Speaker 1: Dire wave. The scientific method cannot justify the scientific method.
Speaker 1: Therefore itself, it is a dogmatical presupposition. It's a lovely
Speaker 1: man voice.
Speaker 2: Not a effeminine positive defamation.
Speaker 1: Yes, welcome, we're live. I think should be good. We're here,
Speaker 1: and today it's a little bit different. We're going to
Speaker 1: have my discord with me because I'm scared. I need
Speaker 1: all my backup people because I'm afraid of Ejahs and
Speaker 1: all the Muslim I'm joking not but we're going to
Speaker 1: do Q and A or stump or debate or whatever. Now,
Speaker 1: if you just want to come on voice and ask questions,
Speaker 1: you can do that through the discord. I'll put the
Speaker 1: link in in a second. If you want to come
Speaker 1: on a video debate, I have a zoom link open
Speaker 1: as well, and I can send you that link. So
Speaker 1: we offered. Ejaz said he was ready, he was ready
Speaker 1: to go, ready to debate. We've offered for months and
Speaker 1: months and months to set up a debate with this guy.
Speaker 1: Anyone doing so He says, oh, I don't mean today,
Speaker 1: even though he said I'm ready to go. Anyway, we
Speaker 1: will do Q and A. We'll do Q and A. Also
Speaker 1: we have a. We have all the discord wirdos here.
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you get debate Jordan Peterson if you want.
Speaker 1: If he wants, you got him right here.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm ready to debate. I can debate anyone right now,
Speaker 2: ready to go.
Speaker 1: So if you don't want to come on audio, thank you, Jordan. Uh,
Speaker 1: you can also leave me a stream lab super chat
Speaker 1: question or challenge right, it's it's the challenge is open.
Speaker 1: We make it really easy to debate, Like, it's super
Speaker 1: easy to come debate. There's no hoops. You don't have
Speaker 1: to jump through hoops to come debate here. It's very easy.
Speaker 1: And now I've even opened it up to audio, so
Speaker 1: that is the link there. If you want to join
Speaker 1: the discord, you will have to be vetted, of course first,
Speaker 1: to come in the discord. You can't just everybody can't.
Speaker 1: Just pile and read the rules, rules, questions, and then
Speaker 1: you'll be vetted. And after you're vetted and we decide
Speaker 1: that you have the balls, we'll let you come in. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what it toos, you're not late? Welcome?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 1: We got a good crowd here. Be sure to leave
Speaker 1: a like and a thumb up. Well that's the same
Speaker 1: thing and then also share it super chats. Thank you,
Speaker 1: okay as a mod there, he's putting the stream lab
Speaker 1: superchat there as a rough outline I'll be covering just
Speaker 1: because we're probably waiting for people to come in if
Speaker 1: they want to. We got a couple of Roman Catholics
Speaker 1: in the in the in the discord right now. I
Speaker 1: don't know if they're going to come in, but we've
Speaker 1: got the emergence of the Catholic tradition, the excellent Yarslav
Speaker 1: Pelican book. I'll use that as a rough outline for
Speaker 1: topics to discuss. But you can talk about whatever you
Speaker 1: want if you want to ask me questions about philosophy,
Speaker 1: if he challenge me, this is we got. I got
Speaker 1: incense burning up in here to make to set the ambiance.
Speaker 1: I saw one of them, p u a guys. He
Speaker 1: always lights incense before he starts his live stream, so
Speaker 1: I thought i'd rip him off into that. So I've
Speaker 1: lit incense. We've got the ambiance. We got the whiteboard here.
Speaker 1: If you're Muslim, if you're Rumman, Catholic, if you're set
Speaker 1: of a contest, if you're Protestant, Calvinist, evangelical, atheist, even
Speaker 1: if you're Jewish, or you're welcome to come and ask
Speaker 1: your questions, debate, challenge whatever if you want to. Now
Speaker 1: I'm not smoking weed, it's just incense. Pro If you
Speaker 1: want to come into the voice chat, go to the discord,
Speaker 1: join the discord. There's the link at my Twitter. Let
Speaker 1: me see if I get the actual just the discord link. Now,
Speaker 1: you know you gotta go to the you gotta go
Speaker 1: to the Twitter. That way, we can't have we can't
Speaker 1: just have everybody pulling in there, so you got to
Speaker 1: go to my Twitter. Catholic nonsense. Somebody said the chat anyway,
Speaker 1: what's up discord? Anybody? Is anybody in the discord right now?
Speaker 1: I know we got a full room. Does anybody want
Speaker 1: to come on the live stream and give us some
Speaker 1: chat material, questions, challenges?
Speaker 3: Silence?
Speaker 1: I mean we had I know, I know. So we
Speaker 1: opened this up today because we had a lot of
Speaker 1: Muslims talking and you know, making a lot of fuss,
Speaker 1: and so we opened it up. We had two or
Speaker 1: three Muslims talking smack all over Twitter. And then I said,
Speaker 1: come on, I even I'll even let you on here.
Speaker 1: Well we'll do a live stream. We'll start at the
Speaker 1: live stream, come on and debate Bra, debate me, Bra,
Speaker 1: and the dudes just left. We at least the dude
Speaker 1: that was talking to Smack left, So so I thought
Speaker 1: we were going to have some That link has expired. No,
Speaker 1: it's not. Go to my Twitter. At the top is
Speaker 1: an unexpired link. If that link was wrong, then go
Speaker 1: to my Twitter and then the latest link is not expired.
Speaker 1: I can't be expired. It's an hour old, not expired.
Speaker 1: Uh all right, let me try. Let me get another
Speaker 1: link for you guys, and it's expired. Okay, rest in peace.
Speaker 1: Let me get another link that shouldn't be expired after
Speaker 1: hour though, I don't know whatever. We got Father Deacon
Speaker 1: and Ias in the house. We got Lewis. We got
Speaker 1: a lot of our old old discord friends all here
Speaker 1: with us, old timers, old timers because of course we're
Speaker 1: all scared. We got to have a mob, right we have.
Speaker 1: We have to have backup because none of us individually
Speaker 1: can handle anybody in a debate.
Speaker 4: Or Yeah, finding Muslim people to debate is like trying
Speaker 4: to herd cats.
Speaker 2: We can't find them. Right. We got the chebar Ali debate.
Speaker 4: Okay, he did great in that I think shaver ally
Speaker 4: comported himself honorarily. And then now suddenly everyone's scared. Now
Speaker 4: it's no debate, no one debate Jane, and we.
Speaker 2: Can't find them.
Speaker 4: So it's like they accused lots of ox Christians is
Speaker 4: being scared.
Speaker 2: We offered the debate.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've said we've done three debates with Muslims, now,
Speaker 1: so how are we scared?
Speaker 2: It's just nonsense, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4: And then they set up conditions that they want to groups.
Speaker 2: For us to jump.
Speaker 1: You don't debate me on a blood moon, on a leap,
Speaker 1: ear in the middle of Texas in an underground cave
Speaker 1: at two am. Then and we have to debate only
Speaker 1: in morse code I want to be and it has.
Speaker 4: To be you have to wear seal skins and it
Speaker 4: has to be more code.
Speaker 2: But you have to write haiku and then you have
Speaker 2: to record that morse.
Speaker 4: Code onto slate tablets, and then you have to have
Speaker 4: a blind.
Speaker 1: Man readout has to be translated into Hebrew and then
Speaker 1: written on vellum.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's like okay, it's like, how about the.
Speaker 2: Next thing. It would be give me ten million dollars
Speaker 2: and I'll debate you.
Speaker 1: That'll be the next thing, I require a debater's fee
Speaker 1: of half a million dollars to appear.
Speaker 5: I have three goods and four CAFs.
Speaker 2: Please, I would also my way, all right, so read
Speaker 2: check out? Yeah as well, guys.
Speaker 1: The debate has to be done in sign language or Braille.
Speaker 1: If you don't do an animal sacrifice, if you don't
Speaker 1: do it in braill, it's because you're low.
Speaker 2: Like yeah, all.
Speaker 1: Right, so, uh, you guys, just you guys interrupt me.
Speaker 1: You guys can interrupt me if somebody comes in, if
Speaker 1: they want to do is there anybody who has any
Speaker 1: questions or challenges or or debate topics issues? I think
Speaker 1: I shared the newer link, by the way, so there's
Speaker 1: the new link if you want to come in. Uh,
Speaker 1: there will be people vetting people right now, so you
Speaker 1: guys can come in. I'm not talking to any I'm
Speaker 1: talking to you. Who am I talking to to you?
Speaker 1: In the chat?
Speaker 2: Bro?
Speaker 1: You Byzantine in the chat in the discord chat. You
Speaker 1: can come on. It's open, dude, We've got to open.
Speaker 6: Can you tell people to change the AVI? Is the
Speaker 6: profile pictures on Discord from the default because we kind.
Speaker 2: Of have a rule against that.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so if you come into the dis you
Speaker 1: come into the discord, you got to do our rules,
Speaker 1: all right, So when you leave you can go back
Speaker 1: to whatever you want, but in our discord, please follow
Speaker 1: the rules.
Speaker 2: Uh have a charge.
Speaker 1: Okay, we don't really do no hintai avatars, no, no whatever,
Speaker 1: there we go.
Speaker 2: No anime advatars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we don't do that.
Speaker 2: You know this small us in the general.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's the guy from a couple of nights
Speaker 1: ago that we spent the whole night with. So, uh,
Speaker 1: he says he's going to come in. Here we get
Speaker 1: a uni E who says he'll come in. But we
Speaker 1: had this discussion for about three hours the other night.
Speaker 1: So now being mean to the guy, I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: I think I know where that chet's going to go,
Speaker 1: But if nobody's going to come in, I'll just kind
Speaker 1: of like wait until people come and I'll talk about
Speaker 1: some of the notes from Pelicon.
Speaker 7: Go ahead, Yeah, Jay, So I've been watching your stuff
Speaker 7: for a while.
Speaker 2: It's really interesting, But I was just wondering if you
Speaker 2: could like point to.
Speaker 7: In the early church, any points where a father is
Speaker 7: saying that, you know, asking for the intercession of saints
Speaker 7: is Okay, it.
Speaker 1: Gets explicitly mentioned up by the time that you're dealing
Speaker 1: with Augustine or with the Cappadocian saints Cyril in the
Speaker 1: categorical lectures I think mentions it. I know Augustine mentions
Speaker 1: it explicitly in multiple places in his writings. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean you can. You should be able to pretty
Speaker 1: easily google like church Father's intercession of the Saints, like
Speaker 1: that's not really too controversial of a topic.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, I mean I guess in my own research
Speaker 7: when I look into it, it seems kind of not
Speaker 7: like explicit, if that makes any sense.
Speaker 1: Well, it is explicit when it becomes a question, right,
Speaker 1: So by the time of Jerome, actually Jerome talks about
Speaker 1: it explicitly when he writes multiple letters against like Vigilius
Speaker 1: and the other guy who questions relics and saints, and
Speaker 1: he writes this really funny treatise just making fun of
Speaker 1: the guy, telling him that he's basically possessed and he
Speaker 1: actually just needs to go touch the relics to get
Speaker 1: the demon out of him. So, I mean, he makes
Speaker 1: other arguments, but so Jerome has treatises explicitly on it.
Speaker 1: Augustine mentions it. I'm pretty sure it's in the catechortical
Speaker 1: lectures of Saint Cyril. But if by explicit mention, we
Speaker 1: can't think of it like there has to in the
Speaker 1: first century be a theological defense of every doctrine, or
Speaker 1: I won't believe it because there's all kinds of things
Speaker 1: that we wouldn't believe, right, I mean, we don't have
Speaker 1: a first second century mention of n hypostatized, but this
Speaker 1: becomes a crucial chrystological statement by the time of Saint
Speaker 1: Cyril and afterwards. So it's just it's just kind of
Speaker 1: like a bogus criteria to argue unless I see it
Speaker 1: explicitly defended or stated, you know, in the post appisode
Speaker 1: period on will believe it. Well, that's ludicrous. Nobody actually
Speaker 1: follows that. Like there's all kinds of crystological dogmas that
Speaker 1: most people believe that you wouldn't believe because it's not
Speaker 1: stated in the first, second, third century.
Speaker 2: Okay, thanks, just coming for a Processant background.
Speaker 1: Right, understand, understand, I mean, but I mean there's no uh,
Speaker 1: I mean, I could just turn that around to Protestant
Speaker 1: and say, where is the Protestant canon in the first
Speaker 1: second third century.
Speaker 7: Yeah, of course, that's that's one thing that I've been
Speaker 7: sort of struggling with and you know, looking and listening
Speaker 7: to your talks, you know, and help me out understanding it.
Speaker 1: Word right, Thanks, no problem. Yeah, so we got you're
Speaker 1: our first caller in the pseudo live call in stream. Welcome.
Speaker 1: You were my first ever. I don't really like the
Speaker 1: idea of calling streams, but whatever, I thought it'd be
Speaker 1: fun to try it out.
Speaker 5: Long time listeners, Yeah, you're on the air.
Speaker 1: I've got the documents, folks, you're on the air all right.
Speaker 1: By the way, only an intercession of the saints, I
Speaker 1: mean that's even in scripture, right, It's even it was
Speaker 1: even in the Jewish tradition prior to the Church, right.
Speaker 1: So I'm not saying that's true, because I'm just saying
Speaker 1: there's early attestations to that. There's prayer, prayers for the dead,
Speaker 1: and Maccabee's there's the idea of the intercession of the saints.
Speaker 1: Just comes from the idea of the intercession of saints
Speaker 1: on earth. Read the Book of Amos where he intercedes,
Speaker 1: and read you know, when Abraham intercedes, he saves the city. Well,
Speaker 1: in the Book of the Apocalypse four and five. The
Speaker 1: saints aren't dead. They're in heaven interceding, so they continue
Speaker 1: the work of salvation with us as they're in heaven.
Speaker 3: Exactly.
Speaker 8: That's also in the Book of James. In the Book
Speaker 8: of James, at some point Saint James, because of the Lord,
Speaker 8: says that we have to pray for one another. And
Speaker 8: in other places we know that people, even after the
Speaker 8: physically dies, alive in Christ. For if you can pray
Speaker 8: for one another, you can still do it on one
Speaker 8: specifically sat person is dead. And Saint Jame's also mentions
Speaker 8: the fact that the prey of the Righteous are especially powerful.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, good prayer. So this is a scriptural there's
Speaker 2: a real spiritual.
Speaker 8: Basis for all of it, and we can see it
Speaker 8: being attested in the early history of the Church and
Speaker 8: even in the Old Covenant.
Speaker 2: There's a full continuity.
Speaker 1: Right. Gert for three dollars says, what do you think
Speaker 1: about lucid dreams? Uh, we don't really. I mean there
Speaker 1: are lucid dreams. I've had lucid dreams, but we don't
Speaker 1: really pay attention to dreams and visions and this kind
Speaker 1: of stuff, which is not say it can never be done.
Speaker 1: But you need to be under the guidance of a
Speaker 1: spiritual father to be kind of looking into that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff, because we are very prone to delusion, and
Speaker 1: so most of the Holy Fathers and the Elders and
Speaker 1: our tradition warns against following dreams and visions and omens
Speaker 1: and this kind of stuff because we're just so easily
Speaker 1: deceived by that stuff. Father Deacon, you would agree with that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely absolute. It's funny because in my department up
Speaker 5: in the office, you know, the Social Sciences building, and
Speaker 5: I was disgusting with one of the professors I think
Speaker 5: they were a psycho ecology professor, and they have this
Speaker 5: like reading group and they said, one of the things
Speaker 5: we do is we interpret dreams. And so this issue
Speaker 5: kind of came up from an Orthodox perspective.
Speaker 2: So you have these groups of people that.
Speaker 5: Will interpret dreams and trying to attached mean and so
Speaker 5: we Orthodox shy away from that just because you could
Speaker 5: think about all kinds of crazy stuff that the conclusions
Speaker 5: that you could come up from.
Speaker 2: That's not something that we particularly would suggest is safe
Speaker 2: to do.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you one go ahead.
Speaker 4: I was just going to say, also, when you know,
Speaker 4: when a woman talks about our dreams, you just want
Speaker 4: to shoot yourself in the head.
Speaker 2: So boring, So like, we don't really want to encourage.
Speaker 1: Men to do that either, Father Deacon, could you give
Speaker 1: us a brief because we have a lot of people,
Speaker 1: I think in our chat who might be new to
Speaker 1: these topics, just a brief explanation of maybe, in contrast
Speaker 1: to Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, what is the spiritual Father
Speaker 1: and why is that important? Orthodoxy?
Speaker 5: Yeah, So one thing that excuse me, that we worked
Speaker 5: about are keenly aware of in our practice and our theology.
Speaker 2: Is what we call spiritual delusion. Priest and all of
Speaker 2: us have it.
Speaker 5: And what I think so dangerous about spiritual delusion is
Speaker 5: that you don't know you have it, Whereas a temptation,
Speaker 5: it's very easy to IDENTI that the fact that you
Speaker 5: could actually be being manipulated by demons under the guise
Speaker 5: of something holy and spiritual impure is quite dangerous. Now,
Speaker 5: as far as I know, Protestants don't even have a concept.
Speaker 2: Of having spiritual delusion.
Speaker 5: They may talk about temptations and correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 5: In my study of Roman Catholicism, I don't think it's
Speaker 5: even addressed, is a concept of something existing. And I
Speaker 5: think it's really important that not only do Protestants not
Speaker 5: have a concept of being spiritually deluded, but have no
Speaker 5: mechanism on how to cure that and treat them. And
Speaker 5: I would say this is something that's so important in Orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: Why we have a spiritual Father is that if we.
Speaker 5: All assume I'm constantly being manipulated by demons, not only
Speaker 5: in temptations, but being spiritually deluded and thinking that oh,
Speaker 5: this is from God, or this is something holy that
Speaker 5: I should be doing, maybe I should maybe God's telling
Speaker 5: me to interpret people's dreams or something like that. How
Speaker 5: do you know that you're not deluded? Well, you don't
Speaker 5: if you are the problem. And so this is what's
Speaker 5: so important about having a spiritual Father is there's somebody
Speaker 5: who's experienced and has the credential spiritually speaking, that can
Speaker 5: have proper discernment and the way that spiritual delusion and
Speaker 5: the whole spiritual progress as well is acquired through obedience
Speaker 5: and repentance With an Orthodoxy, so we're really going to
Speaker 5: stress that means we don't rely on our own abilities.
Speaker 5: In fact, we're going to admit we're incapable of healing
Speaker 5: ourselves and getting ourselves out.
Speaker 2: Of the you know, the muck.
Speaker 5: And so what we turn to is an advanced physician
Speaker 5: of souls who's experienced, and.
Speaker 2: We make ourselves obedience.
Speaker 5: So, as we say in Orthodoxy, there is no spiritual problem.
Speaker 2: You can read all.
Speaker 5: The theology books that you want, You can go to
Speaker 5: school and get all the degrees and never make any
Speaker 5: spiritual progress. So the whole point of Orthodoxy is to
Speaker 5: make spiritual progress to heal ourselves.
Speaker 2: And you need a physician. And so you make.
Speaker 5: Yourself obedient, even as hard as it may be that
Speaker 5: your spiritual father tells you something you're like, I don't
Speaker 5: agree with that. Part of the obedience is I'm no
Speaker 5: longer going to trust in my own abilities, and I'm
Speaker 5: going to listen to the spiritual Father. And because the
Speaker 5: spiritual Father, the priest is a sacrament, there is grace bestowed.
Speaker 5: So even in the faults of individual men is priests,
Speaker 5: the grace of God still comes through that sacrament and
Speaker 5: that office.
Speaker 3: And so.
Speaker 5: When you're obedient to your spiritual Father, you're blessed. You're
Speaker 5: blessed by God, and you begin to again, a spiritual
Speaker 5: father is somebody that's like a counselor and a doctor
Speaker 5: that knows you, knows your spiritual medical history. And this
Speaker 5: is why what you don't want to do is being
Speaker 5: jumping around from different priests and making confessions, and you
Speaker 5: need one spiritual doctor who is taking care.
Speaker 2: Of you and can help you in your own repentance.
Speaker 5: So I'd say that's something unique about Orthodox that not
Speaker 5: only do we have the concept that we're all spiritually diluted,
Speaker 5: we have the mechanism in place in the structure of
Speaker 5: the church over the last two thousand years for dealing
Speaker 5: with that. So that's not something a lot of people
Speaker 5: talk about.
Speaker 2: But I'm Jay, I'm glad you brought that up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we got some questions about that because people
Speaker 1: thought that I was saying that you can't talk about
Speaker 1: a dream. No, what I said was that it's in
Speaker 1: the Orthodox tradition, you have a guide, right, Paul talks
Speaker 1: about being Timothy's spiritual father, So you have a guide
Speaker 1: that you know helps you sort of discern who's actually
Speaker 1: been down the road already. That's the point here. It's
Speaker 1: not that you can't talk about these things. In fact,
Speaker 1: you should talk about these things with your spiritual father. Now,
Speaker 1: it is correct that a lot of times it's hard
Speaker 1: to find a spiritual father, especially in America, so that's difficult.
Speaker 1: Father Deacon. If you're not talking, can you mute because
Speaker 1: there's kind of like a staticky f back and whatnot.
Speaker 1: That's okay, but you're welcome to definitely talk. But thank
Speaker 1: you for that. So, by the way, and the guys
Speaker 1: in the chat, I'm not saying you can't talk about that,
Speaker 1: but and there's Lewis and Kai and Grido. There's a
Speaker 1: guy who's a Roman Catholic named Tony g He says
Speaker 1: he's trying to get in the discord. Oh okay, Tony,
Speaker 1: are you there? And for those yeah, hold on for
Speaker 1: the hold on. If you're not talking, please mute. Guys
Speaker 1: in the YouTube chat, this is discord, all right. It's
Speaker 1: not a guest on the show. If you want to
Speaker 1: come into the discord and chat, you're welcome to. As
Speaker 1: of now, it's ghetto set up, so I don't have
Speaker 1: a better way to do it, so there we go
Speaker 1: go ahead. Guy, what's up?
Speaker 2: Bro?
Speaker 9: Hey Jay, I'm a Roman Catholic bit of a layman.
Speaker 9: I just had a quick question. You often say a
Speaker 9: movie portray real life. I appreciate the work you do
Speaker 9: as far as the esoteric work. I just wanted to
Speaker 9: know the Orthodoxy position on spiritual battle as far as
Speaker 9: demonic possessions and you know, demonic things that are in
Speaker 9: living people's houses, because you know, we always see Roman Catholic.
Speaker 2: Priests the forefront.
Speaker 9: As far as handling this battle, I just wanted to
Speaker 9: know the Orthodoxy position on debt.
Speaker 10: Yeah, if you're not talking pretty mute, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Of course Orthodox Orthodoxy does house blessings. The priests do
Speaker 1: this like once a year they go around and do
Speaker 1: house blessing, So there's there's no difference between the Orthodox
Speaker 1: and Catholic view of that kind of stuff of sacramental theology,
Speaker 1: blessing the house, blessing water, blessing rivers. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is very common in the Orthodox Church. So of course
Speaker 1: we believe in the reality of spiritual warfare. I mean
Speaker 1: all of the spiritual ascetic writing is about battling the demons.
Speaker 1: If you read Larsay's trilogy, I mean Larchais wrote this
Speaker 1: gigantic trilogy Therapy of Spiritual Illness, and it's all about
Speaker 1: how all of the vices, you could say, are kind
Speaker 1: of like battling demons. This is all just from the
Speaker 1: Father's philocalia. So I would argue that really Orthodoxy is
Speaker 1: who continues this tradition. I mean, we have a lot
Speaker 1: of monastics in Orthodoxy, Monasticism and ro Catholicism is basically vanishing.
Speaker 1: So I would say, definitely check out somebody like a father,
Speaker 1: but not Father, but Jean Claude Larcher therapy of spiritual illnesses,
Speaker 1: which would answer your question.
Speaker 2: I definitely appreciate the comments.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 5: Also, Father Georgia Korro is really good at He's an
Speaker 5: Orthodox priest that has a lot of experience with possessions
Speaker 5: and exorcisms.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's who you mentioned in the past. We
Speaker 1: need to do it interview with him, Yes, exactly, Ulson says,
Speaker 1: for seven dollars, here's my imp to roasting you. I'm
Speaker 1: late to the game. People won't debate you because you're
Speaker 1: doing brain keto royds. No, sorry, bro, that's that's not
Speaker 1: a good joke. It would be fair to say that
Speaker 1: ninety percent of your audience is happy that you did
Speaker 1: not become I can't read the rest of that. Sorry,
Speaker 1: he remember if you if you send me a super
Speaker 1: chat on stream labs, I can only see one long sentence.
Speaker 1: I can't see a gigantic paragraph. But even though I
Speaker 1: appreciate the seven dollars, a Ulson, that joke was kind
Speaker 1: of lame. Bag. I tell for ten dollars, says, what
Speaker 1: do you think about the Finnish Orthodox Church. I don't
Speaker 1: have any knowledge of the Finnish Orthodox Church, Father deacon,
Speaker 1: do you hadn't know anything about this.
Speaker 2: I think they're pretty good. I think they're technically under
Speaker 2: the EP. But as far as I've heard of it,
Speaker 2: I haven't heard any problems.
Speaker 1: With he says, with my finished roots, I would feel
Speaker 1: like it's more natural to join that, But people from
Speaker 1: the Russian Church tend to speak against it. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know the drama.
Speaker 5: That's because there's a you gotta know the history between
Speaker 5: Finland and Russia, right.
Speaker 1: I don't know what is what is the isue, so.
Speaker 5: You know, acquiring lands and wars and stuff like that.
Speaker 5: So there there's some sensitivity with that. That's not a
Speaker 5: theological issue. That's a cultural, a cultural issue. I don't
Speaker 5: personally I imagine this person's asking in Finland because I'm
Speaker 5: trying to think, like what other Finnish.
Speaker 2: Orthodox churches there are outside of Finland.
Speaker 1: I mean it sounds like that's what he means.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I was just gonna say, I'm ethnically finish,
Speaker 4: and our greatest hero is our greatest hero because he
Speaker 4: killed like a lot of Russians.
Speaker 3: Like a lot.
Speaker 2: Yeah you know, do you know what I'm talking about? Yeah, so,
Speaker 2: like a lot of Russia.
Speaker 4: Like he killed a lot of Russian so and that
Speaker 4: guy's out national hero.
Speaker 2: So like Russian Finland relations are still sketchy to this day.
Speaker 1: So basically, you're defending du that is what you're saying.
Speaker 1: You're here to defend.
Speaker 2: Yes, I am a douan Is, but I get we must.
Speaker 1: We must train the American the right wing to take
Speaker 1: down America.
Speaker 2: The Dougan Bitcoin.
Speaker 4: I get that, and I share before Jed Dire and
Speaker 4: kJ be on Twitter.
Speaker 11: Uh.
Speaker 1: Anyway, is there anybody in the discord that wants to
Speaker 1: speak up?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I had another question?
Speaker 3: Is that?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 2: A bit of a lament question.
Speaker 9: During this gism when the church is separated, I wanted
Speaker 9: to know how it worked when it came to going
Speaker 9: to battle together against you know, Islam and the Crusades.
Speaker 2: How did all that come together? Did they you know,
Speaker 2: get together and it was.
Speaker 9: Okay for that time when they just separated, you know,
Speaker 9: just a little bit of clarity on that situation.
Speaker 1: No, I mean the Byzantium was sacked. What do you mean?
Speaker 2: I was wondering because the schism was in ten fifty.
Speaker 1: Four correct officially, Yeah.
Speaker 2: And the Crusade were a little bit after that, correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there were there were at camps.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there were several attempts to kind of unite, and
Speaker 5: that offered, uh, what we thought would be kind of
Speaker 5: a promising lead to possibly be united in something, and
Speaker 5: it kind of backfired. As Jade pointed out, Byzantium was
Speaker 5: under attack, and uh, we thought that we could unite
Speaker 5: and call for the help of the Latins and it
Speaker 5: really didn't.
Speaker 2: Work out well.
Speaker 1: No, the Latins eventually sack the Latin Bysanthium eventually.
Speaker 2: Okay, man, you guys, I appreciates the answer.
Speaker 1: Man, Yeah, I'm wrong, dude, Hey Jay, yes, sir.
Speaker 12: I only have a minute, but I did wanna I
Speaker 12: guess ask you already know me as far as we
Speaker 12: talked for a really long time yesterday or the day before.
Speaker 12: If you remember, you probably talked to a million people.
Speaker 12: But anyway, I guess my question is okay, good.
Speaker 1: Your question as well.
Speaker 2: Craized Latin.
Speaker 12: I guess the clitice learned about extraordinary form, visit team,
Speaker 12: all that kind of stuff, as well as the Orthodox
Speaker 12: UH spent about tens visiting Eastern parish Orthodox parishes to
Speaker 12: the priests.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember the story. You don't have to. I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to be mean, but I remember. You're cutting out.
Speaker 2: Bro.
Speaker 1: If you want to leave the discord and then pop
Speaker 1: back in, it usually resets the setting. So maybe you
Speaker 1: won't be cutting out, but you're cutting out right now.
Speaker 12: Kristen diving into the possibility that she might be in
Speaker 12: the wrong.
Speaker 3: Bro.
Speaker 1: But it Hey, I didn't hear any of that. You
Speaker 1: cut out for all that, damn, so so exit and
Speaker 1: come back.
Speaker 2: All right, all right? But oh the joys discord.
Speaker 4: If people want to ask a question and you don't
Speaker 4: want to hope on stream, just go. If you're in
Speaker 4: the discord, go to voice text General. I tagged everyone there.
Speaker 4: You can ask questions and I'll see them.
Speaker 2: To Jay.
Speaker 1: This is the first ghetto pale attempt at a call
Speaker 1: in show. I don't even like the idea of Collin shows,
Speaker 1: but we were trying to get okay, well, well we
Speaker 1: were trying to get it. We were trying to get
Speaker 1: Is to come debate, and he wouldn't do it.
Speaker 2: But we got a question, what's.
Speaker 4: The explanation of Noah's sons and grandsons having different features
Speaker 4: and skin color?
Speaker 1: Why does it need an explanation? What I mean, people
Speaker 1: go into different climates and there's a symbiotic relationship between
Speaker 1: you know, people's physiognomy and their environments. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with adaptation. And you know, yeah, people go
Speaker 1: into southerly climates, they're gonna you know, gradually developed, you know,
Speaker 1: darker scin or whatever. I don't see why that's even controversial.
Speaker 2: Okay, we got another one.
Speaker 4: What would you say to people who tell you the
Speaker 4: Bible is impossible because of dinosaurs skeletons existing.
Speaker 1: Well, there's two possible answers. I think that anything that
Speaker 1: modern science proposes that is bound up with Darwinian naturalism
Speaker 1: can be legitimately doubted, and we have a basis to
Speaker 1: be skeptical of. So there's a lot of questions about quote,
Speaker 1: dinosaur skeletons to begin with. But even if they are real,
Speaker 1: the Book of Job speaks of all kinds of things
Speaker 1: that could absolutely be a dinosaurs. So there's nothing inherently
Speaker 1: contradicting about either position is conceivably defensible.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Behemos is a good example of what could possibly
Speaker 4: be a dinosaur.
Speaker 2: Saying, okay, another one, do you think.
Speaker 4: That the Orthodox and Catholic Church could unite in some
Speaker 4: way in the future. Personally, I couldn't see it. I'm
Speaker 4: not sure what your take is, Jay, So I just
Speaker 4: wanted to ask and know your side.
Speaker 1: No, I mean, there's our like if you look at
Speaker 1: Metropolitan surfim Prius, he wrote a long letter to Francis.
Speaker 1: He's a famous Greek Conservative bishop. He wrote a long
Speaker 1: letter saying the thirty four or five elements that the
Speaker 1: two churches could not unite over. That would have to change.
Speaker 1: So that's the classical Orthodox position. It doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: modern and humanists say. You have to adhere to the
Speaker 1: traditional arguments that we've always made on the basis of
Speaker 1: the canons and the councils as to what the elements
Speaker 1: of change and innovation in Rome are. Right in the
Speaker 1: Middle Ages, in the East. They were called Byzantine lists,
Speaker 1: and these are the lists of the problems that we
Speaker 1: have with Rome, things like forbidding pedro communion, forbidding married priests.
Speaker 1: Those are just one of the many, right, there's a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of other ones, like philioque and that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. Obviously comes first. Papacy. Those are the main issues,
Speaker 1: but there's a bunch of other issues too.
Speaker 4: Okay, now the question these questions are rolling in, so
Speaker 4: thanks to everyone in the discord, can you discuss the
Speaker 4: difference in Protestant Christus Victor versus Orthodox attirement?
Speaker 1: Well, Christus Victor is an attempt to borrow elements of
Speaker 1: Patristic ideas. So there's nothing inherently anti Orthodox about some
Speaker 1: of the ideas of Christa's Victor. Because the Lutheran theologian
Speaker 1: that I think it was a Lutheran guy who went
Speaker 1: back and tried to reconstruct different theories of atonement from
Speaker 1: the Patristic period. He's just borrowing from different church fathers
Speaker 1: and different ideas. So I would actually argue that the
Speaker 1: Orthodox position has the correct elements of all the positions, right,
Speaker 1: So all of the positions have elements. Is there a
Speaker 1: penal substitutionary aspect to it. Yes, Is there a Christ's
Speaker 1: victor aspect to it?
Speaker 13: Yes?
Speaker 1: Just read book three of John Damascus and he explains
Speaker 1: perfectly in line with all of the Eastern fathers before
Speaker 1: him and many of the early Latin fathers as to
Speaker 1: what the orthodox doctrine of the death of Christ and
Speaker 1: the Atonement is. The last part of book three is
Speaker 1: the perfect excellent harmony with Christology doctrine. And the Protestants,
Speaker 1: especially Calvinists, end up as historians with their doctrine. It's
Speaker 1: that easy, so we don't have to go into Lutheran speculations.
Speaker 1: And as if we don't know what the doctrine of
Speaker 1: the atonement and the death of Christ and the descent
Speaker 1: into Hades is, we do know. Like it's all just
Speaker 1: academic theories up in the air, not for us. No,
Speaker 1: the herowing of Hades is a dogma, it's nowhere in Protestantism.
Speaker 2: We have another one, curious on your views on the
Speaker 2: Church of the East.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we don't accept that as anymore than any of
Speaker 1: the other Churches of the East, the so called Orientals.
Speaker 1: They're just as much in schism as the others.
Speaker 4: Okay, short answer love that in what sense would an
Speaker 4: Orthodox say that Pope Leo was the archbishop of.
Speaker 1: All the churches in the same way that that same
Speaker 1: phraseology is used of Con Sentinople. I mean, these kinds
Speaker 1: of glowing terms and phrases are used often. Uh. The
Speaker 1: Alexandrian patriarch it is sometimes referred to as the head
Speaker 1: of churches, the head of all churches Antioch and Basil's
Speaker 1: letters as he uses that same phraseology. It's that there's
Speaker 1: a common usage of florid. Uh, what's the term that
Speaker 1: there's a there's a term for like the glowing phrase
Speaker 1: phraseology that's used at times. It doesn't always necessarily mean
Speaker 1: the Vatican One doctrine of papal infallibility. So if you look,
Speaker 1: if you look at the way Canon, look at the
Speaker 1: what can you mute if you look at the way
Speaker 1: Canon twenty eight of Chalcedon speaks of the ecumenical patriarch.
Speaker 1: It it's ecumenical patriarchate, universal patriarch. It's just a term.
Speaker 1: There's we don't necessarily read into that universal dogmas or
Speaker 1: in terms of Vatican One view is all we have
Speaker 1: to do there. Ifew the Vatican One view is just
Speaker 1: show that it's not present in the Seven Councils. And
Speaker 1: that's very easy to do. If that's the case, the
Speaker 1: Vatican One refutes itself because Vatican One says that its
Speaker 1: view was always true.
Speaker 2: Okay, we got another one. How do we get people
Speaker 2: over the quote sky daddy.
Speaker 4: Argument and the quote if God good, why bad things happened?
Speaker 2: Mind? How do we get people over that?
Speaker 1: The easiest way to go about that is just to
Speaker 1: point out that to do basic pres up first of all,
Speaker 1: like we're not calling God a sky daddy, as if
Speaker 1: there's a one to one correspondence between the earthly notion
Speaker 1: of father and a heavenly literal father. Those are what's
Speaker 1: called analogia, right, There are analogies between human fathers and God.
Speaker 1: The Father doesn't mean that God is identically literally a
Speaker 1: quote guy with a long beard and a dad. He's
Speaker 1: spoken of as like a father, but he's also spoken
Speaker 1: of as like many other things. Mute. Can you mute?
Speaker 1: Just boot that guy if he's so so? Uh so,
Speaker 1: The sky daddy argument is based on a misunderstanding of
Speaker 1: what divine names are divine terms. So if you read
Speaker 1: Dionysius in the Divine Names he will go into detail
Speaker 1: explaining how we predicated God in what sense we use
Speaker 1: these words in terms, and then ironically, you know, just
Speaker 1: boot that guy.
Speaker 14: Uh.
Speaker 1: Ironically, atheists even do the same thing. They will speak
Speaker 1: of nature like it's a mother, like it's an artificer,
Speaker 1: like it's a designer, like it's a personal cognizant agent
Speaker 1: able to create and make things, when it's an impersonal
Speaker 1: chaotic force. So they will do that. They will do
Speaker 1: the exact all right, booting that guy, just doing that, understand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can see.
Speaker 5: I'll keep my eyes by the way, even better, look
Speaker 5: at the personification of science.
Speaker 1: Yes, we got almost three hundred people, by the way,
Speaker 1: welcome everybody, Thank your father digging. Go ahead and finish that.
Speaker 1: I thought, if you want to, well, I mean.
Speaker 5: If you notice, let's consult the oracle science. Science says,
Speaker 5: it tells.
Speaker 1: Us, oh, yes, exactly right.
Speaker 5: It's perfied form of deity that you go to the
Speaker 5: oracle and givinize.
Speaker 1: Your Yes, the science gods have spoken that COVID you know,
Speaker 1: doesn't affect riots, right, but it does affect anything else exactly. So,
Speaker 1: so sky daddy God, I would just do a basic
Speaker 1: prese up and say that this, First of all, it's
Speaker 1: not accurate. You guys did the exact same thing with
Speaker 1: personification of nature, and then you turn around and act
Speaker 1: like nature has no qualities like this, there's no actual
Speaker 1: design actually in nature, as they all argue, But then
Speaker 1: they turn around and talk like there is te loos
Speaker 1: in nature. Then I would turn around and say that
Speaker 1: what was the next one? Oh, morals, And I would
Speaker 1: just simply say that you need something like Christianity to
Speaker 1: provide a system for a basis for objective ethics. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that there's objective ethics just because I say
Speaker 1: Christianity is true. I'm saying that the system of Christian
Speaker 1: theology or metaphysics and ethics gives an account for how
Speaker 1: there's ethics. That's different than just saying well, it's true
Speaker 1: because we have ethics. And that's two different arguments, right.
Speaker 1: The atheist doesn't have a basis at all to say
Speaker 1: something is wrong, something is ethically morally wrong, it's arbitrary.
Speaker 1: That's two different arguments. So if you can make those
Speaker 1: that argument and just say oh no, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: so Christianity is quote evil or bad, but you don't
Speaker 1: actually believe there is any objective evil or bad, so
Speaker 1: you have no basis to make an argument that Christianity
Speaker 1: is bad.
Speaker 4: Okay, next question is, yes, what advice would you give
Speaker 4: to an atheist who simply confine it within himself to believe?
Speaker 1: I mean, belief is not a like thing that you
Speaker 1: work yourself up to. I mean you have to repent,
Speaker 1: you have to change your life to believe. There's a
Speaker 1: symbiotic relationship between the repenting and changing our ways and
Speaker 1: the acquisition of the gift of faith. Right. I mean
Speaker 1: it's all grace ultimately, in the sense that God is
Speaker 1: the one that's giving us our providential situations that lead
Speaker 1: us to believe and repent. And at the same time,
Speaker 1: grace is all I mean, faith is also a gift,
Speaker 1: So I would ask God for faith and at the
Speaker 1: same time, you know, stop whatever degenerates that you're into.
Speaker 1: That's that's how it works.
Speaker 4: Also, I'm going to send you a someone ask that
Speaker 4: you put up a screenshot of each as his tweets,
Speaker 4: So I'll send you a screenshot.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not doing that. I'm not doing that. I'm
Speaker 1: not We're not doing stupid drama. I mean it's an
Speaker 1: open invitation. I've invited this guy for eight months to
Speaker 1: do a debate and he just talks around it all
Speaker 1: do it in six months? Oh were you you made
Speaker 1: fun of me? I didn't make fun of you. This
Speaker 1: is all he does. He just asks, you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's just drama. I'm not doing that. I mean, we
Speaker 1: set up we set up a debate with we set
Speaker 1: up a debate with his teacher. If we set up
Speaker 1: a debate with his teacher, we set up a debate
Speaker 1: with everybody else. Have no problems with Zephon Molini, Matt Dela, Hunting,
Speaker 1: Adam Okesh, all these different well known people and that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's been months and months and months of
Speaker 1: trying to set up a debate with this guy. It's
Speaker 1: just a waste of time. I'm not gonna even interact
Speaker 1: with him.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: Another question, is there an attempt to unify the Church
Speaker 4: of the East and Orthodox Church actively going on?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't keep up with that.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know there's been discussions with Monophesites. I
Speaker 1: don't know about Syrians.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Okay, can you explain what is meant by formal distinctions
Speaker 4: in God and why Orthodox reject this.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter what terms you use, because we're not Scotis.
Speaker 1: If you read Scotus's treatises, he has two treatises on
Speaker 1: the unicity of God and the Existence of God. I've
Speaker 1: got the treatises right over here on my shelf, and go.
Speaker 1: We did a whole talk on this. Go watch the
Speaker 1: talk that we did, me and father Deacon Ananias, where
Speaker 1: we covered Anselm's ontological argument and Scotus's arguments for divine simplicity,
Speaker 1: where he equates in a strict identity, will, knowledge, essence, unity,
Speaker 1: et cetera, all of the attributes of God and he
Speaker 1: predicates it all on the basis of natural theology. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's that's not our position. We can't unite with Scotism.
Speaker 1: So formal distinction of Scotis is just a scholastics, quasi
Speaker 1: scholastic thing that's invented to try to have a closer
Speaker 1: position because he's trying to do justice to the Eastern position.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. We already know what the correct distinction is.
Speaker 1: It's not based on speculations of later theologians in the
Speaker 1: Middle Ages, because the dogmatic councils have already determined what
Speaker 1: the distinction is. It's a real distinction between essence and energy,
Speaker 1: just as real as a distinction between the hypostases. It's
Speaker 1: not even debated in the in the in the in
Speaker 1: Our Fathers, It's very clear. I mean, Maximus has tons
Speaker 1: of passages that discuss this distinction. Right the sixth Council
Speaker 1: predicates its argumentation on the essence energy distinction being real.
Speaker 1: I mean imagine saying that creating the world is only
Speaker 1: formally distinct from Jesus walking on water. I mean, just
Speaker 1: think how stupid that is. So formal distinctions, A formal
Speaker 1: distinction is just a scholastic thing to try to have
Speaker 1: a position closer to the east. But it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: because I can go to Scotus's other works where he
Speaker 1: is explicitly says things that we could never agree with.
Speaker 4: Okay, we've got a question that I think if Father
Speaker 4: Daton is there, I think this would be a good
Speaker 4: question for him. So I'm an inquire in a very
Speaker 4: evangelical family. They really don't like orthodoxy, and I don't
Speaker 4: want to be evangelical anymore.
Speaker 2: What do I do? I can't drive yet, and I
Speaker 2: don't know anyone orthodox around me.
Speaker 5: I'd say, tickets slow, thank you for your question. I
Speaker 5: get a lot of these questions and you know, consulted
Speaker 5: with my spiritual father on how to approach.
Speaker 2: These sorts of things. You know, as many of you converted, know.
Speaker 5: That sometimes you spend a long time is a catechumen,
Speaker 5: many years. It can be a slow process. So I'd
Speaker 5: encourage you if you can't get to a service that
Speaker 5: you know, we have a Catechises program on the discourse
Speaker 5: here and in fact, I think we correct me if
Speaker 5: I'm wrong, Jay and Lewis, but we have a Metropolitan
Speaker 5: Jonah aiding in that process. I'd say, really start trying
Speaker 5: to you know, get some good reads. We have a
Speaker 5: good book recommendation. You can always right me questions and
Speaker 5: if it's above my pay grade, any wisdom that I have,
Speaker 5: again it comes from my spiritual father, and I'll off
Speaker 5: to take questions.
Speaker 2: So I think we can help you, and we can.
Speaker 5: You know, you're not hopefully you're not going to be
Speaker 5: living with your parents forever, and you know, pray, pray
Speaker 5: that God, you know, provide the means to eventually attend
Speaker 5: a SERVI us and.
Speaker 2: I would definitely suggest don't argue Orthodoxy with your parents.
Speaker 5: Just try to acquire the spirit of Orthodoxy, and they'll
Speaker 5: notice a change and they'll begin to inquire, what is
Speaker 5: this new thing that you've found. That's what i'd suggest,
Speaker 5: So feel free to write any of us again, We've
Speaker 5: got a lot of great resources and you can still
Speaker 5: experience Orthodoxy and.
Speaker 2: Learn a lot about it that way.
Speaker 1: I'm not upset. I get tired of the same questions
Speaker 1: over and over and over. And when we do entire
Speaker 1: streams answering those questions and then people ask those questions
Speaker 1: over and over and over, that's I'm not upset. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying that it's already been dealt with. We've done
Speaker 1: this million times. And also because I know the people
Speaker 1: that will rely on these kind of bogus, you know,
Speaker 1: ways around arguments. But I'm going to read you from
Speaker 1: the philosophical writings of John Damascus on page fifty six,
Speaker 1: says that I establish this knowledge and will of the
Speaker 1: First Being or God or God is the same as
Speaker 1: his essence, The divine essence is absolutely identical to its will.
Speaker 1: And he goes on to say, I have proved thus
Speaker 1: that the knowledge the Self love and the essence are
Speaker 1: all identical in the first being, there is no knowledge
Speaker 1: or accidental He says, there's nothing accidental. No knowledge can
Speaker 1: be accidental to the first essence. He goes on and
Speaker 1: explicitly states, so there's nothing. But he says, act as purists. Okay, So, like,
Speaker 1: how long do we have to keep making the same
Speaker 1: responses in the same arguments? And he says it over
Speaker 1: and over over. This is not, you know, like one
Speaker 1: thing I'm taking out of ord. He says, the love
Speaker 1: of God is identical the essence of God. Again, don't
Speaker 1: you understand that that's not the triadic christological dogma of
Speaker 1: the first seven centuries. We don't teach that, The councils
Speaker 1: don't teach that. Johnamascus writes entire books against that.
Speaker 4: Okay, we have someone in voice chat who wants to
Speaker 4: ask a question.
Speaker 1: Welcome manifest.
Speaker 2: Yeah, can everybody hear me?
Speaker 3: Fine?
Speaker 2: Can you all right?
Speaker 11: So my question is kind of a compound question, but
Speaker 11: it's adhering to one ultimate questions. That's okay, Okay, So
Speaker 11: my question is are you familiar with the letters written
Speaker 11: in the late nine hundreds and early one thousands, going
Speaker 11: back and forth between Roman Constantinople that led to the
Speaker 11: Great Schism, and would you, and if so, would you
Speaker 11: please explain for us the contents and refutation to the
Speaker 11: Roman Catholic argument at the Orthodox Church schisms and not
Speaker 11: the other way around.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Read Francis de Vornik's entire book on it, and
Speaker 1: he is one of your top Unity eight scholars who've
Speaker 1: been indicates and admits our position. How's that?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 2: What was the name of that book again.
Speaker 1: Father Francis de Vornik, The Phocian Schism. It's a famous,
Speaker 1: well known book.
Speaker 2: I think it referring to the you know, the business.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, but I'm saying that the Vornick covers that
Speaker 1: whole period of the Phocian Schism.
Speaker 2: All right, thank you. I'll look into that. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 4: Manifest Okay, next question, Jay, how do you see the
Speaker 4: alien slash extraterrestrial syop evolve in the coming year.
Speaker 1: That's not really what we're here to tell. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, I specify it's okay, I mean I don't
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, it's entirely possible that they
Speaker 1: could throw that kind of a thing at us. After all,
Speaker 1: the corunka nonsense. I don't. I don't personally think it'll
Speaker 1: go that far, but it could. But I mean, we're
Speaker 1: here right now to talk about I said, atheism, logic, metaphysics,
Speaker 1: biblical theology, Early Church, Islam, Protestant Roman Catholics. So that's
Speaker 1: what we're here to talk about today, not not UFOs.
Speaker 1: I guess, I guess that fits under metaphysics. So I
Speaker 1: guess do aliens exist as a metaphysical question? So I
Speaker 1: guess I guess he is within the balance of what
Speaker 1: we're here to talk about. But anybody else, if you
Speaker 1: want to, feel free to offer up a super chat
Speaker 1: question whatever. I put into the link in the chat here.
Speaker 1: Sometimes the discord app crashes, so Discordous crash. Let me
Speaker 1: pull it back up. So the app the app crash.
Speaker 1: But if you're on the video, if you're watching on YouTube,
Speaker 1: I put into the chat the link to Father Deacon
Speaker 1: and Night's discussion of Dunscotis and and some we deal
Speaker 1: with the theology of those two guys, and are they
Speaker 1: compatible with the Orthodox theology? So contrary to the Ecumenists,
Speaker 1: they're not. We already have the decisions of the Palomite
Speaker 1: Synods which are binding for us, which make it very
Speaker 1: clear that you can't. I mean, just read the Tomos
Speaker 1: of John Becos. You can't accept Romatholicism if you're Orthodox.
Speaker 1: I don't know why people don't know this. It's not
Speaker 1: very difficult to see what the Tomos of John Becos says.
Speaker 1: It explicitly denies union on the Filioquay issues. It's not
Speaker 1: rocket science that we're doing here. What is the Orthodox
Speaker 1: position on? I don't know what that is, Gertz says
Speaker 1: on sestuy Quay v Act of sixteen sixty six. I
Speaker 1: have no I have no idea what that is. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I can't. I'm not trying to avoid it, but I
Speaker 1: don't know what that is.
Speaker 2: Okay, back to the questions, sure.
Speaker 4: Okay, So when I asked, would you end capturing Christianity debate?
Speaker 2: I know this has come up before. I think Capturing
Speaker 2: Christianity refused to debate, didn't he?
Speaker 1: Well, we were supposed to. I was supposed to debate
Speaker 1: inspiring philosophy.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: And then they said they said that I had to
Speaker 1: agree to not make any quote insults, which we'd already
Speaker 1: agreed to the debate. And then they added on these
Speaker 1: new criterias that you can't say anything critical or insulting
Speaker 1: of the other person. And I said, well, that's too vague. Uh,
Speaker 1: And I said, I'm We've already agreed to a debate,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna You know, if I make a mistake
Speaker 1: in the debate, you're supposed to call it out. You
Speaker 1: don't change the criteria of what I can and can't
Speaker 1: say before the debate happens that you've already agreed to.
Speaker 1: So they changed the criteria of what couldn't couldn't be said.
Speaker 1: And so I said, I'm still willing to debate, but
Speaker 1: you're not gonna tell me what I can and can't say.
Speaker 1: So then I said, well, why don't capture Christianity. Why
Speaker 1: don't you come debate me as well? And he wouldn't
Speaker 1: do it. So neither of them wanted to debate. This
Speaker 1: was before they were actually familiar with what I do
Speaker 1: or what I talk about. And then when I went
Speaker 1: and looked into what I argue in my background, then
Speaker 1: he decided to come up with this new criterion how
Speaker 1: to back out. So I think he backed out. If
Speaker 1: Cameron would love to to, I would love to have
Speaker 1: Cameron come on, because he believes, with absolutely no training
Speaker 1: at all, that he can destroy and refute the transcendental argument.
Speaker 1: I would love, I would I would die to uh
Speaker 1: to debate capturing Christianity on the transcendental argument and whether
Speaker 1: it's sound and valid. So please, Cameron, I pe either
Speaker 1: one of you come debate. I promised I won't be
Speaker 1: mean to you. I won't hurt your feelings. I promise,
Speaker 1: But I don't think that they actually they don't really
Speaker 1: want to debate. That's the root of this issue.
Speaker 5: And Cameron, if you're listening, if you don't want Jay,
Speaker 5: I'm always here and I'm a nice guy.
Speaker 1: Father Deacon is much nicer than me, So he's uh,
Speaker 1: he's a better he's a better philosopher, more, he's well,
Speaker 1: he's more trained than I am. So feel free to
Speaker 1: also have an interaction with Father Diacon. Doctor Annias, We've.
Speaker 2: Got another question.
Speaker 4: What are your thoughts on the visions of Bishop Hieronymous.
Speaker 4: I've got angelos. He prophesied the mass future conversion of
Speaker 4: Germany to Orthodoxy, as well as the destruction of the
Speaker 4: papacy in World War three, as well as a final
Speaker 4: ecumenical council to stamp out every heresy.
Speaker 1: I've never heard this as new to me. I don't
Speaker 1: know anything about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, heard that.
Speaker 1: Sounds pretty cool, but I don't know what about it.
Speaker 1: Would you be willing to debate ef Dawa, Dude, I've
Speaker 1: already debated. We had an aazam before on they uploaded
Speaker 1: this to the channel. I mean, here's a challenge. So
Speaker 1: Christianity has been on the defensive debating their texts to
Speaker 1: the Muslims for thirty years in you know, online audio
Speaker 1: debates right all the way back to twenty thirty years ago.
Speaker 1: Right when is a Muslim actually going to step up
Speaker 1: and defend their theology? They never do it. They won't
Speaker 1: debate their theology. They will only debate basing their arguments
Speaker 1: on liberal higher criticism. That's all they ever want to debate.
Speaker 1: And then because anytime it gets into their territory, it collapses.
Speaker 1: So I'm not going to just debate you on the
Speaker 1: Gospel of John. Just like sam Simun Shamun said, We're
Speaker 1: going to debate Gospel John and the Koran and whether
Speaker 1: it contradicts itself. Those are the we don't just do
Speaker 1: only our texts, and you guys know that you won't
Speaker 1: debate your text because it's difficult to defend because it's impossible,
Speaker 1: and none of them. I'm starting to figure out that
Speaker 1: the reason that the Muslims won't debate is because they
Speaker 1: don't have good theology that's logical, Like, they won't do
Speaker 1: logic debates. They're not good at logically debating because they
Speaker 1: don't know typical basic fallacies. I'm not trying to be
Speaker 1: mean to those guys. I'm not saying that none of
Speaker 1: them are good at debating. I'm saying that most of
Speaker 1: them who talk all the smack, they don't know basic fallacies,
Speaker 1: and so they'll talk about you use a bunch of
Speaker 1: philosophy logic. Yeah, you can't debate without philosophy logic. There's
Speaker 1: no such thing as a debate that doesn't have criteria
Speaker 1: of fallacies contradictions. That's called logic. Those are called fallacies.
Speaker 1: That's philosophy. That's the domain of philosophy. It's called logic.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows this right.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Okay, we got another one.
Speaker 2: We have literally like two hundred questions.
Speaker 1: No, hold on, hold on, So there's a guy in
Speaker 1: the chat say that is false. No, your debates, You
Speaker 1: guys won't debate your texts. Shaver Eli did not want
Speaker 1: to debate his text. I don't just mean the text itself.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the theology of those texts, right, the
Speaker 1: Taoheed doctrine, the Tanzi doctrine. You don't want to debate
Speaker 1: those doctrines. That's what I'm talking about. It's not a
Speaker 1: cop dude, What are you talking about it? He says.
Speaker 1: He says, I'm copping out, dude. We've invited what's seven
Speaker 1: six seven of your top scholars and they won't debate
Speaker 1: Shabira Lee. Credit to Shabira Lee because he did. So
Speaker 1: what are you talking about? I'm not This is what
Speaker 1: you guys do? You say cop out when we invite
Speaker 1: you on all the time. There's an open invitation to
Speaker 1: Muhammed he Jubb yesterday, right undred four hundred, four hundred
Speaker 1: likes on the tweet, two one hundred and twenty retweets,
Speaker 1: and he ignores the tweet like you didn't see it.
Speaker 1: Come on, come on, don't don't tell me it's a
Speaker 1: cop out. When you guys won't come on in debate,
Speaker 1: I mean imagine inviting. So this is that we've done
Speaker 1: three public debates with Muslim No One of them. They're
Speaker 1: top debaters. And their reply is, you're scared and you're
Speaker 1: copping out. We've invited what Lewis tell me? He isn't
Speaker 1: six seven Muslim scholars.
Speaker 2: Now it's like seven or eight?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what are you talking about? Total nonsense? All right, sorry,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Grido, do.
Speaker 2: You want to Oh?
Speaker 4: So, someone asked, I know that there have been critiques
Speaker 4: of the Catholic view of Mary where they almost view
Speaker 4: her as a co source of salvation. How is this
Speaker 4: different in the Orthodox Church where they ask Mary to save.
Speaker 1: Us the same way that we ask anyone else to
Speaker 1: pray for us and save us. Obviously her prayers have
Speaker 1: more efficacy because she's the highest of God's creation. Right,
Speaker 1: But Paul says, in doing so you will say you know,
Speaker 1: he says, keep this, this, this, and in doing so
Speaker 1: you will save those around you.
Speaker 13: Right?
Speaker 1: Does Paul mean that creatures become saviors like Jesus? No,
Speaker 1: this is the standard typical Protestant heretical slipped up on words.
Speaker 1: You guys get slipped up on words because, just like
Speaker 1: the Muslims, you think that words only have one meaning
Speaker 1: in one sense. So it's just the word concept fallacy.
Speaker 1: It's two different senses to salvation. Right, you can have
Speaker 1: a person who aids in your salvation without being the
Speaker 1: ultimate source of the salvation. Paul says we are co
Speaker 1: workers with God. Does that mean ah, he said, a
Speaker 1: coworker with God. So Paul thinks we're equal to God.
Speaker 1: You see what this is? Just silly. Nobody does this
Speaker 1: in the rest of their life, in the rest of
Speaker 1: their texts. Right, you don't always squish. Yeah, you don't
Speaker 1: squish a word into only having one meaning in one sense.
Speaker 1: Nobody does this in the rest of their life. Right,
Speaker 1: what does doctor bo say? A kid? Oh, a kid
Speaker 1: always means a goat. Right, So if you have a kid,
Speaker 1: you have this is what are you talking about? It's
Speaker 1: different senses of the word. This is childishness. Anyway, I'm
Speaker 1: getting all wild up. Uh, just go watch Craig Triulia's
Speaker 1: videos on Mary. He has plenty of great videos on
Speaker 1: Mary and the northodox Ya. So there's your answer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Greg, In.
Speaker 4: General, another one, Keny the deacon, you'd probably want to
Speaker 4: can you outline an atheist starter kit for Orthodoxy? What
Speaker 4: should be the duties of an ex atheist before joining
Speaker 4: the Orthodox Church?
Speaker 1: Well, Father Deacon, while you answered that I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: we we So do you feel free to take over here.
Speaker 4: An atheist starter camp, start a kit? So, like what
Speaker 4: should like an atheist person, like what books should they read?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 2: What what what should they buy first? Coming into Orthodoxy?
Speaker 3: Like nihilism?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Father Sarah and Rise is great. Ye.
Speaker 5: I'd also probably supplement some of the Orthodox reads with.
Speaker 2: See because I'd say a lot of the atheists you
Speaker 2: encounter are just deficient in the rich history of kind.
Speaker 5: Of theism within the kind of concepts, even like Aristota
Speaker 5: on the Plato that.
Speaker 3: And then.
Speaker 5: John I would probably the Orthodox faith saying John Damascus
Speaker 5: would be good because then you're you're talking about the
Speaker 5: attributes God. Let's see, you could always have them reads.
Speaker 2: He's brothers. Karen is off too. That's converted a lot of.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 14: I'm trying to think, you know, just generally, something that
Speaker 14: I noticed is that.
Speaker 5: Most atheists that we encounter are generally deficient in the
Speaker 5: great works in literature and theology.
Speaker 2: So you know, Leje Toli, just take up and read it.
Speaker 2: That's what I mean.
Speaker 5: If you you never want a strong man your opponent's position,
Speaker 5: so when you go into debate, you know, like us,
Speaker 5: we read as much as possible of our opponents theology
Speaker 5: or philosophy and literature so.
Speaker 2: That we're not misrepresenting it, so that when we do
Speaker 2: form a critique, the critique is a good one. You
Speaker 2: don't want to ever straw Man. And I think that's
Speaker 2: something that most atheists could learn from.
Speaker 5: You know, you get these people like Lawrence Kraus, even
Speaker 5: like the popular atheists.
Speaker 2: Dockings. None of these people have studied philosophy.
Speaker 5: Let alone theology, yet they're going to formulate these stupid
Speaker 5: straw Man critiques. So again, I just think it would
Speaker 5: be a really good atheist starter kit, great books, liberal
Speaker 5: arts program. There you go, because you're going to get
Speaker 5: the church history of the philosophy.
Speaker 1: All right, Okay, I'm back and we're done.
Speaker 2: Yea. I was just saying that, actually, you know what
Speaker 2: a good atheist starter kit.
Speaker 3: Would be.
Speaker 5: Simply a great books, liberal arts program for atheists. Uh
Speaker 5: read Well, I'm just saying they're deficient in the literature.
Speaker 5: They don't even know, you know, what they're talking about
Speaker 5: when they're formulating these critiques.
Speaker 2: And I don't think I think it would be beneficial
Speaker 2: not just to read up on orthodox theology, but.
Speaker 5: The history of Western thought in general, going back a
Speaker 5: Greek philosophy as well.
Speaker 4: Oh, I guess I highly doubt Lawrence Craft ever read
Speaker 4: Crime and Punishment.
Speaker 2: Okay, next question.
Speaker 1: Crime and Punishment is great, by the way, I highly
Speaker 1: recommend it.
Speaker 2: There's one of two thousand books on my reading list.
Speaker 2: I have a book for every year that I have
Speaker 2: a book for every year that the earth has existed.
Speaker 2: It's like two thousand, roughly two thousand.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: What significant theological differences exist between Eastern and Oriental orthodox
Speaker 4: other than the Calcedonian issue.
Speaker 2: I've not been able to find.
Speaker 4: A good articulation of their differences other than the Calcedonian controversy.
Speaker 1: They're not united. A snack you could probably speak to this.
Speaker 1: If you're in here, you may have gone. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I mean, they have a lot of division. They
Speaker 1: meet like once or twice a year, and they just
Speaker 1: kind of act like they're in communion. But they have
Speaker 1: all kinds of vast divergences amongst them, from animal sacrifice
Speaker 1: to circumcision to all kinds of bizarre things. So I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to be mean, but I mean that the
Speaker 1: Oriental quote unquote Orthodox Communion is not really any kind
Speaker 1: of unified thing at all. That's just in theory.
Speaker 15: It's more similar to the Anglican Commune, where they will
Speaker 15: have like new large differences and even like vising them,
Speaker 15: you will have you know, the Armenians today they are
Speaker 15: more Cacedonians in terms of christology. Yeah, again circumcision because
Speaker 15: in marriage, use of living and unleven bred.
Speaker 2: Animal sacrifice.
Speaker 16: Between these ches, you're forgetting one of the other crucial
Speaker 16: differences neck, which is that the Ethiopians have a different
Speaker 16: canon from the rest of the Oriental Orthodox, so they include.
Speaker 2: I mean we have slight variations again between the different works.
Speaker 3: Is that.
Speaker 15: Yeah, when it comes to the it's like really different,
Speaker 15: Like they literally have changes to the New Testament, which is.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean there's all kinds of other issues too.
Speaker 1: I mean that the the the I mean, you got
Speaker 1: like the poption out a writing a whole treatise a
Speaker 1: few years ago against the Osis, which is I mean ludicrous, unfathomable.
Speaker 1: It reads like something James White would have written. I mean,
Speaker 1: the idea that you could be an Orthodox pope of
Speaker 1: Alexandria quote unquote, that's they're called the pope of Alexandria
Speaker 1: and uh, you know you're the successor to Athanasius and
Speaker 1: you write a whole treatise against the Osis. I mean
Speaker 1: this is just preposterous.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And by the way, some people opposed it in his
Speaker 2: church for doing this one.
Speaker 1: Snack snack you cut out there? Can you repeat that?
Speaker 15: Yeah, there's been a lot of opposition because it's inside
Speaker 15: this church.
Speaker 2: So this Matthews the poor where you have burst it.
Speaker 8: He read the Fathers in Greek and he taught Theosis
Speaker 8: and at this point and he was one of the
Speaker 8: biggest mystics of the Coptic quote.
Speaker 1: Well, imagine having this stress on the union, but right,
Speaker 1: I mean they have this over emphasis on union when
Speaker 1: it comes to who or what Christ is and then
Speaker 1: turning around in denying Theosis. This is it's like, I
Speaker 1: don't know, I can't fathom how. But I mean when
Speaker 1: you when you read their theology in that guy's theology,
Speaker 1: or if you listen to David's debate, I mean, if
Speaker 1: you heard David's debate, it's they're they're like all over
Speaker 1: the place, right, you start talking about energies and they
Speaker 1: don't even know. They're like, I don't know, Yeah, there's energies,
Speaker 1: but maybe there's one or two or kind. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's come on, we have a clear, precise
Speaker 1: theology when it comes to person, nature, will, essence, energy,
Speaker 1: all that stuff. It's consistent from the Triad to Christology.
Speaker 1: That's the big difference there too, is that they don't
Speaker 1: see that there's a correspondence between nature, person, will, energy
Speaker 1: in the Triad into Christology. They disagree with that. Republicative predication,
Speaker 1: reduplicate predication.
Speaker 4: Excuse me, Okay, what would you say to someone who
Speaker 4: claims that John seven, five, three through eight to eleven
Speaker 4: is a fabrication by the early Church to push Christianity
Speaker 4: over Mosaic law, or just the fabrication in general.
Speaker 1: We covered this in the James snapstream. We did a
Speaker 1: whole stream on this. I don't even think it's out
Speaker 1: of accord with the Old Testament. Go listen to the
Speaker 1: James snapstream we did on textual history.
Speaker 6: So, yeah, because in mosaic law you had to have
Speaker 6: the man who she committed with you exactly.
Speaker 2: That was what the issue was.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean in many in many other places, Jesus
Speaker 1: absolutely upholds the continuity with the mosaic administration. So the
Speaker 1: idea that there's not continuity is kind of ludicrous. But
Speaker 1: go ahead, Okay, this.
Speaker 2: Is for either you or Father de Yeah. Are my
Speaker 2: prayers for others, both alive and past, even uh even heard?
Speaker 4: If I'm not baptized in the Orthodox Church or participating
Speaker 4: in the EU Christ, do you have any recommended prayers
Speaker 4: for those who have died before finding Christ slash Orthodoxy?
Speaker 1: I would answer that yes, God can hear all prayers
Speaker 1: because God, it says God heard Cornelius's prayers before he
Speaker 1: was baptized.
Speaker 2: All right, Yeah, and you can use any prayers.
Speaker 6: The only place that non Orthodox aren't commemorated is that
Speaker 6: the alta in the preparation of the Eucharist in the Proscamede.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 16: Jordanville has a really good prayer book if you want
Speaker 16: one of those.
Speaker 1: Yeah, bather Digan, did you want to comment on that,
Speaker 1: I mean to cut you off.
Speaker 2: No, that's exactly correct answer.
Speaker 3: Of course, got.
Speaker 2: All our prayers. But at the same time it encourages.
Speaker 5: Us to go further into Orthodoxy because the prayers are
Speaker 5: a righteous man avails much.
Speaker 14: And so I try to use that.
Speaker 5: As you know, it's hard to motivate myself to do
Speaker 5: stuff when I just think about myself. But if I
Speaker 5: realize that you know, other people depend on me. And
Speaker 5: I don't know how all of you feel about this,
Speaker 5: but for me, that's kind of a motivating factor.
Speaker 2: At lights a fire and it needs me. And the that's.
Speaker 5: Something that we could do, is that know that you
Speaker 5: know other people depend on us, and that maybe I
Speaker 5: can't motivate myself to get, you know, further my spiritual life.
Speaker 2: The fact that if you get further into spiritual life,
Speaker 2: you will be helping others is a wonderful thing.
Speaker 1: Garbage man has a question for seven dollars that looks
Speaker 1: like it's probably intended to trap me. The position on
Speaker 1: the church is that the church is the new Israel.
Speaker 1: So that should tell you the obvious answer to that question.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be very hard for you to figure that out.
Speaker 1: Although I do appreciate your appreciate your seven dollars. There
Speaker 1: should be plenty of quotes that explain to you what
Speaker 1: our position is. Gert sends a dollar and he says,
Speaker 1: in the future garden City, will we go back to
Speaker 1: being androgynist beings described in Genesis? We're not androgynist beings.
Speaker 1: Genesis I don't think describes androgynist beings. So if you
Speaker 1: if you read uh Father Sara from Rose in Genesis
Speaker 1: Creation Early Man, he actually has a section where he
Speaker 1: talks about how he and I think he's correct. Uh,
Speaker 1: there there was gender before the fall. Some of the
Speaker 1: Eastern fathers speculated on this and speculator that maybe gender
Speaker 1: wasn't introduced after the Fall. I don't believe that. But obviously,
Speaker 1: by the way, Jay.
Speaker 5: I'd avoid the what's called the woke PC translation of
Speaker 5: the Bible.
Speaker 1: We might actually get, Yeah, I get an orthodox study.
Speaker 1: By yeah, I would say, I don't know what, but
Speaker 1: which which one are you talking about? Like N I
Speaker 1: V or something or I'm just you mean, like when
Speaker 1: they come out with the like the the literal woke
Speaker 1: Bible exactly, they will probably have like the woke study Bible, right, Okay, And.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's just a prosperity gospel and uh liberation theology.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 2: That's your wife stuff, right. Next question.
Speaker 4: The next question is what, if any difference is there
Speaker 4: between monophysitism and mea physicism. Is there an actual difference
Speaker 4: or is it just an attempt at obfuscation by the Orientals.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean again, all of these have been dealt
Speaker 1: with with hours and hours of streams with David me
Speaker 1: and David. David has an entire lecture course on this topic.
Speaker 1: He just did a stream on my physicum. So go
Speaker 1: to David the real medwif's channel. He did a two
Speaker 1: and a half hour stream on my ephicitism. And yes,
Speaker 1: there is an orthodox way to understand my physitism Saint
Speaker 1: Cyril of Alexander, the Christological controversy. That whole book is
Speaker 1: written by Father John McGuckin to explain that topic. So no,
Speaker 1: it's not all obbliscation. I'm not trying to be rude.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that one of the reasons that we
Speaker 1: do like a long two hour stream answering each one
Speaker 1: of these types of topics, whether it's John Denscotis or
Speaker 1: whether it's my physitism, is so that we don't have
Speaker 1: to like constantly rehearse, you know, an hour's worth of material.
Speaker 1: One reason I'm doing this is because when people come
Speaker 1: to the discord, which I'm fine with, I enjoy that,
Speaker 1: you know, every other day we're doing like five six
Speaker 1: seven hour talks and then this you know, two days
Speaker 1: later the same question comes up. How is some sooner
Speaker 1: just sinction, not pell I mean, not neoplatonism. And we've
Speaker 1: already spent four hours the day before talking about that,
Speaker 1: so there's no point in just constantly redoing the same talk.
Speaker 1: So I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: that if David does twenty different streams explaining that very question,
Speaker 1: go watch David's stream or read the mcguck and book
Speaker 1: searching for three dollars. I'm an atheist who finds myself
Speaker 1: unsatisfied with moral relativism and unanswered big questions. I can't
Speaker 1: seem to accept any non empirical evidence outside of my senses.
Speaker 1: How do I? And then it trails off. I can't
Speaker 1: see the rest of it. So I mean, just think
Speaker 1: about numbers and math objective or excuse me, abstract entities.
Speaker 1: They're obviously not identical to empirical stuff. So you already
Speaker 1: do believe in non empirical things. If you believe in logic,
Speaker 1: if you believe in math, geometry, you already believe concepts
Speaker 1: those are non empirical. So I would just argue that
Speaker 1: you already believe in non empirical evidence, because evidence as
Speaker 1: a concept is not matter. So when you say you
Speaker 1: believe in evidence, it's non empirical already. That's my response
Speaker 1: to that. But thank you for this.
Speaker 6: If he, if he has issues, is more relativism. He
Speaker 6: presumably believes in the existence of moral facts, which are.
Speaker 1: Also not matter. Right, So you're talking about value judgments, right,
Speaker 1: if you're making a statement about something being morally wrong
Speaker 1: or right. Well, if everything's just matter, there are no
Speaker 1: value judgments. Everything just is, you say, So saying something
Speaker 1: is wrong requires categories that are not identical to or
Speaker 1: reducible will to matter or states of matter.
Speaker 2: It's called the naturalism, Pallas.
Speaker 1: Exactly, Thank you, But great question. They're searching much appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Okay, what happens to people who never heard of Orthodoxy
Speaker 4: after death? For example, the Pagans that died before they
Speaker 4: had contact with Christianity.
Speaker 2: How are they judged?
Speaker 1: So I think we had this same question about an
Speaker 1: hour ago, and then we had the same question, yester,
Speaker 1: I'm just laughing because that's why we're doing this, So
Speaker 1: we don't have to keep doing this. I mean, so
Speaker 1: again we have the heroing of Hades doctrine, everybody that
Speaker 1: died before the coming of Christ were told in the
Speaker 1: New Testament they were in Hades. Peter says the Gospel
Speaker 1: was preached to those who were dead. Jesus descended into
Speaker 1: Hades at his death to preach the Gospel. The church
Speaker 1: fathers are very clear about this. Saint Cyril of Alexander
Speaker 1: has multiple section wy he talks about this, and he says,
Speaker 1: the Gospel has preached to all of the Old Testament dead.
Speaker 1: That's it now. People who nowadays die outside of hearing
Speaker 1: the Gospel. Paul says in the Romans too, that they
Speaker 1: have a light that is given to them the law
Speaker 1: of nature. They will be judged by the law of nature.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean they're automatically saved. They still have to
Speaker 1: have some exposure to Christ to attain theosis. You can
Speaker 1: be saved without theosis. So whether God preaches to them
Speaker 1: in some way, we don't know. We leave that up
Speaker 1: to God. The Orthodox Church or the Eastern tradition is
Speaker 1: not as interested in trying to figure all this stuff
Speaker 1: out because we're simply not told. Ubi Petris just did
Speaker 1: a giant floora gellium of the fate of unbaptized infants, right,
Speaker 1: and so go to Ubi Petris, and you'll see that
Speaker 1: we have a tradition of not really trying to speculate
Speaker 1: other than to commend people to God. We don't know,
Speaker 1: but we have the injunction that we have to preach
Speaker 1: the Gospel. We have to convert people. Whether God reaches
Speaker 1: them in some unknown way is up to God.
Speaker 4: An interesting factoy into tradition, Plato heard the Gospel while
Speaker 4: in Hades and repented, and he actually appeared to a
Speaker 4: monk and told him to stop cursing him.
Speaker 1: Entirely possible. So I will there, funny, here is the
Speaker 1: Here is Ubi Petris's patristic list of fate of unbaptized infants.
Speaker 1: So that will kind of give you an insight into
Speaker 1: the question you're asking there. So you've got quotes from
Speaker 1: iaron a is talking about the recapitulation that Christ's incarnation
Speaker 1: reaches to all of human nature. Gregory, the theologian, Gregory,
Speaker 1: of course, spoke often of this Ambrose, Innocent, Zosimus Carthage.
Speaker 1: What else is in there, Gregory the Great? So that
Speaker 1: you'll you'll see that there is a kind of a uh,
Speaker 1: we should know that the when baptized infants die, they
Speaker 1: enjoy paradise. Those not illumined by baptism do not go
Speaker 1: to paradise nor gahinna. So that's on the Sunday of
Speaker 1: meat fair, you see. So anyway, there's more in that link.
Speaker 1: We don't speculate, We don't worry about those kinds of things.
Speaker 1: We don't know. God doesn't tell us everything, so we
Speaker 1: can't sit around speculating try to figure it out.
Speaker 4: Okay, we got a question, which is actually four questions
Speaker 4: from a Muslim, so we'll just go one by one.
Speaker 4: So how come the trinity is hard to explain when
Speaker 4: the Bible says in First Corinthians fourteen thirty three that
Speaker 4: God is not the author of introdusion.
Speaker 1: Okay, so just because Paul says God's not the author
Speaker 1: of confusion, if you look at the context, he's talking
Speaker 1: about people who were being riotous in the church. He's
Speaker 1: not talking about theology. Paul talks in many places about
Speaker 1: difficult theological writings. In fact, Peter even says Paul's writings
Speaker 1: are difficult, so difficult and meat Hebrews calls doctrine. That's me.
Speaker 1: It's not the same thing as confusion. The confusion that
Speaker 1: Corinthians is talking about is people getting drunk, people committing fornication,
Speaker 1: people not taking the Lord's Supper seriously in all manner
Speaker 1: of you know, it sounds like a Protestant charismatic service
Speaker 1: that Paul is rebuking, right. I mean, he's saying, you
Speaker 1: guys are acting like looms here, flopping around, acting crazy,
Speaker 1: doing all kinds of nonsense. That's the confusions. He's not
Speaker 1: saying that there's no difficult theology. Your own Muslim schools
Speaker 1: of philosophy are difficult. So that's a terrible argument.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd also.
Speaker 6: Say, if you're interested in I just want to add
Speaker 6: is check out the videos I did with bo on
Speaker 6: the Trinity, because I think the current sort of popular
Speaker 6: Eganitarian or social Trinitarian view where the divine essence is,
Speaker 6: you know, God, is the problem that a lot of
Speaker 6: Muslims might end up having. So we need to reinstate
Speaker 6: the doctrine of the monarchia of the Father and the
Speaker 6: energies absolutely because if you go by Cappadocian theology, they
Speaker 6: absolutely reject. I mean, I'm sure if your listening Muslims,
Speaker 6: you know you're here that you know, oh yeah, well
Speaker 6: so there's the you know, there's the nature, and that's God.
Speaker 2: And then because all the persons participate in that, well
Speaker 2: that's how we we call why we call them God.
Speaker 6: But the whole, the whole premise of the Cappadocians who
Speaker 6: did to basically fleshed out the Trinitarian theology was to
Speaker 6: just absolutely deny that you could predicate any name of
Speaker 6: the divinessence, including God or anything. Okay, so that's not yeah,
Speaker 6: yeah no, So just check out the just check out
Speaker 6: the videos I did with both at Orthodox you had us.
Speaker 1: Just go over to my community tab on my channel
Speaker 1: right there, the community tab, and if you look at
Speaker 1: the first one there, David has a three hour lecture
Speaker 1: on Mayaphi site. So there's the answer to the myophasite question.
Speaker 1: Scroll down a little bit and I have a one
Speaker 1: hour talk from two days ago with al Fadi on
Speaker 1: the monarchy of the Father. So it's all it's all
Speaker 1: right there, or you can go to.
Speaker 5: My twenty four hour talk hours. By the way, guys,
Speaker 5: I'm gonna I need. I want to say what a blessing,
Speaker 5: my prayers to you all and great questions and thank
Speaker 5: you Jay Lewis so Bros.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Father. Well, I'm still here. We got we
Speaker 1: got our largest crowd yet, We're right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just I just wanted to bow out in
Speaker 5: case there of questions directed at me. Okay, I'm sure
Speaker 5: you guys will be fine to answer that.
Speaker 1: I'll put Father Deacon in and eye. I'll put everybody's
Speaker 1: channels below as well. When the stream is done, so
Speaker 1: I'll be sure and follow Father Deacon and then they'll
Speaker 1: have Lewis and Kai and everybody's snacks stuff too. So
Speaker 1: David as well, Thank you, Father, appreciate that absolutely.
Speaker 2: David. Yeah, O cool.
Speaker 6: Thanks to see if other from this, let's try let's
Speaker 6: keep trailblazing through these Muslim questions.
Speaker 4: Yeah, can you explain why the Trinity is not in
Speaker 4: the Old Testament and why it was only reviewed during
Speaker 4: Jesus's missionary.
Speaker 1: Like every debate and topic that we've had on this
Speaker 1: top on this question is arguing the Trinity from the
Speaker 1: Old Testament. So first of all, go look at all
Speaker 1: the things that we've done to date, every time that
Speaker 1: I've had a discussion with Sam, with any the whole
Speaker 1: list that I put up on the whiteboard, it's all
Speaker 1: the Theophanes of the Old Testament. That's the Trinity. Okay, Father, Son,
Speaker 1: and Spirit are all over the Old Testament, so go
Speaker 1: watch those and you'll see where I cover all the
Speaker 1: Theophanes in Genesis. This is a personage separate from the
Speaker 1: person of the Father, who's given worship, who's given the
Speaker 1: divine name, who's called the Redeemer, who's called Yahweh, who's
Speaker 1: called the Lord, he's called God, he's called all of
Speaker 1: these things consistently. Right, I've done many, many talks. I
Speaker 1: have a whole stream on the Theophanes and and the
Speaker 1: Trinity in the Old Testament. Just a stream on that
Speaker 1: you can go watch. That is Jesus God is the
Speaker 1: Trinity Biblical. That's whole stream against rocking mister e And
Speaker 1: all I do is argue at this point, read Zechariah one.
Speaker 1: There you'll see Father, Redeemer, Angel, the Lord, and Spirit.
Speaker 1: If you read the book of Isaiah. I just did
Speaker 1: a talk on Isaiah, and I talked about the many
Speaker 1: instances where you find the triad in Isaiah. So the
Speaker 1: doctrine of the Trinity as explicated by the Cappadocians and
Speaker 1: the Niceno Constantopolitan Creed is not in the Old Testament,
Speaker 1: because we believe in redemptive history that there is a
Speaker 1: period where there's a coming of the Church that completes
Speaker 1: the fulfillments of the prophecies of the Old Testament. So
Speaker 1: obviously the life of the Messiah is not going to
Speaker 1: be present in its full form prior to the coming
Speaker 1: of the Messiah. Obviously the prophecies of Isaiah are not
Speaker 1: going to be present prior to Isaiah. So that's like saying,
Speaker 1: why isn't the fulfillment of all these things there before
Speaker 1: the fulfillment? It doesn't make any sense because of the
Speaker 1: progression of progressive revelation, redemptive history, and the fulfillment of
Speaker 1: these things when the Messiah comes. So obviously, look, that's like, look,
Speaker 1: there's not a full fledged, full revelation in the sense
Speaker 1: of what Isaiah has in the time of Abraham. Right,
Speaker 1: does does Abraham know as much as Isaiah?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Obviously would we therefore conclude from that that Isaiah is
Speaker 1: false because it's not fully revealed in Abraham's day all
Speaker 1: the things that Isaiah said. Of course, not so in
Speaker 1: the same way, just because not everything that's fully revealing
Speaker 1: in the New Testament is not present in the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: We don't cancel it out. That's just presupposing that we're
Speaker 1: not the fulfillment, but we are the fulfillment. That's the
Speaker 1: point here, right. The New Testament is the fulfillment of
Speaker 1: what the Old Testament is. Looking forward to countless Old
Speaker 1: Testament prophecy. How many times does it say the gentiles
Speaker 1: will be brought into the Covenant, that they will be
Speaker 1: worshiping the God of Israel, and that when the Gentiles
Speaker 1: begin to convert in mass, that's when you'll know the
Speaker 1: Messiah has come. And what do you know, when Jesus
Speaker 1: comes suddenly entire Gentile nations for centuries, for millennia converting. Obviously,
Speaker 1: Jesus is the Messiah. So this kind of Muslim argument
Speaker 1: just is based on ignorance about our theology and the
Speaker 1: notion of the completion of the Old Testament prophecies in
Speaker 1: the person of Christ.
Speaker 6: Can I add to that, guy I Chris here he
Speaker 6: can add as well, is the we have to really
Speaker 6: consider also that even in Islam there's a development of
Speaker 6: the theology of God over debates for centuries after the Qur'an.
Speaker 6: I don't know, you may not. Whoever asked a question
Speaker 6: may not be familiar with this, but there ends up
Speaker 6: being a very specific formulation of what attributes there are,
Speaker 6: what an attribute is, what constitutes an attribute, how they
Speaker 6: relate to creation, whether or not, how they relate to
Speaker 6: the essence of God, and those are very precise, and
Speaker 6: they're not contained in that in their formulation of as
Speaker 6: part of Klam philosophy inside the inside the Qur'an, but
Speaker 6: they are still required believing for people who are part
Speaker 6: of those schools. So I don't know if you're if
Speaker 6: you're a Salafie, but that's mainstream Synism anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but as we see every time we get into
Speaker 1: this kind of argument, it's moved the goalposts. Right, Oh
Speaker 1: that's the case for you, but not for me.
Speaker 3: But in all fairness, if I can just must yeah, yeah.
Speaker 13: Muslims in the majority, they are even just completey ignorant
Speaker 13: of their own traditions, and so they don't even know
Speaker 13: that there was this development within Islam itself. They are
Speaker 13: typically of a mindset like that Islam is has been
Speaker 13: static for fourteen hundred years, that it was revealed and
Speaker 13: hasn't changed one bit, and so they just either there's
Speaker 13: just a dumbfounded when you start encountering them on this,
Speaker 13: and then they'll just start making up.
Speaker 3: Excuses and this and that, switching positions. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's just important to note that, you know, if
Speaker 6: you want to, you know, we're happy to say, for
Speaker 6: the sake of debate, if you're willing to accept that
Speaker 6: our scriptures hold our core doctrines, then we're happy to
Speaker 6: accept that the Quran holds the you know, the specific
Speaker 6: like ashari or matter ready formulation for the sake of debate.
Speaker 6: But you know, if you're going to use that argument,
Speaker 6: you know that the trinity that even the hardware or
Speaker 6: as Jay use, the analogy of the gems, the the
Speaker 6: or the raw or of the trinity isn't in the
Speaker 6: biblical text. Then you know, we're just going to say that,
Speaker 6: you know that the attribute specific attribute theology isn't there
Speaker 6: in the Quran.
Speaker 1: Either, right exactly? Yeah, excellent point. How chicken baby five
Speaker 1: dollars can you explain the Trinity? For NWBS? There is
Speaker 1: an eight minute video that somebody clipped where I did
Speaker 1: this kind of an explanation of the Trinity. I think
Speaker 1: it's on this Institium Bourbum website or channel. I'll post that,
Speaker 1: but basically, we believe on the basis of what's in
Speaker 1: revelation what the Trinity is right, so it's not sitting
Speaker 1: around and philosophically speculating. Primarily that gives us the doctor
Speaker 1: of the Trinity at scripture. So the Old Testament reveals
Speaker 1: God the Father, and God the Father has this secondary
Speaker 1: person that he generates that is the Angel of the Lord,
Speaker 1: that is the Messenger of the Covenant, that is the
Speaker 1: Angel Redeemer. In the Old Testament, there's many, many, many passages.
Speaker 1: Again I've gone over this many many times, and that
Speaker 1: Angel of the Lord so to speak, is revealed to
Speaker 1: be fully divine right and eventually revealed as the Son
Speaker 1: of God. We say so, we say that that is
Speaker 1: Jesus right, because Jesus the Trinity has always been there.
Speaker 1: It's always been who God is. It didn't change or
Speaker 1: become three gods or something like this. It's always been Father, Son,
Speaker 1: and Spirit. But the full revelation of that was progressive.
Speaker 1: Now even in Judaism there's progressive revelation. Again, they don't
Speaker 1: believe that Isaiah or excuse me, in the time of Abraham,
Speaker 1: that you know, Abraham knew as much as Isaiah would
Speaker 1: know or Malachi or any of the later prophets right,
Speaker 1: because there's more revelation that comes via the Spirit of
Speaker 1: God speaking through the Old Testament prophets. So this revelation
Speaker 1: is progressive. It never contradicts previous revelation. But it's very
Speaker 1: clear in again dozens and dozens and dozens of passages
Speaker 1: in the Old Testament that it's not just a strict
Speaker 1: Father God. There's also this Angel of the Lord, this
Speaker 1: theophanic manifestation that wrestles with Jacob, that speaks to Manoah's parents,
Speaker 1: that goes to battle for the Israelites, that's present in
Speaker 1: the the burning bush right, that appears to David, even
Speaker 1: in the historical books, that appears over the altar of Israel,
Speaker 1: the cloud, the pillar, over and over and over. We
Speaker 1: see this stuff throughout the Old Testament. Ezekiel sees, and
Speaker 1: Ezekiel one, and Ezekiel ten, Ezekiel one, and Ezigel nine
Speaker 1: and ten. This wheel and then in the midst of
Speaker 1: this chariot that he sees is one like the son
Speaker 1: of Man. That's the same one like a son of
Speaker 1: Man that Daniel sees right in his vision in Daniel seven.
Speaker 1: It's the same that's what we're saying, that's all we're saying. Now,
Speaker 1: that's Father, that's son, and spirit. Spirit is mentioned many times, right,
Speaker 1: It's mentioned in Genesis, it's mentioned in Zechariah one, it's
Speaker 1: mentioned in Isaiah. So we consistently see in many, even
Speaker 1: in many chapters of Isaiah, this triadic manifestation of Father,
Speaker 1: Angel of the Lord, Messenger's son, and the Spirit of
Speaker 1: the Lord. The Spirit of the Lord does this spirit.
Speaker 1: So how is the Spirit of the Lord doing this
Speaker 1: and that and yet also being distinguished from Father and Messenger,
Speaker 1: Angel of the Lord logos. Well, because there's three persons.
Speaker 1: And when we get to the New Testament, which again
Speaker 1: we're saying, is the fulfillments, the full explanation and explication
Speaker 1: of the Old Testament, there's not a discontinuity. It's continuity. Right.
Speaker 1: When we see Jesus in the Book of John, especially
Speaker 1: not just the Book of John, but in the Book
Speaker 1: of John right fourteen, sixteen seventeen, he goes into linky
Speaker 1: explanations of the relationship between him and the Father and
Speaker 1: the Spirit who he will send. So it's imperfect. When
Speaker 1: you are really fluent in the Old Testament, you see
Speaker 1: it everywhere it's like it's a no brainer. It's like, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is everywhere in the Old Testament. What are you
Speaker 1: talking about? So the fact that modern day Jews debate
Speaker 1: over this is really irrelevant to our position. It doesn't
Speaker 1: mean anything. I mean, it's just relevant in the sense
Speaker 1: that it's like an academic you know, dispute or whatever.
Speaker 1: But to our theology, it doesn't matter because we don't
Speaker 1: have the same theology as modern Judaism obviously. I mean,
Speaker 1: you see rabbinical debates after you know, the the first
Speaker 1: century with Judaism and Christianity part ways. When you get
Speaker 1: the eventually the different talmuds that are that are put together,
Speaker 1: you see debates amongst rabbis over what these Theophanes are,
Speaker 1: you know, is it the essence of God? Is it
Speaker 1: a second manifestation of God? Is it an emanation? Is
Speaker 1: it uh, some sort of angelic metatron being?
Speaker 5: Is it this?
Speaker 3: Is it that?
Speaker 1: Is it a hologram an angel? Right, so they have
Speaker 1: the same debates right going on that we will see
Speaker 1: when we bring this topic up. Right, It's an echo
Speaker 1: of the debate that that Justin Martyr has with Tripho.
Speaker 1: What does Justin mart keep going to the Angel of
Speaker 1: the Lord. Right, Why is the Angel Lord given worship?
Speaker 1: Only God can be worshiped anyway. So the easiest way
Speaker 1: to start with the Trinity is I got lost in
Speaker 1: that explanation. But these way to start with this is
Speaker 1: to start with the Bible. Right, So we're not because
Speaker 1: we're not basing this on philosophy like oh the you know,
Speaker 1: I sat around and I read a bunch of Plato,
Speaker 1: and I figured out, you know, based on number theory,
Speaker 1: that now there are analogies that you can make to
Speaker 1: numbers and this kind of stuff. Think about one to
Speaker 1: the third power, right, that's one thing and three things
Speaker 1: at the same time. Think about the number three. It's
Speaker 1: singular and it's also triadic at once.
Speaker 13: Right.
Speaker 1: I Mean, there's all kinds of things in the world
Speaker 1: that do have a one and many aspects to them
Speaker 1: that the church fathers frequently make usage of to demonstrate
Speaker 1: a one many relationship that's analogous to God, not a
Speaker 1: one to one correspondent's been an analogy. They do it
Speaker 1: all the time. They do mind, will and soul right
Speaker 1: or spirit as an analogy, on on and on. So
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of things that are analogous to something
Speaker 1: being one and many. But there's no perfect creaturely analog
Speaker 1: or one to one correspondence to God because God may
Speaker 1: the creatures, and so by definition God being infinite, being omniscient, etc.
Speaker 1: There's never going to be anything that perfectly matches up
Speaker 1: to God. So that's why we're talking about on one level,
Speaker 1: a revelation for us that is kind of the final authority.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that it's out of accord with
Speaker 1: logic or reasoning or these kinds of things. Because the
Speaker 1: created world and the logic and the principles of logic, numbers, math,
Speaker 1: whatever that God has put into place in the created order,
Speaker 1: they do bear some correspondence to the mind of God.
Speaker 1: And so there can be at one at a certain
Speaker 1: level and analogia analogies that are made, but we don't
Speaker 1: do a one to one correspondence as if the number
Speaker 1: one is equal to God's unity. God's unity is not
Speaker 1: identical to the number one. The number one is a
Speaker 1: created concept.
Speaker 2: Next mism question, Okay, so this is or from the
Speaker 2: same guy.
Speaker 4: The next not mind memory boring questions, So do you
Speaker 4: believe the Bible is preserved or even a trustworthy document
Speaker 4: about the life of Jesus and his teachings.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, we have we have to believe that. I mean
Speaker 1: that the doctrine of the inspirational Scriptures is part of
Speaker 1: our dogmatic theology. There's no church father who denies that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the next part and then thank God, we can
Speaker 2: move on. He says, if you have Okay, So he's
Speaker 2: posing necessarily.
Speaker 6: If the Bible, if we believe it is not preserved,
Speaker 6: you don't need we don't need to ask that one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think we'll just skip that.
Speaker 6: I mean he said, he said, he said, if you
Speaker 6: accept the Bible is not preserved, the question for but
Speaker 6: we we accept as preserved.
Speaker 1: I mean there's yeah, we don't accept that premise.
Speaker 2: So yeah, it's dumb. Okay. It's like saying, can you
Speaker 2: imagine infinity?
Speaker 1: Could you imagine a well, where's that? Imagine a universe?
Speaker 1: Was there is a planet with a computer and no gun?
Speaker 3: The quant.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if you have the machine else maybe they can
Speaker 4: take chill infinity.
Speaker 2: Uh okay.
Speaker 4: Next, is is there any good Orthodox books that deal
Speaker 4: with Buddhism or Eastern religions?
Speaker 2: Does Saint Nicholas in Japan have any books on this subject?
Speaker 1: Orthodoxy in the religion the future deals with the far
Speaker 1: Eastern religions. The now of Christ deals with the Eastern religions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's what I mean, Baba seraph and rises
Speaker 2: biography has.
Speaker 3: Some good stuff in that.
Speaker 1: The easiest, the easiest response is just orthodoxy in the
Speaker 1: religion in the future, because he's he's talking about Hinduism.
Speaker 1: But I mean that's kind of encompasses all of them.
Speaker 2: Really, Okay, does the Guru, the young man, and older
Speaker 2: parties right humans? Yes?
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: Does Islam have a one and many problem? For example,
Speaker 4: if truth is one in many, how can the Islamic
Speaker 4: God be the metaphysical metaphysical condition for the multiplicity of
Speaker 4: unity of truth itself when Allah is without multiplicity in
Speaker 4: his being?
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly. I mean that's an argument I've been making
Speaker 1: sure well stated.
Speaker 6: The mainstream Sunny position has more multiplicity in God than
Speaker 6: the Motazila Ads position that was rejected by mainstream Studdyism.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I mean, even though there's all these different schools
Speaker 1: because of the you know, emphasis on the transcendence of
Speaker 1: God in Islam, I don't think you're going to ever
Speaker 1: get a really sufficient coherent answer to that problem. So
Speaker 1: there's always going to be the assumption of unicity as
Speaker 1: metaphysically a ontologically prior or primary or superior. So they
Speaker 1: can't really do justice to uh distinctions or multiplicity. And
Speaker 1: by the way, it doesn't matter if they admit that
Speaker 1: as well. But we don't have three persons and so therefore,
Speaker 1: but the same problem arises with the attributes or the
Speaker 1: actions of Allah. The same problem is still there.
Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 6: That was one of the Jewish and Metazula critiques of
Speaker 6: the Asheri and mat Ready position was that it was
Speaker 6: too Christian because you believed in like they believed in,
Speaker 6: you know, subsistent attributes that weren't Allah.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm. The problem that.
Speaker 1: We can't hear you. You have to speak up, you're
Speaker 1: really low.
Speaker 13: God has to be absolutely unique, which makes it difficult
Speaker 13: when you up at the group of.
Speaker 2: God such with life that are probably showed by Greek.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's no analogy in that position.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the one of the many problem meticods very clearly.
Speaker 4: Okay, next question, I'm confused about the Christian explanation of suffering,
Speaker 4: and I'm hopeful that the Orthodox view can offer a
Speaker 4: more compelling explanation than the Protestant one, How did sin
Speaker 4: have the effect of changing the fabric of reality from
Speaker 4: the perfect pre false state to the current state after
Speaker 4: the fall, so as to introduce suffering to the world.
Speaker 4: It seems like the laws of physics themselves are in
Speaker 4: are inhospitable to human life and course suffering. Example, a
Speaker 4: rock can fall on one's head while walking under a cliff,
Speaker 4: and this seems to be entirely causally disconnected from man's
Speaker 4: sinful nature. How is sin connected with altering the laws
Speaker 4: of physics post fall?
Speaker 1: If you want, if you're asking how in the sense
Speaker 1: of the mechanics, nobody knows that. If you're asking how
Speaker 1: in the sense of theological revelation, well, we're told that
Speaker 1: that's the case, because the entire it's not like all
Speaker 1: of the fabric of reality was changed. I mean man's body.
Speaker 1: We have animalistic bodies because of the fall. Right, we
Speaker 1: don't know what the pre false state of man's body
Speaker 1: was like. We don't know what Eden was like. But
Speaker 1: all of the way the normal course of things function
Speaker 1: did not have, for example, the presence of decay, the
Speaker 1: presence of death. All those things were foreign to Eden,
Speaker 1: and we believe it on the basis of what's revealed, right,
Speaker 1: so we don't we don't have to have an explanation
Speaker 1: of the mechanics of exactly what, you know, the chemical
Speaker 1: reactions that occurred when the fall happened. I mean, nobody's
Speaker 1: ever going to know that. So, but whether there is
Speaker 1: a connection between death and events to the natural world
Speaker 1: and man sin, we believe it on the basis of revelation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I also like that that is a very high
Speaker 2: IQ way of asking the question, if God real, why
Speaker 2: bad things happened? It was Yeah, very high IQ.
Speaker 1: But the same question Chris says for thirteen dollars and
Speaker 1: nine cents, God bless you for your work. Well, thank you, Chris,
Speaker 1: much appreciated for that.
Speaker 4: Okay, trying to find guys, please don't clutter it with
Speaker 4: your like Jay's answering questions, not you.
Speaker 2: Guys, So please don't clutter it with your answers. Okay,
Speaker 2: where can someone from a.
Speaker 4: Schismatic Apostolic church find out where they differ specifically as
Speaker 4: in the reason why they are considered outside of the church.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess that would depend on what schismatic
Speaker 1: episode church you're talking about. That I mean, you're asking
Speaker 1: me where to find out how your church differs. I
Speaker 1: don't understand the question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, are so let's see very Antichalcedonian.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what question I mean again, go
Speaker 1: watch David's videos if you're looking for where we say
Speaker 1: we disagree with you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, David's videos are really good. The Orientals are just
Speaker 4: scared of him.
Speaker 2: So yeah, let's see.
Speaker 4: If God is the infinite source of all being, from
Speaker 4: which everything ultimately emerges, how can it.
Speaker 2: Be that evil things are not from God?
Speaker 4: I want to believe that God is good, but it
Speaker 4: seems like I can't reconcile this with the notion of
Speaker 4: God being.
Speaker 2: The source of all that exists.
Speaker 1: So evil has no being and no subsistent ontological status.
Speaker 1: Evil is not a metaphysical reality. It's a negation, it's
Speaker 1: a privation. It's a movement of the will away from
Speaker 1: the good. So you will find that from the earliest
Speaker 1: days of the Church up until to present day, we
Speaker 1: have always explained what evil is in this way. So
Speaker 1: we differ from pagan religions, from dualistic religions, Manicheanisms, or Astrianism,
Speaker 1: and that we do not predicate any real existence to evil.
Speaker 1: That does not mean that we're not saying there's no evil.
Speaker 1: We're not saying there's no evil, we're saying that there's
Speaker 1: no metaphysical, ontological status or substance to evil. Because when
Speaker 1: God created the world, all that was created he said
Speaker 1: was good. So being is inherently good. Being manifests the
Speaker 1: quality of goodness because it's made in the image of
Speaker 1: and on the basis of God's being, which is good.
Speaker 1: God is good, His creation is good. It shares in
Speaker 1: a participatory relationship with the goodness of God. So in
Speaker 1: that way, nothing that exists or has being can be evil.
Speaker 1: So what is evil, Well, evil is only a privation,
Speaker 1: it is only a negation. It is only a movement
Speaker 1: of the will away from the good. If we want
Speaker 1: to use an analogy, we could think of something like numbers, right,
Speaker 1: negative numbers. Do they have an existence? Not really? I
Speaker 1: mean they're a movement away from one right, And so
Speaker 1: in the same way, analogies to evil are things like darkness,
Speaker 1: you know, non existence, non being. Those are the many
Speaker 1: types of analogies that are used for moral evil. So
Speaker 1: it's not so much a metaphysical thing as it is
Speaker 1: a moral thing.
Speaker 2: Would you would you agree.
Speaker 6: With misstatement, like something like the lion increases in being
Speaker 6: and the zebra decreases in being.
Speaker 2: No, that's like when the lion kills like when the
Speaker 2: lion kills.
Speaker 1: The zebra some ludicrous, What do you I mean, Because.
Speaker 6: That's just that's tomistic, Like it's because the lion, because
Speaker 6: the lion is for its own good, the lions seeking
Speaker 6: its own good and fulfilling its own good.
Speaker 2: But the zebra. Obviously what's going on for the zebra
Speaker 2: is bad.
Speaker 1: So but that wouldn't have anything to do with their
Speaker 1: their status in terms of existence itself.
Speaker 6: No, yeah, but I mean in terms of just like
Speaker 6: good and evil, the zebra is being privated of it's good.
Speaker 1: Oh well, that's that's so. Even the Western Church makes
Speaker 1: the Latins even make a distinction between different types of
Speaker 1: the senses of evil. So there's a the privatory sense
Speaker 1: is an analogy for the moral sense. So if we
Speaker 1: say that there's you know, if I lack sight, that's
Speaker 1: not the same thing as a moral evil. It's a privation.
Speaker 1: I lack the faculty of eyesight, so it's a it's
Speaker 1: a negation. But that's even distinguished from moral evil, which
Speaker 1: is you know, when I intentionally move my will away
Speaker 1: from the good to do something evil. So even the
Speaker 1: Latins will distinguish that.
Speaker 13: If I could just add on to that, There's one
Speaker 13: egesis of Genesis that I really like in terms of
Speaker 13: connecting this kind of question is if you notice Day
Speaker 13: two of creation is not followed by and it was
Speaker 13: good or God identifying it as good. And the one
Speaker 13: thing that you can notice here is this is in
Speaker 13: creation where you start seeing a separation. And so then
Speaker 13: the separation would be analogous to this kind of privation
Speaker 13: or moving away from God. And if you're moving away
Speaker 13: from God, that is what is not good, that is
Speaker 13: analogous to the sin.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the darkness of Genesis one is not evil, right,
Speaker 1: It's some sort of you know, potentiality within creation for
Speaker 1: God organizing, you know, the creative world, you know, the
Speaker 1: original abyss, whatever that is. It's not inherently evil. And
Speaker 1: again darkness just like just like darkness isn't evil, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, scripture says you made the day, you made
Speaker 1: the night, right, there's nothing wrong with with nighttime? Okay.
Speaker 1: Those are just analogies to moral movement away, like when
Speaker 1: we say you are far from God. Right, it's not
Speaker 1: a spatiotempal relationship. It's a spiritual moral relationship. But that's
Speaker 1: a good point. Kai kung pal chicken wait. Searching for
Speaker 1: a dollar says uh, searching for Windell says Is the
Speaker 1: evidence for logic working equivalent to the evidence for God's existence? No,
Speaker 1: because I would say that in order to ground logic itself,
Speaker 1: you need the type of God that we argue for.
Speaker 1: So I'm not equating God to logic. How should I
Speaker 1: start my journey to believe voice? How do I know? Voices?
Speaker 1: Voices in my head are not the general God. So
Speaker 1: we don't go from those kinds of like you know,
Speaker 1: personal mystical experiences. You might have a mystical experience, but
Speaker 1: that's not how we go by knowing God or knowing
Speaker 1: these religious truths. Again, Scripture is where we start. Scripture
Speaker 1: is the primary source of revealed theology. There's other sources
Speaker 1: that it comes to tradition and you read the Fathers
Speaker 1: and this kind of stuff too, But like it starts
Speaker 1: in scripture and nobody denies this right, So you're not
Speaker 1: going to be listening to and this is a temptation
Speaker 1: I think for a lot of people who are maybe
Speaker 1: new to Christianity or whatever. They start thinking, Oh, it's
Speaker 1: God telling me to not go to this to work
Speaker 1: at this place anymore. Oh, God's telling me not that.
Speaker 1: You need the first and foremost learn what God's telling
Speaker 1: you from scripture, not from what you think you feel
Speaker 1: at this and that time. That a way, don't worry
Speaker 1: about it. You need to be catechized in scripture and
Speaker 1: in the church. Then you can make the accurate judgment
Speaker 1: calls as to well, God was telling me that I
Speaker 1: need to move to this city. God's telling me I
Speaker 1: need to date this person or not date that. God's
Speaker 1: telling you what's in scripture first of all, and then
Speaker 1: you're making your life decisions on being in accordance with
Speaker 1: what's in scripture. Right, So don't listen to this like
Speaker 1: the charismatic gibberish nonsense. Right, if you want to be married,
Speaker 1: God gives you the freedom to make that choice. If
Speaker 1: you want to be single and inter amonastery, God gives
Speaker 1: you that freedom if you want to make that choice.
Speaker 11: Right.
Speaker 1: But so often people are like worried about God's will
Speaker 1: for their life or what God's will is in scripture.
Speaker 1: He tells you what to do right. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: you can't have like a providential event that helps you
Speaker 1: make decisions. But people are so obsessed.
Speaker 2: With like this.
Speaker 1: I can't wait for the dreams and the visions and
Speaker 1: this kind of stuff. No, don't even worry about that.
Speaker 1: God has told you what is good. Scripture says, so
Speaker 1: you don't. You don't have to go through that bunch
Speaker 1: of nonsense. You are. We already know what the will
Speaker 1: of God is. It's revealed in scripture and in tradition
Speaker 1: in the church. All Right, it cut out there Sometimes
Speaker 1: discord crashes. But are you guys still there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm here.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yes, sir, very good. I literally just lost my place.
Speaker 2: Give me a second. Six.
Speaker 1: Okay. He has shown you, oh man, what is good
Speaker 1: to do? Justice, love, righteousness, you know, et cetera. Scripture
Speaker 1: says this. You don't have to be hunkered over in
Speaker 1: a corner, flopping around the ground speaking gibberish, waiting for
Speaker 1: some so called prophet in the charismatic church to tell
Speaker 1: you what God's will is. It's in scripture, dude.
Speaker 3: And we have a history.
Speaker 2: We have a historical question. Do you believe that the
Speaker 2: shroud of Turin was housed in Constantine.
Speaker 1: I don't have any opinion on it. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not opposed to this.
Speaker 2: It was, Isn't that historical?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 6: I mean, I mean, how can you have an opinion
Speaker 6: on a historical fact.
Speaker 1: Well, I suppose some people can doubt what's believed to
Speaker 1: be historical facts. I mean, it happens in Academia.
Speaker 6: Well, I thought the Crusaders took it from Constantinople back
Speaker 6: to Venice.
Speaker 3: That's what I understood.
Speaker 1: I don't again, I don't have any pro or con
Speaker 1: opinion of the shroud. I'm fine with it being Jesus
Speaker 1: and a real relic or not. I don't have any
Speaker 1: opinion on it.
Speaker 4: Next question is, would you, father, deacon, or another orthodoxicologist
Speaker 4: in the circle consider writing a big book addressing frequently
Speaker 4: asked questions about Orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: There's probably a book for it already.
Speaker 1: No, probably not. Yeah, I mean I think we have
Speaker 1: plenty of those already.
Speaker 2: So yeah, if we have plenty of catechisms, Like I'm.
Speaker 1: Not a catechist, right, if you want to come to
Speaker 1: the discord, and you know, there's plenty of people who
Speaker 1: can do catechisis that's I'm not here to do that.
Speaker 1: So anyway, Yeah, the.
Speaker 6: Admins here can do basic katakiss, so the baptized ones.
Speaker 1: Anyway, there's plenty of resources for that.
Speaker 2: So what is your view on divine command theory?
Speaker 1: We have an aspect of divine command theory, but we
Speaker 1: also have aspects of the other views. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you're talking about moral justification like Utafro dilemma.
Speaker 3: Is that?
Speaker 13: What is that?
Speaker 1: What they're getting at?
Speaker 2: That was just a question what was your view of it?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: So if you're talking about the Utafro dilemma, I mean
Speaker 1: I've answered this this many many times. We did Kallopian Club.
Speaker 1: We had two different hour long discussions and two different
Speaker 1: discord amas where we argued over this question. And I
Speaker 1: try to explain that we don't equate the command of
Speaker 1: God with so God doesn't have to submit to a
Speaker 1: rule that's higher than him. And every time this question
Speaker 1: is framed in the youth throw of the limit, they say, well,
Speaker 1: then therefore God can just will the good to be
Speaker 1: something opposite to itself. We don't believe that because we
Speaker 1: have a different conception of God and the essence energy distinction. Right,
Speaker 1: God's commands God's actions. What comes from God is on
Speaker 1: the basis of his character, but it's not identical to
Speaker 1: his character, so we don't identify God's will with his essence.
Speaker 3: Rip erse.
Speaker 1: Onward as theo Von says, onward.
Speaker 7: Okay, now what a back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, next question.
Speaker 4: Okay, So next question is what was the limit of
Speaker 4: the Byzantine emperor's powers in the church.
Speaker 2: Could he appoint and remove.
Speaker 1: Bishops he's not supposed to. He probably was involved in
Speaker 1: you know, those kinds of ceremonies or whatever. The emperor
Speaker 1: can go behind the Kona stasis, so he's almost given
Speaker 1: a quasi deaconant role because Paul describes the emperor as
Speaker 1: a diaconos of God. But anytime the emperors tried to
Speaker 1: do this, this was seen as a violation. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have many heretical, heretic emperors who tried to do
Speaker 1: this and tried to run the church and it never worked.
Speaker 1: So but no, I don't think the emperors like took
Speaker 1: over the church. If they ran the church and subverted it,
Speaker 1: then we wouldn't have wor the doxy right, the heretic
Speaker 1: emperors would have been condemned. But none of the heretic
Speaker 1: emperors ever ended up victorious.
Speaker 2: Okay, we got a little bit.
Speaker 6: Pointed popes and stuff sometimes as well.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a good point in the in the in
Speaker 1: the West, its same problems, right, I mean the papacy,
Speaker 1: as we just did that stream with snack, I mean,
Speaker 1: the papacy becomes a tool of the Franks, and that's
Speaker 1: not even in question in terms of history.
Speaker 4: Okay, next question is this is a really weird one.
Speaker 4: I just feel like banning the guy for asking it.
Speaker 4: But what's the rationale behind the church prohibiting first cousin marriages?
Speaker 3: Is?
Speaker 4: Uh, it's practiced throughout the world, and it's not prohibited
Speaker 4: in the Old Testament. Also, the genetic defects that result
Speaker 4: from it are exaggerated. Yeah, okay, but I don't want
Speaker 4: to marry my cousin. I'm just curious, okay, don't I
Speaker 4: don't know.
Speaker 3: I mean, for.
Speaker 1: A friend, why can't I marry my president? I don't know.
Speaker 13: You look at the you look at the Arab world,
Speaker 13: and then you say that the genetic defects is exaggerated.
Speaker 13: Is not exaggerated?
Speaker 1: Bounty US five dollars? Couldn't a god of another faith
Speaker 1: system have revealed himself to be similar in an essence.
Speaker 1: In counter argument to TAG, no, because the TAG argument
Speaker 1: is not just a rational argument for for our view
Speaker 1: or an abstract argument. It's the TAG argument is the
Speaker 1: entire Christian paradigm. That's the point. That's the strength of
Speaker 1: TAG is that we're not arguing for a little piecemeal thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, we might have to argue on the basis
Speaker 1: of one area of the worldview at a time, just
Speaker 1: because of the limitations of of us as humans, we
Speaker 1: can only talk about one thing at a time. But
Speaker 1: the argument, the TAG argument isn't just an argument for God.
Speaker 1: If I'm arguing for the triune God, then I'm also
Speaker 1: arguing for that whole paradigm, the God. Who didn't the
Speaker 1: Triune God create the world? Didn't he have providence? Doesn't
Speaker 1: he have you know, an incarnation, etcetera, etcetera. So it's
Speaker 1: an argument for the whole paradigm, not just for an
Speaker 1: abstraction of logical argumentations or mental structures or something like this.
Speaker 1: So even if I start arguing on the basis of
Speaker 1: logic or the metaphysical status of logical entities or whatever,
Speaker 1: I'm just picking that as a place to argue the
Speaker 1: entire paradigm. That's the point here. I'm not saying it's
Speaker 1: true because I'm arguing for an entire paradigm. I'm saying
Speaker 1: that that is the argument. The argument isn't just for
Speaker 1: the Trinity, it's for the entire paradigm. You see. That's
Speaker 1: why the argument is unique, because I can't argue piecemeal
Speaker 1: and be consistent if I can't just argue for the
Speaker 1: Trinity without the rest of the of the revelation of
Speaker 1: the Trinity. Right, the revelation is holistic. It's not just
Speaker 1: the trend, it's all the other dogmas they go along
Speaker 1: with the Trinity. It's a whole system that I'm arguing for.
Speaker 1: That's the point. So, no, you can't come up with
Speaker 1: a ripoff version that's like the two god system or
Speaker 1: the four gods system. That's all the things in your system,
Speaker 1: but mine's for gods. Well, dude, that's actually just a ripoff,
Speaker 1: and our argument is not divorced from history. Our argument
Speaker 1: includes a God incarnate that's not going to be what
Speaker 1: you argue for. Like, I mean, would you argue, did
Speaker 1: did the four person God become incarnate? Really?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Well, guess what, dude, that's from us, like you're ripping
Speaker 1: off us, right, you see what I'm saying. I mean,
Speaker 1: our whole system is already a two thousand year old
Speaker 1: into history system based on four thousand year prior to
Speaker 1: that Old Testament revelation. It's an entire system that we're
Speaker 1: arguing for the whole thing, including history, including the Church,
Speaker 1: including the incarnation. It's all part of the argument. So no,
Speaker 1: you can't consistently just say, well, I have a you know,
Speaker 1: trinity in my head that I've come up with that
Speaker 1: solves all the epistemic dilemmas of your trinity system, and
Speaker 1: therefore why can't I just post mine? Because my argument
Speaker 1: is the entire Christian paradigm, all of it, ten Commandments,
Speaker 1: Jesus in history, all that stuff.
Speaker 4: Okay, next question, Uh, I was wondering if Jay can
Speaker 4: give a short elaboration.
Speaker 2: Of theosis difnation. Uh. Yeah, How it differs from Mormon view?
Speaker 1: Well, so, our our view is not that you become
Speaker 1: a God of your own planet.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Our view is not that God the Father impregnated but Mary.
Speaker 1: We don't bear any similarity to the Mormon view. Our
Speaker 1: view is what the Church always taught, which is not
Speaker 1: the Mormon view. Obviously, it's a participation in the uncreated
Speaker 1: energies of God, which is not what Mormons teach. We
Speaker 1: don't teach that the triad is a literal Father with
Speaker 1: a body who impregnated Mary. All this goofy crazy that
Speaker 1: we don't teach that, dude. Come on, So there's absolutely
Speaker 1: no similarity to the Mormon view, because the Mormon view
Speaker 1: is like a space opera, you know, like you're going
Speaker 1: to be God of your own planet and have celestial
Speaker 1: sex and space babies and that. What are you talking about, dude,
Speaker 1: that's what That's not what we're talking about.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 4: Next one is when God cursed the serpent to eat
Speaker 4: dust all the days of your life.
Speaker 2: But that had been a reference back to Adam being
Speaker 2: formed from and returning to dust.
Speaker 4: Was God telling the serpent that it would feed on
Speaker 4: dead matter and thus death itself?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I don't think that Satan or the
Speaker 1: serpent literally feeds on dead matter. But there is a
Speaker 1: connection between the dust of the earth and the curse
Speaker 1: pretty consistently throughout scripture. Absolutely, just like thorns and briars
Speaker 1: and thistles will come up. That's an image that's used
Speaker 1: throughout the Old Testament of the curse of the Fall.
Speaker 1: So yes, in a certain symbolic sense, but not like
Speaker 1: snakes are literally eating dead things or something like that.
Speaker 2: Okay, next question is this is from someone seeking advice.
Speaker 4: He says, how should I deal with the fact that
Speaker 4: most of the priests in my area are gambling, drunkard
Speaker 4: di divorces, gallivanting with women of the nine.
Speaker 2: So the christ I guess is, how do you deal
Speaker 2: with the fact that you have bad priests in your area?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Well, first of all, I mean I'm not convinced
Speaker 1: that gambling itself is inherently always wrong. There's a little
Speaker 1: this is ambiguous territory. I mean, if if I have
Speaker 1: a business venture and I take out a loan or
Speaker 1: whatever to I mean, that's a gamble. So I mean,
Speaker 1: at what point exactly gambling is this is you know,
Speaker 1: we're not Puritan Protestants here with this kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: but I mean, there there's really no church that's immune
Speaker 1: to corrupt leadership, right, that's in Protestants, that's in Roman Catholics,
Speaker 1: it's Orthodox. I mean, this is this is just a
Speaker 1: problem of the human domain. So I don't have any
Speaker 1: easy answer as to what you can do other than
Speaker 1: to try to find the best that you can that's
Speaker 1: not corrupt. I mean, can you go to a different
Speaker 1: city that's nearby if it's a little bit longer. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've had to drive one two three hours before to
Speaker 1: go to church. And if you if you've got a
Speaker 1: long drive and it's you can't do it every Sunday,
Speaker 1: then plan you know, like once a month to do
Speaker 1: you know, your one month trip to the church that's
Speaker 1: two hours away or whatever. I had to do that
Speaker 1: for a long time before I had something closer to me.
Speaker 1: So it's just, you know, I don't have any easy
Speaker 1: answer for that kind of stuff, but it is unfortunate.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of corrupt clergy out there, no
Speaker 1: doubt about that.
Speaker 4: Next question is, if the Creator is separate from this
Speaker 4: cosmos in a manner opposed to pantheism and panentheism, wouldn't
Speaker 4: the totality comprised of Creator us his creation be more
Speaker 4: encompassing than the Creator by himself, such that the aggregate
Speaker 4: of Creator and creation then comprise a greater entity than
Speaker 4: the Creator by himself.
Speaker 2: And wouldn't this mean that the aggregate slash totality.
Speaker 4: Would then better fit the characteristics of the absolute or God.
Speaker 2: Then would the creator alone.
Speaker 4: I have heard in places that Orthodoxy is panentheistic, but
Speaker 4: I'm not sure if most orthodox.
Speaker 1: Would confirm, Well, this is equivocation on the notion of
Speaker 1: what is greater or not greater? I mean, on what
Speaker 1: basis are you saying that because there is God and creation,
Speaker 1: that's somehow greater. Now we would say, with Dionysius in
Speaker 1: the Divine Names, that the fact that God creates he
Speaker 1: did intend to create to express and to share his goodness.
Speaker 1: He wanted to share himself and his goodness with creatures.
Speaker 1: So that is in a sense greater. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that it adds greater to God himself, right, because
Speaker 1: God did not lack anything. And Maximus himself deals with
Speaker 1: this question many places in the ambiguity where it comes
Speaker 1: up with Well, if you read Toolos and his dissertation
Speaker 1: on Maximus covers this question about well, why did God
Speaker 1: choose to create? And Maximus says, we can't say other
Speaker 1: than out of his own goodness. But his goodness doesn't
Speaker 1: add to being like like, oh, God lacked, he was
Speaker 1: lonely or something like that, and so he created because
Speaker 1: he was lonely and needed more.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: No, it's just out of pure, overflowing goodness and love,
Speaker 1: is what Maximus says. So, uh, no, it doesn't add
Speaker 1: to his being. And there's no there's no, there's no
Speaker 1: aggregate goodness that like trumps the goodness that God has,
Speaker 1: because the goodness that creation possesses is a participatory goodness
Speaker 1: that God has. And by the way, panentheism is kind
Speaker 1: of orthodox, so I'm confused as to what what what
Speaker 1: that person is talking about. We don't believe in pantheism,
Speaker 1: but we do believe that God permeates the creative order.
Speaker 4: Sure, okay, cool, it seems as if we actually got
Speaker 4: through the questions.
Speaker 1: Also cool, Well, we've been going for two hours, so
Speaker 1: let me see if there's any more of the super
Speaker 1: check questions. Uh, there's a.
Speaker 2: Couple here that says we also got another one.
Speaker 1: Okay, now there's a few here. Let's let me go
Speaker 1: back to where I missed a bunch of these. Well,
Speaker 1: a whole much Kung Powell for ten dollars? Why was
Speaker 1: the virgin Mary necessary? Could God create recreate without her? Sure?
Speaker 1: But God always chooses to use and have humans participate
Speaker 1: with him in redemption. God just wanted to do it
Speaker 1: that way because again, like I said before, creation occurred
Speaker 1: out of the goodness of God, not because God needed
Speaker 1: or had lack. I mean, this is precisely one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why we don't have a bare, strict monotheism
Speaker 1: of a self existent person from all eternity. God always
Speaker 1: had a over ever flowing, overflowing love from the Father
Speaker 1: to the Son and in the Spirit. So there is
Speaker 1: that triadic love and communion from all eternity. And so
Speaker 1: God didn't create the world as a reflection of himself
Speaker 1: because he was lonely or because he needed some way
Speaker 1: to be Lord. He was always Lord right, the Father
Speaker 1: was always Lord, He was always the cause in Arka,
Speaker 1: and always had the Son. So there was always that
Speaker 1: perfect triadic relationship in the creation of the world. Therefore,
Speaker 1: is not out of necessity. It's not an emanation. It's
Speaker 1: not a determined thing on the basis of eternal forms
Speaker 1: in the essence of God or Platonism or anything like that.
Speaker 1: It's purely out of goodwill. This is what makes Christianity
Speaker 1: unique is that the creative world is a willful expression
Speaker 1: of God's love and goodness in being and not any
Speaker 1: kind of necessary emanation or determined process. That's the chief
Speaker 1: argument that Maximus makes against Origin and Plotinus and all
Speaker 1: these weirdos and creeps is that, no, it's not a
Speaker 1: necessary emanation or creation, is not an eternal generation from
Speaker 1: God or anything like that like the Platonist thought. So
Speaker 1: that's what makes it unique. And therefore when we read
Speaker 1: Genesis and we see that Mary, when we see that
Speaker 1: Eve is the mother of all, right, now we start
Speaker 1: to see how Mary is the new Eve. You see,
Speaker 1: it's a common comparison. Mary is the ark of the covenant.
Speaker 1: Mary is the answer to the destruction that Eve brought.
Speaker 1: So that's why Mary was necessary in a secondary sense,
Speaker 1: not that God needed her, but that He chose and
Speaker 1: willed to have humans or someone like Mary be necessary
Speaker 1: in the economy of salvation. So that's the answer to
Speaker 1: that question. But thank you for that, Kung Paw Bounteous.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I think a lot of people sometimes, especially Muslim critics,
Speaker 6: forget the whole concept of like divine drama and stuff
Speaker 6: like that, Like how do you talk about and Athanasius
Speaker 6: talks about how the crucifixion.
Speaker 2: Had to be a particularly kind of violent and kind
Speaker 2: of obvious.
Speaker 6: Things so that people would know about it and the
Speaker 6: economy and you know, like the divine counsel and stuff
Speaker 6: like that. Like God doesn't need to consult with his
Speaker 6: divine counsel to make decisions, but he does. And it's
Speaker 6: like a divine a divine fittingness to all these things,
Speaker 6: to this order because it's pedagogical as well for us,
Speaker 6: it teaches us things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, God didn't need Abraham to intercede for Sodom.
Speaker 1: Orrybody knew that he would, and he chose to operate
Speaker 1: through Yeah, creaturely co operators. As paulses, we are God's
Speaker 1: co workers. God didn't need Amos to intercede, but he
Speaker 1: wanted Amos to intercede.
Speaker 2: Ythan says, well, that too.
Speaker 6: He's like God didn't need like he didn't need Moses
Speaker 6: to raise his staff to split the sea or anything. Like,
Speaker 6: he didn't need all these human specific human involvements.
Speaker 2: To a lot of the things he does well.
Speaker 1: The incarnation is thus a affirmation of the goodness of
Speaker 1: creation and God's will to use the created order, because
Speaker 1: it was always his intent to become incarnate and always
Speaker 1: his intent to use the created order. That's key. Creation
Speaker 1: itself presupposes incarnation. That's what's unique to orthodoxy. Let's see
Speaker 1: Bounteous for five dollars, could God create? Wait, Noah, that's
Speaker 1: the one I already answered, peak brain capacity a dollar.
Speaker 1: If the world we are living in is not operating
Speaker 1: the same way as described in Genesis because of the fault,
Speaker 1: then evolutionary theory could be regarded as balanced science on
Speaker 1: the basis of pure empirical evidence. Well, they're necess saying
Speaker 1: it is pure empirical science or evidence. All data is
Speaker 1: theory laden, All empirical experience is theory laden. Go listen
Speaker 1: to this stef On volume debate. I outline the four
Speaker 1: problems of basic empiricism that nobody in an empiricist tradition
Speaker 1: can answer. Their basic well known classical problems of raw
Speaker 1: not eve empiricism that have been asked for centuries now
Speaker 1: ever since David Hume Willard sellers up in the present day,
Speaker 1: William ben Orman Kwine, those are the basic problems that
Speaker 1: empiricism can't answer. So you're wrong about the idea that
Speaker 1: there is such a thing as a pure empirical data
Speaker 1: or science or whatever. I can't see the rest of
Speaker 1: your question, but that looks like where you're going. And
Speaker 1: if you mean by evolution adaptation, nobody denies that species
Speaker 1: adapt But if you mean by evolution this grand theory
Speaker 1: of death being natural and AONs of time to produce
Speaker 1: Adam and Eve out of Kate, Geico, Caveman or some
Speaker 1: of this nonsense, then no, be chez wait searching one dollar. Okay,
Speaker 1: I read the scripture, but I can't overcome my skepticism.
Speaker 1: Well that was pretty quick too. That was like an
Speaker 1: hour ago. So you you read the Bible in an
Speaker 1: hour again, So it could be just a book. Well,
Speaker 1: how can just the book predict the birth of Christ?
Speaker 1: How can just the book predict all of these messianics
Speaker 1: specific that one guy comes and fulfills. How is that
Speaker 1: just the book? When you pray, does God speak to you? No,
Speaker 1: it's again, it's not audible voices.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So Jesus answers this very question by saying, go to
Speaker 1: the scriptures and study them, and you will see that
Speaker 1: they have all kinds of things that show them to
Speaker 1: be miraculous. Right, they predict the coming of them Assiah.
Speaker 1: Look up the messianic prophecies start there, and then you'll
Speaker 1: start to see that the book itself is of divine inspiration.
Speaker 1: That's the visible proof argument that Jesus uses. Right, he
Speaker 1: has no problem just saying, look, if people rise from
Speaker 1: the dead, that's not going to convince somebody. If they're
Speaker 1: not going to be convinced by the predictions of the
Speaker 1: law and the prophets, they're not going to be convinced
Speaker 1: by anything. So what I'm saying is, go and look
Speaker 1: at the Messianic prophecies. I mean you responded by saying, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: I went and read scriptures, but I don't see it.
Speaker 1: Do you even know what you're reading? That's what I'm saying, Like,
Speaker 1: you have to understand what you're reading, right, I'm not
Speaker 1: saying just look at this verse, like, read the thing
Speaker 1: and understand that there are prophecies of when the Messiah
Speaker 1: will come, what he will do. Right, the Book of
Speaker 1: Isaiah start there, So man light is right, Lucius for
Speaker 1: three dollars, what is the Orthodox position on why people
Speaker 1: are born with incapacitating illnesses? Well, because of the fall.
Speaker 1: I mean all illnesses, all death, all decay, all of
Speaker 1: that comes as a result of Adam's fall. I don't
Speaker 1: know how how else to answer that. That's just another
Speaker 1: problem of evil question, but thank you for that. Lucius
Speaker 1: Militaris three fifty three. What is the Seraph and Rose
Speaker 1: book on Genesis and Creation? Genesis Creation Early Man? And
Speaker 1: I'm sorry it does appear to be out of print.
Speaker 1: I was looking the other day at a lot of
Speaker 1: different places and sites as to where it might be
Speaker 1: perfect just and I couldn't find any. So I'm sorry
Speaker 1: to say that that book appears to be gone. I
Speaker 1: mean not gone, but I don't I mean you can't
Speaker 1: get it for like under nine hundred dollars. Every place
Speaker 1: has that book for sale for nine There may be
Speaker 1: a PDF floating round, but physical copies apparently are sparse
Speaker 1: because it's out of print. But maybe if you drove
Speaker 1: to a monastery or a bookstore somewhere, you can find it.
Speaker 2: About you.
Speaker 1: Yes, this Creation early means.
Speaker 3: Oh, I think he's talking about.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Anyway, So I am going to continue this talk.
Speaker 1: I think we'll close up the Q and A. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna keep going because I did say I would do this,
Speaker 1: and it is time to finally dude the Pelicon book.
Speaker 1: So I'm not going to end the stream. I think
Speaker 1: we'll close up the Q and A part and then
Speaker 1: if anybody wants to continue with me here on YouTube,
Speaker 1: I'll just continue doing this stream. But I'm not going
Speaker 1: to keep doing the Q and A part. I want
Speaker 1: to get into early church the development of the Patristic
Speaker 1: tradition from Pelicon's book, because I did say months ago
Speaker 1: I would do.
Speaker 13: This, and.
Speaker 1: Church of Eternal Logos tonight will do our part two
Speaker 1: in the next few days. Jamie and I will do
Speaker 1: our part two in the next few days. And thank
Speaker 1: you to all you guys on the discord for chipping in,
Speaker 1: and I'll put everybody's links and whatnot.
Speaker 13: J before you cut off, If if I could ask,
Speaker 13: did you want to maybe make an announcement with regards
Speaker 13: to what is Seminin's Metropolitan Joonna has.
Speaker 1: Planned for the server, Uh, sure, if you want, If
Speaker 1: you want to go ahead and announce it, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can just announce this.
Speaker 13: So we're waiting on some more information hopefully forthcoming next
Speaker 13: week sometime, but his eminence, Metropolitan Joonah has offered to
Speaker 13: start up a weekly ctaschtical lecture your series right here
Speaker 13: on Jay's discord, so stay tuned for that. We'll make
Speaker 13: some more prominent announcements as we get more information, but
Speaker 13: hopefully next week we'll we'll have a set time and
Speaker 13: date when all this stuff is going to happen.
Speaker 4: And they're reminded to everyone watching the stream, if you want,
Speaker 4: please do come to the discord.
Speaker 2: I'll break you personally myself. We'll ask all your dumb questions.
Speaker 2: Blah blah blah blah. Love all of you.
Speaker 4: Jay, make sure to put my Twitter down there because
Speaker 4: I won that Internet cloud.
Speaker 1: You know, I know I will do that for all
Speaker 1: of you.
Speaker 6: By the way, hop over to Sam Shimunt Shimonian's channel.
Speaker 6: He did an interview with Craig on the Orthodox view
Speaker 6: of Salvation and I listened to as much of it
Speaker 6: as I could and it's actually really, really, really good.
Speaker 3: So go and watch it after Jay's finished.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah, after guys, am I going to be
Speaker 1: cutting into a lot of people's streams. Is Cotel doing one?
Speaker 1: I don't know, It's okay. I mean everybody can eventually
Speaker 1: watched come back and wash. Yeah, yeah, it's not a
Speaker 1: big deal. How many of people watching live. But I
Speaker 1: am going to cover because I've got so many notes
Speaker 1: on on Pelican, I took hundreds of pages of notes,
Speaker 1: and I also have hundreds of pages of notes, well
Speaker 1: about a hundred pages of notes on the medieval Heresy Book,
Speaker 1: which all