1: Thank you for refuting Protestantism, because it's just it's Genesis
Speaker 1: twelve where Abraham first believes and does several chapters of
Speaker 1: good works before Genesis fifteen. So you just refuted Protestantism
Speaker 1: in Romans.
Speaker 3: For No, because you read you read the rest of
Speaker 3: the chapter. It's talking about Genesis chapter fifteen or so.
Speaker 1: You literally heard nothing I said, and you're not addressing area.
Speaker 1: You don't even understand the argument, You're you're blowing past
Speaker 1: the argument.
Speaker 3: May maybe I'm just not quite getting with you right.
Speaker 1: You're not correct. Do you want me to state it again? Sure,
Speaker 1: the transition from wrath to grace should be Genesis twelve,
Speaker 1: not fifteen. So by Paul citing Genesis fifteen, you refute
Speaker 1: the Protestant position.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I don't follow that because