HEATED & Hilarious Debates: Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, Gnostics & More! VS Jay Dyer

The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the bah Yo. Welcome everybody to your favorite open debate in sanity, Feral Wye Mom Slam Poetry Virginia Slam podcast where we open it up to the haters, to the tomatoes, to the wanna b debaters to come on and offer their best challenge, their best argument, their best critique. As you

know, it always ends up being a very entertaining event. That's just an added bonus from me in the midst of the lost art of debate that we try to preserve, we try to try to promote, try to maintain, keep afloat. We got some people popping in, got a few people requesting to speak already. As you know, the topic is not conspiracies, Middle East politics, it's not poetry, it's not your bars. You're not gonna

beat me in a rap battle, so just give up. But you are allowed to call in and talk about your best arguments about the existence or the non existence of God, the transcendental argument. What the logos is, the logos logi distinction, the essence iner distinction, Roman Catholicism, a papacy, the history of the church, the history of religion, metaphysics, all of those are on the table. All of those are fair game. As they say, if you call in and you talk about other topics or you make

non arguments, I will make jokes. You will get your feelings hurt, you will cry, you will be butt hurt, you will make exposed videos about me. So just I'm just prophesying and telling you what's going to happen if you disobey the rules and only be to your own demise, to your own dutchment. But you may do that if you so choose. No one can stop the freedom train known as free will anyway, as you know the way it works. You request to speak via Twitter spaces, I then let

you on. Your job is to then make an argument, make a challenge, make a proposition, a claim, an assertion. Then you back it up with theces, not feces. A lot of y'all spit theces out of your mouth, thess that demonstrate or prove the initial claim or argument. It's that simple, although hardly anybody in today's society seems able to actually do that. So I want to give preference today to people that disagree. If you have a Q and a question, that's fine. Keep that maybe towards the

end of the show. So I already see people chiming in who agree and probably have questions, which is fine, but preference to those who disagree. So maybe you are an atheist, Maybe you are an agnostic. Maybe you are a Zoroastrian, a zor right Astrian. Maybe you are a I don't know what else, what's the other options? A Muslimist. Maybe you are a a Discordian. Maybe you are a ahnd dude, a him though you was a he? Who a she? Do? Now you're a ham though.

Maybe you're a papist, a Roman Catholic and you're going to prove the papacy to us. Maybe I don't know what's what's all the world religions? Can you can we list them all? Do you do? Y'all remember them? There's a Jim Jonesian. Maybe you're a Jim Jones follower. You're like the last two or three Jim Jonesians, and you got you got issues because you think you're the keeper of the truth. Flat Maybe the maybe the Jim Jones had it all right, and we just misunderstood. He just misunderstood when

he when he cooliated out in people, you just misunderstood. Maybe you're an orthodox redditor. We got some people in the YouTube chat talking smack. Maybe you're a neo Gagan excuse me, a Pagan. Maybe you're a asked asked a fire you can come on. Maybe you're a thirty third degree masonics person. He wanted them masonics anyway. Maybe you're an ancient Carthaginian and you believe

in human sacrifice. Maybe you're an as tech you. Maybe you're a thug ee remember the Thugies, some of that Temple of Doom action on Numbshiva numb cheva, about to break my heart by ripping it out. If you're steal a Thuggie out there calling on my thugies not thugs. We got a lot of thug healers on TikTok that Tristan and I have been calling out. I mean, we did a ball or ass stream yesterday about the history of rap music, aka the history of my music, my background. Y'all know,

I'm the first greatest rapper in the world. Tristan Haggard is the second ratest rapper in the world. Anyway, We're gonna open it up back to the topic, because you know, I'll just sit here talking a bunch of now damn nonsense about Thuggies all day long. Khima Khalimar shocked. That's the traditional thuggee right liturgy. So maybe some of y'all were at the traditional Thuggie write liturgy today. If so, let me know your best argument for why we

need to be Thuggies. Alexander calls in. Now, we had a gnostic man. He said, I'm on it. He said, I'm there, dude. Uh, I don't know where are you at, dude, let me see if he's He's like, I'm ready to debate you. He says, I figured out five thou and years of religious history. And he says, I'm ready. Okay, dude, as you know, we give you the floor, dog, so here you go. I would start making jokes, but you know, people can't handle jokes to that. That's the other

thing people think, Oh when I come on there, he's mean. We've always treated this in a very lighthearted manner, in a very humoristic way. You know, we joke around. It's not a big deal. Hey, a lot of people can't handle it. I made a serial killer joke. One dude's it got mad said I was calling him a serial killer. It's just, man, people don't understand jokes. They don't understand humor. That It's just it's getting crazy. So anyway, I don't know where the Gnostic

Man is. Alexander's on the scene on mute. We've got a T shirt made this I audible. Yes, sir, damn Professor Darer, thank you for letting me speak. I really appreciate you for that. I'm not I'm not a professor, but that's fine. Oh okay, anyways, I guess i'll start it off. I'll just ask you a question and then and then I guess if you can justify it, then you can prove God, if God's real, I guess my question to you would be is why why does

he allow so many bad things and tragedies to happen? Right? So, have you ever looked at responses to the problem of evil? Like who? Meaning like the objection that you're giving is the problem of evil objection? So I'm just wondering because it's kind of been basically because I'm because I'm saying that I'm I'm like, I'm I was, I'm thinking, in the concept or the extraction that there is evil, I'm conceding that there's good, and that

there must and that must come from like the divine, like God. Well, I'm just asking if you've ever looked at any of the responses. And there's a lot of different ways people approach the problem of evil objection, but one objection that I tend to use is just simply that if God doesn't exist, then we're going to need a basis for the standard by which we judge good and evil. So there are correct implications for when we deny the real

metaphysical existence of the good. One of those implications would be that we no longer have a standard by which to judge either good or evil, and that standard came from God in the Christian worldview. Yeah, well then I guess my next question outside of the Christian world no worldview, Yeah, yeah, that worldview. Yeah, I mean, I apologize my first time on the

show, so I'm a bit jutery. So outside of that view, my question is this is that then if that's not the case, then there there can be no good and evil, and then one act doesn't mean anything. So then how do we define anything. That's then then I'm then I'm just like a little bit confused. How do how do how does anyone make sense from right and wrong? Done? No, it's not saying that there is

no it's a hypothetical. You understand what that is, right, yes, right, So it's it's just saying that the comparison is between two paradigms. One paradigm has an account for good and evil as metaphysical things, or in the case of evil, not a thing but a privation or a move of the will against the good. The other worldview, which would be like the atheist materialist paradigm, typically doesn't have any account for and is really premised on

denying metaphysics. So the problem is that when you deny metaphysics as a whole, and that would be things like good, bad, the will, you know, meaning even ethics ultimately would be part of metaphysics because we're talking about value judgments, then there's not a basis to make an argument or even a sentence at all. So before I will hear out the argument. But the transcendental argument is an argument prior to predication, prior to making claims at all.

So you're gonna have to give an account for how you have values at all, because to say that the Christian worldview is a violation of the paradigm of good and evil, right, or that it's a violation of some ethical norm that God violates by permitting free creatures to committeabal actions. We need a basis for the standard by what you're saying it's evil or what is evil?

What's good and evil? If there's not a god? Basically, yeah, And that's where it kind of gets gray because like one thing I was just thinking of and then August, I'll mute, I is that basically when like for example, and this is kind of like a side thought, but a lot of times I notice or I observe, like a lot of atheists, for example, they say, oh, I don't believe in God or this

or whatever. The you know, the reasoning is a lot of times I notice they have like a lot of like heart trauma or something that's like not right in their mind. And then it's like they hate something and I don't even know if they know what they know what they hate, right, But

then they just that that internal like war, it's us out. Like a lot of times I see it like maybe like kids, or like say, yeah, kids or even young adults like teens out on their parents because maybe maybe their parent was you know, they hold those beliefs and it's like, oh, well, you know, it's like this whole confusing like a war with God, and then that then now they're at war with everyone who doesn't think just like them. Yeah. I think that a lot of times that's

the personal psychological motivation for atheism. Of course, they'll say, well, that's that doesn't really disprove my position, and that's true. There's no there's no psychological report that proves or disproves any position. So positions stand on their own objectively, whether they're true or false based on the actual argumentation. But

yeah, I think you're right about that being a common psychological trait. But what we're getting at here is just basically that in order to make the argument about the problem of evil, to argue at all requires the requires giving an account for something more fundamental. And that's what the transcendental argument is doing.

Is it's saying that the things that you're using to argue or make sentences at all can only work in a worldview or a paradigm where God exists, there's metaphysics, there's an external world, there's objective standards, there's universals, there's laws of logic. All those things have to be the case for you to

even make a sentence. So that's what I'm saying is that the problem of evil argument doesn't work because it's not addressing the transcendental argument and how the transcendental argument points out that if there is no God or good, then there is no basis for good or evil. Does that make sense or not? Really? Yeah, Like, yeah, I just feel bad those people. I don't know how. It's like they're just gripping for straws. There's one many

years ago. You probably didn't see this, but Michael Savage was on the air with Alex Jones. Yeah I've seen those interviews, Okay, yeah, and he just came out like he just got on side swacked by Ben because he took over his show or whatever, and it was some like dirty dealing going on and they're talking about it. But also he had a new book

come out. I forget the name of the book, but the book was basically kind of him searching for God, and a lot of times it was just kind of about I'm trying to remember, but it's like the whole point of his many experiences in a life where he's just searching and searching and searching, and it's like a lot of times, you know, I haven't really heard any real actual proof or evidence for God. But it's like I'm in I'm stuck in that same paradox of like, isn't in the clouds? Isn't

I have this child? Is it in this art? Is? You know? But I'm I'm in this big universe. But just the fact that I'm seeking for this but you know, like I don't hear anything back, and I don't know if maybe this is kind of like Christian paradox or I don't know how to preface it, but it's just like my last little like common

honor me. Okay, yeah, those are good, good questions. I mean, I guess my answer to that about the way God speaks is through first of all divine revelations, So that would be, you know, what's contained in the Orthodox Bible and the teaching of the church. It would be eventually more and more of a direct interaction and sense of God's presence. But that's something that comes after I think, you know, a time of purification, repentance, and so forth, and that's what we do as part of

our life in the church. So I'm not trying to avoid the question. I'm just pointing out that the problem of evil issue is rather a consequence of the reality of free will and the reality of secondary causes that creatures can engage in. So why God chose to permit the world to be that way? There's not any obligation on God's part to reveal to all of his finite creatures all of the infinite variations of created causes as to why it's this way.

And if you read the Book of Job, the answer is more so, we can't really in this life comprehend all of the different created causal chains and how things work together for the good, as Paul says in Romans eight. So there is an element of mystery there with you know, how does divine sovereignty and providence and free will all work together? And one thing I would say is that this is an expectation that no worldview can actually answer. And

Christianity is not a worldview that gives you every answer to every problem. It's a worldview that gives you an account of knowledge ethics and metaphysics as possibilities to even use or to engage in. That doesn't mean that every aspect or element of the physical world or science or knowledge or metaphysics is immediately knowable or demonstrable. So the transcendental argument is addressing the preconditions to knowledge, to making sentences,

to making meaning at all. And that's why I think it's the more. I mean, it's really the best philosophical argument for God's existence. Right, It's not the only reason that people come to believe in God. There's many reasons why we to believe what we believe, but it's in terms of the domain of logic and philosophy I think it's it's the best argument. But anyway, thank you guys for those super chats, and those are good questions. Now the guy who wanted to come and chat, Jeremy is in the

chat. So Jeremy, if you want to you can. I'll invite you to speak, and you know, you can have the floor and make whatever arguments you'd like about your specific your specific religious position. So did you want to come on, Jeremy, You got to have your mike turned on or whatever. They got to leave. No, there you are. Okay, I'm going to give you the ability to speak, so you just got to unmute yourself and then you can make whatever arguments you want. Hey, jam

thanks for having me. Sure have a quick question, and the question is why do we call him God? I would say, in our position, ultimately because of the characteristics of what he's revealed about himself. So you know, God for us would mean the person of the Father and the attributes that go along with him being omniscient, being, omni benevolent, being, you know, omnipresent, omnipotent, et cetera. Okay, So what I'm getting at is his name in the Old Testament is spelled right, So it's really

this is really more of an etymology question. In the English Bibles and throughout the world, why do we use the name God instead of whatever however you pronounce his name. That's where I'm going with this. Well, I think the Greek term theos is usually what is used, and it's just the word in the Greek that stands for Yahweh or the Lord or whatever. Okay, so you're getting close. Theos is the Greek word, but it's also used of the career of angels of demons and sometimes of men. Right the Hebrew.

The Hebrew equivalent is elokeein and is also used directly of the creator of angels, of demons, and it's also use of men. That's correct, So can I respond to them? Yeah, so I'm aware of that, And that's that's because the term God is a generic term. It's not a proper noun unless it picks out a specific person. And this is an argument that we've made many many times to Muslims, for example. So I'm familiar with what you're saying, but capital t theos for us is picking out the

person of the Father. But you're absolutely correct that elohem or God's in the sense of when Jesus says I've said to your Gods, that could refer to an angel, a demon, or a human. We agree, all right, sweet, So with that being said, what we're translating is God is either Theos or Elokeein. But you'd have is a different word. So whenever we in the in the Tanakh or in the Old Testament, when we translate

jode bave yeloheme, we translate that as Lord God. So we're not even using the term God for the Creator's name, we're using a title lord. Well, I mean, in our view, God is again a term that picks out either a divine person, the divine nature, or the divine energies or operations in the Old and we're speaking here of God, the Triad, the Trinity. So I believe in the Trinity as an Orthodox Christian. And in our view, Jesus has called the face of Yahweh the Angel of Yahweh.

Then he's given the name of Yahweh throughout the Old Testament. So it sounds like a what we call a word concept fallacy, where the idea is that a word has a single reference. But in the case of theos or Lord, it could refer to a created Lord, or it could refer to the uncreated Lord or God. Okay, so I'm with you on all that. So and and by the way, you know, Jesus died rose again three days later in the right hand, and his father's name is you know,

Jode. So I'm with you on all that. You don't think that Jesus is Yeahweh. Well, he's divine, but he is not the Father. No, I think they're different aspects. Father know that Jesus doesn't know. Well, are there degrees of divinity. Yes, well, in the sense of the divine nature. There can't be degrees of it. Right, So the divine nature, for example, is simple, it's uncomposite, it's

outside of time, it's impossible. Uh, it's not acted upon. These are all classic ideas of what divine nature or the uncreated nature of God signifies. So there couldn't be if Jesus is fully divine, there couldn't be degrees of of that, a quarter, a half of the divine essence or something like that. Right, But angel and demons are divine beings, Yes, divine in a different sense, So there are different You just contradict yourself, right, No, it's not the sense in the first sense. Okay,

So not in the sense of God's divinity. So when we call an angel elohem or when they're called gods, it's picking out a created thing. We're talking about uncreated nature. So you understand it's a word concept fallacy. It might be, except every demon in the Bible that's listed, and I've got every one of them up here. I can go through the whole list for

you, both in Greek and and Hebrew. They are all translated exactly as they are transliterated, meaning they're all translated in our English Bibles exactly as they sound in their original languages. Would you agree with that? Translated as they sound? What do you mean? So I'm going to give you a few for instances as an example. So bail is sounds like bail and the Hebrew bail paris like baille parith. Hold on, Yeah, and we believe those are fallen angels. Yes, Mary, doc is Meredoc, nebo is Nebo,

and drimalk and drimalk, so on and so forth. Right now, there are two demons in Isaiah sixty five eleven that are not translated. Their names are completely untranslated. Have you ever looked up that verse? Yeah? I read Isaiah many, many times. All Right, in Isaiah's sixty five

eleven, there's two demons in there. They're either they are translated in the King James or the Geneva Bibles as troop and number, but in every translation post nineteen seventy they're translated as fortune and destiny with capital F and a capital D. And the way that I found this was I was researching the origins of hard determinism in Christianity, and so I chased that from Lorraine Baudner in nineteen thirty six with his Tulip thesis, back to John Calvin, who got

all of his ideas from and Martin Luther. They got their ideas from Augustine to Hippo. Augustine Hip got all his ideas. And I used to be a Calvinist. I've studied at Calvinist seminary. I'm more that's good. So in Isaiah sixty five eleven, you have two demons that are translated as fortune and destiny. Do you happen to know what their names are? Well? How is this going to prove your point? Because I mean, I agree

that they're demons. If these are demons in the text when I look at Isaiah sixty five eleven, I mean you're saying that it's the quote modern translations, But okay, I mean demons are created. So how is this How does this preview point? Because their names are God and Many, they're spelled gd Gimmel, Dalak and him and whym none yeode Okay, it looks like

and their names are tamingly pronounced God and money. You mean you think that the English terminology of the meaning in English of a Hebrew word is the same. No, what I'm telling you is in Hebrew. That is how you pronounce that word gd God. This is a word concept fatasy. So you think that the modern English term God is referencing that that that's predicting that we worship quote God, but it's a demon. Is that what you think?

So that comes back to my first question is what is the etymology of English word God? It just means theos. It just refers to It picks out theos when we're talking about God, the Father, but it also refers to other things. Yes, that's what that's that's how we define it. But I'm talking about etymology. Where to come from? That's etymology. Now, etymology is it came from this word and this language and this verdacular, and that's how we all say it. Okay, isn't that way you're asking?

Well, so can you just say where? Can you just say what your position is? You're asking all these questions and just what's the position that you're arguing? For sure? So the hard determinism of christian and which is Calvinism, comes from those two demons, God and manny, the demons of fortune and the demons of Destiny. One's a male and one's a female, and they just change their names every now and then. I e. God and married. And what happened was the demon God Mary? Yeah, you just

changed You've changed many a little bit, and you get married. So what happened with this is this is looney tunes. Man, I'm not trying me mean to you, but all right, changing it, changing one letter, yeah, it makes all the difference, right, right, So how do you jump from that to Mary? Because the demons God and Manny are it's the same charub in different civilizations. It's amen Ra in Egypt and Horus, it's God and Manny and Babylon it's Jupiter and Pluto. And and you think

that's the verb. You think that's the virgin Mary. Well, I'm saying that's the cherub that's presenting himself as Mary for the Catholics. How would you ever come up with? Yeah? How would you? It's just this is how would you come to that? Because I wrote a ninety three thousand word book on it, and I researched it that that doesn't explain how you came to the conclusion. That just tells me what you did. Well, what

rephrase your question, it's a non sequitor. So first of all, changing one letter in many words gives very different conclusions and reference to as to who the word is picking out. So the fact that you're saying that, well I just changed one letter, it's really close to Mary. I mean, that's this is like you don't see why that would be a problem. Well, if you look up mem nun yode in Hebrew, none is a letter

that's used to change a name and to disguise the name. Okay, so are you familiar with like the way let me give you an example of where this would be a problem, like the way that Freemason's talk about Solomon. Have you heard this argument where they say, well, look at the name Solomon, it's soul, it's ome, and it's on. Soul is the Latin for the sun and the sun god. Om is the uh you know hint, the Buddhist Ohm right chant that they do on is the Egyptian deity

On. Now, the word Solomon is a English transliteration of Shalom, has nothing to do with soul, om and on. Okay, So there's there's a tendency and a lot of esoteric minded people or Masonic minded people various hermeticis

or whoever. I'm not accusing you of that. I don't fully know your position, but I'm just stating that it's all kind of based on If you're familiar with Jordan Maxwell, for example, the famous conspiracy dude, right, he would always kind of come up with these creative switching of reference to show that because the in one context the word means this, in another context the word means something very very different, the word then is meaning both things or

can be identified with one reference. So do you do you know what I when I'm saying that it's a version of word concept Ballacy, do you know what I mean by that? I agree with you one hundred percent with the spot on, But how would you agree with me if that's what I'm saying. Is the move here that you're making that's a mistake because you can find God in the text, in the Hebrew text, and it was covered up.

If you'll indulge me just for one more quick point before you can be I'm listening, all right, So let us let's assume that God and Manny are the demons of the Babylonian demons of luck or fortune and destiny or fate and I stumbled upon them. You asked how I found this. Let me

answer that first, because you did ask that question. The way that I found this was when I was researching the elect I wanted every time the word the elect choose or chosen was used in the Bible, and I was gonna put it in an Excel spray cheat so that I could show you that it was just a mundane word where somebody was choosing something. There's two hundred and

twenty four instances of that. And the way that I found Isaiah sixty five eleven is because the Creator chose Israel for destruction, because it's something they did. That's how I found Isaiah sixty five eleven. It was just by doing my homework. So let's assume that God and money are the demons of luck and fate in Luke. Whenever Jesus is telling them that you cannot serve both

God and money, assume my proposition is true. The reason that he's telling him that you can't serve them both is because you either live your life as if everything is chance or luck, or you live your life as if everything is fate or destiny. That's why you can't serve those two masters. I mean again, there's nothing to do with the Virgin Mary. Where do you this is? I can't. I just don't understand. How do you conclude that that's Mary Mary? A tertiary item anyway? Yeah, but it demonstrates

the wildness of this. You don't see why this would be a problem. It is. It is absolutely wild. I agree. Okay, So what is the true religion? Like, what is it to you? The Way? And that is what? Well, so, and here's my opinion that you're not going to hear anywhere else. I think the Way, which was home groups meeting in their homes, your pastor, your evangelist, your apostle. Those were all functions that people did. They were not titles that were

given to them by professionally credentialed organizations. The Gnostics eventually infiltrated the Way and eventually turned it via Augustine of Hippo and Jerome and others, and eventually turned it into what we call the Roman Catholic Church. And then they used half of the Gnostics beliefs to do that. In the fifteen hundreds, the Protestants used the other half of the Gnostic beliefs to consolidate power away from the pope.

And what you call church right now is the Great Harlet of Babylon, because all churches worship God, and his proper name is the Babylonia demon of fortune. Again, your entire thesis is built on a word concept fallacy. Are you from a Protestant background, both Catholic and Protestant? Right, So the word God can pick out different things, right, And your argument rests on the word God having the single reference of this demon. And the way

that you got to that was the creative interpretation of Isaiah sixty five? Is it creative? You just said you had to change a letter to get married. No, that is what you said to get married with proposition that did you not say that to change a letter you get married because it's close? Yes? Okay, So again, why do you think that that is baudid

or a coherent move to do? From what standpoint? It's not talking about Mary and you admitted it by saying that I have to change a letter to make it be close to Mary. Yes, and that's the middle letter of Manny's name him And why Fanny has nothing to do with Mary? Where do you conclude that that's Mary? Because the demons can change their names. That's what he does. Yeah, that doesn't improve that the reference is Mary. You're just assuming the position and saying, yeah, but it is because it's

a demon changing his name. How do you know that it's a demon that change that? You don't think? I mean, do you know what Ephesis taught for example? On what on the on Mary? Kill me? Well, are you familiar with church history at all? You talked about Augustine. You're correct about his background a little bit, yes, okay, so, but well, wait a minute. Wouldn't want to know about what the first four centuries of Christianity taught. If you're going to put this position forward,

sure, go for it. Now I'm asking you what do you think they taught in those first four centuries up to Ephesus about whom? About Christ and Mary? I don't know off the top my head. Okay, so you don't know about this topic. I thought you wrote a giant ninety thousand word book or something ninety three thousand. Yes, okay, So but you don't know about the topic. Well, the book doesn't cover the encompassing of everything

in Christianity. Yeah, but Mary is very important at Ephesus and she's given a certain name at Ephesus, and so this would be very important to your thesis if you think that she's a god, a goddess, or a demon. I didn't say that Mary was a god or a demon. Marie. Our name was Maria. Okay, yeah, all right, we're gonna move on. I appreciate your arguments. Interesting thesis, but it's a word concept fallacy. It's open for him. If you want to present your arguments,

you can. I will hear them out Anikatsuki. We're giving preference to people who disagree today. Hey man, what's going on? Yo? How's it going? I already sent a couple of super chats in, but I was just going to ask my questions this way. If that was okay? I

did. I didn't know that I could do this, all right. So I'm newly orthodox, my wife and I and we've been taking our six months old and I was wondering, what do you think would be the best argument towards my Protestant friends and family who equate icons with the with what it says in the Second Commandment about not making images of what's in heaven and on earth and in the sea below and all that Yeah, I have an essay on that. That's a very simply simple sort of response on I just got to

my website and type in icons and you'll get it. Okay. My second question, if I may, I've got The Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Seraph from Rose. I've got against Heresies, I've got on Holy Images, and I've got the Orthodox Generation of Mary the Mother of God by Saint John Maximovich. Yeah. Are there any other starter books that you recommend for Orthodox theology in general? Yeah, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by

Lasky is a good place to start. Orthodox Church by Myandorf is a good place to start. Byzantine Theology by Myandorf after you've read those, Okay. Now, the article that I wrote is called Biblical Defense of Icons. It's just a basic going through the text of the Bible, and I've got that linked in the chat Okay, and you can also just find it on my

website. Awesome, I appreciate it. Jack Hey. Trying to add one thing real quick, So when we're reading Exodus in the command to you know, not have any graven images of anything on earth or in heavens obviously, it's in the it's in the context of such that you would worship it as

if it were gone, because think about how silly it would be. It would mean if it says no graven image, which is a typically means a three dimensional image, it would mean that we couldn't have any statute, I mean outside of religious contexts, that you couldn't have any statues or any three dimensional art or anything like this, which you'll see that even like I think

the Amish even kind of take it that way or something like that. So you have to say, well, the verse, the verses can't actually mean that, So what are they saying. They're saying within the context of worship such that you would worship it as if it were God. And I think this is a typical move that Protestants struggle with. First the word concept fallacy, and number two that there's a general, overall kind of context of what's

going on. So it a Protestant might often think, well, you just read the verse, and the verse says what it means, and means what it says and says what I mean, and we see that's not the case. Yeah, that's usually where my argument goes whenever I speak to my protest the friends and family is, well, let's get down to what what what an idol was, and let's get down to what the word graven means. And usually usually that's that's the limit that their brain can handle, and they

just should down and just refuse to hear any of them. Yeah, because you could ask, well, why would that be wrong? Why would God say not to make graven images? They won't give an answer. Oh, because God said so. Yeah, so they've got some type of weird kind of divine command theory that God's dictates are arbitrary and whatever he says, that's just what it says. You've got to do what which is a terrible god to follow? Right? All right, appreciate that question, Matt. I'm

guessing that you're the guy that said the super chats. Appreciate that. I'll read those super chats here in a second. Let's see Thomas Thomas Guzman. We're looking for giving precedents to people who disagree. Today, got an unmute man, Go ahead, you're run muted. You gotta turn your mic onto I don't know if you Sometimes you have to go in your settings and turn on the mic. If you haven't done this before. Are you there, Thomas, We'll move on until you get that. Sometimes you have to come

out, come back in. So Thomas, if you come out, come back in, I'll put you back to the head of line. Hilarian, what's up, dude, Yo yo yo. No one can say I was mean. I just said the position made no sense, and it was based on a word concept fallacy. And of course what was happening at Ephesus is the term day of Tokos is what I was looking for. So people that aren't aware of that, I'm not gonna listen to them telling me about the secret history of Mary. Hilarian, you got on mute or not moving on?

Moving? Own up? Move and own up, David Reid on move arm move, Hey Ja, what's up? Hey? I was just I just had a quick question on'm orthodox by the way I called it. Before I was listening to the iconic Vegan debate with you, Tristan, and to ask yourself, dude, at Vegan gains, you know the train wreck, and you at one point brought up a point that he was saying something about something being abstract or it was not tangible, so we couldn't investigate it.

Something along those lines. You don' kind of ignore me empiricism, and you said nothing was purely abstract, and you said you could read Heidegger in to basically realize what that means. And I was wondering what you meant by that that nothing's abstract, that is, nothing's purely abstract. Yeah, Heideger makes the point that so Hussarl wanted to bracket reality and come up with these neutral ways to read objects. And the famously Husserl took his class outside and they

studied a mailbox for an entire semester. And the reason they studied the mailbox was because, for example, you can't you can never a single person's vantage point is always limited to their side of the object. So this is called in mariology the horizon of objects, so you can never see the other side

of the object. And Hussarl basically had them focused on doing this for like a whole semester, and Hidger made the joke that this wild attempt at trying to find into this purely neutral starting point to read objects is that landish mainly because it operates as if we read objects as pure abstractions and not through life, being not through the entire history of objects that we bring to the interpretive

experience. So I'm never going to have a purely neutral interpretation of the mailbox, because anytime I come to the mailbox, I'm bringing with me my whole history of all my life, all my interpretive interpretation of objects, including all my past history of interpreting and experiencing mailboxes. So it's an unrealistic it's not the life being way that we interact with objects, is what I was getting

it. I got you, okay. It was a way for me to combat and refute the idea that there's such a thing as non theory ladd interpretations of reality. Got you, okay? And then can I ask them allow question? Sure? So the this is because some I don't know if it might be somewhat related. You were talking in previously with another detractor about divine conceptualism, uh huh, and you were saying that the Orthodox conception is different from the Roman Catholics. Yeah, they have a platonic move and we make

them energies, not the divine essence. Okay, So universals are created things in the Orthodox view. Maximus makes this argument very clear multiple times in the Ambiguity Roman Catholics don't typically make this clear. So you might find a Roman Caldic who reads Maximus and comes the conclusion of that. But really this is because, for example, Aquinas identifies the divine ideas with the divine essence. So that would make if you say that universals are divine ideas and they're the

divine essence, then now universals are the divine essence. So that's a Platonic view. Got you. Okay, interesting, I look at that. And so it was there a particular Heidegger book that I could pick up. I'm not actually, I'm not. No, I'm not even I'm not a Highigger scholar. I just had one class on Heidigger in uh grad school and it was really contrasting Hidegren. Host Earl was that whole class. So, uh, Father Deacon at Nice would be a lot better for that topic. Dermot

Moron was my professor. That's one of the world's leading Hiderger scholars, so he has some books on that. Also, Hubert Dreyfus, I believe he's out of Berkeley. We used der Mount Moran and Dreyfuss in my in that class. So yeah, they're like the two leading scholars probably off the top of my head goods because he has kind of uh he was a book called Phenomenology that's really good that covers kind of all that stuff that's going on with

Userl and Heidegger. I mean, just some books that are kind of a more general approach. A lot of scholars will pick some specific aspect out of Hiderger to write about. So that's why I recommended h Dermot Morn or Hubert Drive was just kind of a good overview of Heidiger. And then just go ahead, go ahead, finely, go ahead. It's just what we will lose, all the all the listeners will lead. I'm not I'm not mad at you enough fuss think it's just that nobody knows about and right, this

is totally unrelated to that. In the Eric you Bara debate from a while ago, you had on with Mike on Michael Watkins, you know, so you were he was kind of saying basically that he was building kind of a case for the papacy from like the ground up, right, and you were saying, basically the problem with that was that it's ignoring all the constituent doctrines that come with it. You can't just argue from the ground up. Was that the issue correct because he seemed to be saying that, like, look,

let's just take this one piece at a time. Yeah, he has an evidentialist pile up the papal quote's approach, and then eventually, if he piles up enough quotes, it'll tilt the scales over and it'll maybe even make the papacy true. Right, right, So what's what's the problem with isolating one aspect and being like, Okay, let's just deeld because he is already because he already said elsewhere that if you could show one dogmatic contradiction, the

system would be nullified. Oh and so the whole point of my argument in that whole debate was that Vatican two's teaching post Vatican two contradicts previous Catholic dogma. And Eric says in the debate, we'll have that debate another time. I don't want to go there. Let's just work through. The evidence is piece by piece. And it's not that I'm against evidences, but those guys

are Tomas, and they're evidentialists by virtue of being Roman Catholic. I mean, nint nine nine percent of all of them are that, And so that whole approach is flawed and it's self referencing and arbitrary, which is ironic because because they would say, well, but you think tag is self referencing in arbitrary. Yeah, but that's why I'm not a classical foundationalist like you are. Right, So it's always an internal critique when you're making those arguments pretty

much against them. When I'm when I'm making that argument, it's an internal critique. But not every argument is an internal critique that I make. Now, I make arguments all the time, like you know, here's a quote from Maximus that you know does makes sense with Vatican one, right, but again, so you know, yeah, that's the point is that the reason that debate is so odd, I guess is that he wanted to do one thing. I wanted to do a different thing, and so there never it

wasn't it was never what I was arguing. He never addressed and can't address it because he would have to give up his whole paradigm in order to Ultimately what would happened is that it would become an epistemology debate and he have to he'd have to argue that there's self evident truths basically, and that's if you and if you want to see that debate, that's the debate with Trent Horn right right. And it kind of it seemed like, I'll be honest,

it's kind of seemed like that went over Trent's head. I hate to say it. Of course, of Trent's pretty sharp, which was pretty surprising, you know, honestly, But but yeah, they kind of bring that the debate up a lot, the Roman Catholics. I talked to the one with you, you know, the kind of like, oh, well he got school you know. I mean, that's what Roman caviolc say to Cope about

that debate. I didn't get schooled. Eric never addressed the argument that h and by the way, you'll notice everything that I said too about him and Lofton like that's all come to fruition because they don't they don't like each other anymore. But no, it's a it's a very simple argument that the papacy has a structure and a system by which it doesn't allow any dogmatic contradictions.

And Abara admits that so the argument was just simply, let's address the Vatican two teachings that contradict pre Vatican two teaching, and he said, we'll have that debate some other time. I don't want to do that right now. So there you go. And again, am I not vindicated with Fiducia's supplicans or whatever Francis's skittles and cyclical is? I mean, come on, right, so great question. Appreciate it all right. Everybody is noting that I

seem to be in a chill mood today. Thank you. I feel like I'm in a chill I didn't get mad at anybody, or I'm not even typically mad in a heated debate. But I just now understood that my suspicion is correct, right, because the text says, for that other guy, those that forsake the Lord, forget my Holy Mountain, prepare, prepare a table for God and many. And in the Orthodox Study Bible, right, that's translated as pagan gods like fortune. Okay, but God does not equate

to the English terminology and usage of God. I mean, this is That's why it's a word concept fallacy. This reminds me of the guy, the dude that came up to you when we're in California. Remember, yes, by the way, I wanted to point out first of all, etymology is not the be all end all of meaning. It can give us insights. Words change, words don't have a single reference. And two, the fact that you can spin a story with absolutely no evidence, And what did he

say? If it's true, wouldn't this kind of make sense of That's that's not evidence, that's not justification for your position. And I find it bizarre too that So God's going to keep all of this hidden and until one man two thousand years later writes a big book and does some fancy stuff with etymology and switches some words and stuff like that, and then discovers the real truth.

And God's going to allow that everybody's just been deceived and it's all been hidden and nobody had the truth that we had to wait for this one man to all right, yeah, exactly, let's go to Scott. Scott Grace gotta unmute when you come on, Scott. Yeah. I don't. I don't think that he did understand the point about word word concept fallacy, because that's really that's the point here. It's the same move that Muslims make where they say that God can only pick out the you know, single tawheed,

the word God can pick out different things. Scott, you gotta unmute man? Hey, how's it going day? What with you? Nothing much? So I was interested in discussing perseverance of the saints with you. Okay, well why are you giggling? You? Are you gonnatroll me? No, I'm just I'm just so excited. But yeah, I was thinking about it a lot. And the Orthodox physician is obviously anti per experience of the Saints from my understanding, but maybe are there any Orthodox people that take that belief?

No, Orthodox theology teachers that you can participate in grace and lose your salvation. Gotcha? Gotcha? Yeah? I guess what I struggle with with that idea. And obviously I think that there's Christians that can fall away from

the faith. I mean, the Bible is pretty explicit about that, but when we talk about like believers that have genuine faith, I guess some roadblocks that I have with that idea is that, you know, obviously, you understand that God has foregn knowledge of who will be saved before you know, we even come into existence. So you know, for example, like if God knows that the apostle Paul is going to be saved, or that Peter

is going to be saved. It seems that we can kind of say that they are going to persevere to the end, like that is something that written. But that doesn't make God the cause of all of the events or the sole determinate cause of their salvation. So God creates a world where there's secondary

causes and those people can participate and synergize in the process of deification. So the fact that God has foreknowledge is not equivalent to the doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints, which is that God infallibly ensures that the predetermined elect are saved. And this is all because Calvinism and the predestinarian view of even Augustine

places soteriology before Christology. If you look at Paul's Epistles and Ephesians, for example, the letter is not written to the fixed number of the elect. The letter is written to a visible church in Ephesus who has apostolic succession. So that fact alone really undercuts this entire model in paradigm. Do you think in this is really matters whether or not like Christ has made it so that they'll persevere, Like, don't you think the fact that God would have foreign

knowledge of their actions that they do to earn salvation. That by default, it's almost like they are predestined to live in a certain way that will lead them to salvation. No, because God is not the direct cause of all events. I say, I guess I struggle with does God have to be the direct cause of all events? Well, if he made them that way so that they would become saved and persevere, then yes he has to be.

That's why Calvinism typically ends up saying that the divine decree is the real basis for salvation in the divine In the divine decree doctrine, it would mean that God is the direct immediate cause of all events and there's not proximate in

secondary causes. Well, you would agree that God obviously made us the way that we are in general, So like, how would you explain how people reach salvation then, because like couldn't you just say, like, well, God made someone in a certain way where it's like they do enough repentance and they do the proper things to be saved. Anyway, Again, it hinges on the doctrine of anthropology that we have, where there's a distinction between nature

and person. So human nature is not determined. It has its own proper willing and energy that never goes away. Even after the fall. Human nature retains its will and energy, and we know this from Christology because Christ assumes our nature and heals it. So at no point does divine grace supplant, destroy, or replace the human will and energy. So the paradigm of Christology

is the same as the paradigm of steriology. So another thing too with that is I believe that you could come to the conclusion of perseverance of the saints, or like perseverance of the believer without necessarily having to completely forego free will. I don't know if. I mean, yeah, I understand that all Calvinists verbally free will, but they don't consistently confirm and affirm the idea that

human beings are their own causal agents. So that's the problem here, and the way that we can nail that down really quick is to talk about Christology, because both Augustine and Calvin are inconsistent on their Christology. And I can ask you the same questions as well. I mean, do you think Jesus was predestined? No? Because he's always existed? Wow? No? No, no, predestined to when he becomes incarnate. Is that is he a predestined man? It's a term that Augustine uses. I would say, no,

why is he not a predestined man? If you're a Calvinist or an Augustinian. Well, I don't consider myself a Calvinist or Augustinian, so I don't really know like what their response would be. Okay, well, I thought you were arguing the Calvinist positions. I'm misunderstood again. So maybe you don't understand what secondary causes are. Do you know what that means? So explain that to me. Yeah, so primary cause God, Like, are

you familiar with Islam and all? A little bit right? So Sunni Muslims, for example, like, they have this idea that there's no created causal agents in the world. And the reason that you can't say that, they think, is because it would detract from God's sovereignty if there were other beings that could be causal agents. And so this becomes the term. The term

is called occasionalism. And this is the idea, This is the idea that at every second, every nanosecond, God is destroying and recreating the world. Now, some Calvinists also adopted this position, like Jonathan Edwards because they thought it was more consistent with the idea of God's determining decree. So if we say that there are secondary causes, that means that agents that God creates in the world have a real ability to be their own causal determinants. So God

is not the direct determining cause of all those events. So if that's all right, if that's admitted, that would preclude what you're arguing about foreknowledge entailing perseverance of the saints. I would agree with that. I would agree with that. I think that obviously. I think that you can reach something like an idea that someone will persevere to the end without the fact that God knows. That does not make God the cause of every one of those then doesn't

entail perseverance. Why are you laughing? I'm not laughing. I'm like breathing. If God knows that something is going to happen, then I'm not saying that he necessarily for ordained it, but just the someone right right, Yeah, I see, I think you can come to that conclusion without calvinism. Like, for example, I think I forget what verse it is, but

it's talking about the characteristics of Yeah. But again, so God foreknowing the events of Paul persevering to the end does not mean that God is the direct immediate cause of every action in Paul's life. Oh yeah, I completely agree, because maybe you're misunderstanding then what we mean by participating in grace, because there's a lot of people in the New Testament, for example, in Hebrew six who are said to be washed with the with the baptism, they partake

of the heavenly gift and they fall away. Jesus talks about seeds that fall on stones, they spring up to new life, and they wither away and die. So those are people who really experience grace and do not persevere until the end. Yeah, for sure. And I would say this like I think you can come to that conclusion from like a free will perspective. Like when it's talking about faith, one of the things that it says is that

it involves love and love always perseveres. So like I believe that if someone truly loves God, and it is the biblical definition of love, that that love and faith in God will always persevere if it is truly loved. Well, I mean this is just redefining terms to make uh, you know, once they'd always say be the case, I mean the texture. Okay,

well that's the position, and then you just admitted it wrong. Well for sure, I mean I argue that per experience of the scenes could be can be derived from something other than like a very like five point Calvinism type view, Like I think you could have that view and not be a Calvinist,

like for example, like mullanis believe in that for example. Yeah, but again, like what what does any of this have to do with like Christology or the arguments that you know, Like so if you if you're redefining truly loving God to just mean I mean, at that point, then it's just you're still not escaping the issue because don't you think most of those people who fell away, for example in the texts that are mentioned, don't you think

if you'd them before they fell away, do you truly love God? They probably would have said yeah, and and like you know, maybe maybe they even believed it right, And I would say my argument is they might have like loved God, but I don't think that they loved God enough like you need to truly love someone like for example, like if you're in a relationship with your wife and I say to you like, you know, you love your wife. But if I say, like, I'm not trying to understand,

I'm not trying to be rude. But if you're just redefining all the terms to fit your position, then then what is the position? Well, what terms would you say that I've redefined? I mean, you just said that, now, what it means to persevere is to quote truly love God. So it sounds like just a way to Oh yeah, let me explain that. I'm sorry if I wasn't super explicit there. So what I mean

to say is I believe you're justified by faith. And so I was describing the characteristics of what faith is because faith, salvation and involved in faith is more than just knowledge about God. You have to trust and believe and love God. And the definition of love is that love always perseveres. So if you attach that to what it means to be a truth again, so you're redefining all of the terms to make your position work, because that's not what

these terms mean in the New Testament or in Patristic theology. So you have a presupposition about what perseverance of the saints means. And once they'd always saved and any objection that I bring up, that everything is redefined to make that view still work. And the point is that where are you getting these ideas about what that truly means? It sounds like this is just your position. So I think there's several verses in the Bible you could pull up that describe

what faith is. I mean, wouldn't you agree faith? No? No, no, no? About the fact that when I bring up text that talk about really apostatizing, you redefine that to mean that, yeah, and that just means that they didn't true love God? Well, how else could you explain it? Because how could they have finished by what I said? How else? What? How could they be? How could they have been a true believer if they walked away? By everything that I've been arguing to

you, it says that they taste of the heavenly gift. It says that new life sprang up in them, and that withered away and died. Right, And you're saying that it doesn't mean that it means that they never were really alive. Is essentially what you're saying. I'm saying that you could receive gifts and not experience. It doesn't say just received gift It says received new life and they died. It says that they apostatize from the Covenant they tasted

of the heavenly gift. So I guess the point would be, if you taste of the heavenly gift, you have new life. The question is can you give that up? Can you have new life? Obviously, because that's what the passages are saying, right, So I guess I would struggle with the verses that says love always perseveres because then you run into roadblocks like that,

or the fact that certain people. It's not a roadblock because if you truly love God, you won't fall away, meaning that you will continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul says, correct, and none of that is once saved, always saved, or is the perseverance of the saints and August. None of that is that. Oh yeah, And I think that you can well leave in that idea without being haughty and saying like, oh, I'm persevered, so therefore I don't have to live

in fear and try. But if you're admitting, oh yeah, then that's not the position that you took a minute ago. Well, I never said that I apply on. So this is not going anywhere, all right, Ethan Bracken, what's up? So people who want to debate the topics listed today can come into the chat. Of course, you can lose love exactly. Go ahead, Ethan. All right. So it's a lot of linguistic misunderstandings. It seems like as a recurring pattern. Do you want to come

back, Scott, I'm not trying to be mean to you. I'm not. I'm trying to be patient. I'm trying to lose my patience. You can come back, make a point. Go ahead, Scott, go ahead. I made you a speaker. You can come back if you want or not. Don't speak. Thank you guys for the super chats. Appreciate that. Thomas Guzman is trying again with his microphone. What's up? Thomas? Got it? I'm you man, Can you hear me now? Yep? All right. I've noticed there's been a lot of movement with the whole neo

pagan crew over on x uh huh. Now. I'm an Orthodox Christian. I've been Orthodox for three years now. I've repented of this, but I had been involved in the occult, deeply involved in the occult for years in neopagan circles. I was a theosophist, like the real deal. And one thing that I consistently noticed with neopagan's boots when I was involved in this highly sinful lifestyle and now is there's like really a totally complete lack of anythingology basically.

Sure, So like as an example, you know, usually Neopaganism, like if you look at some of the classic works of let's say Wika, so like the Witch's Bible or anything by Scott Cunningham like today, because they basically set up a theology which is Hindu light. Right, if you go to a neopagan circle and you want to talk about pagan theology, it'll immediately just stop and someone will say, well, I don't agree with that.

So like literally there's there's no real theological basis within the cultural paganism. What it kind of reminds me of is, you know fandom, Like if you go to a convention like a Star Wars convention, like you're just part You're just part of the community. That's basically what neopaganism is. Like real. I did a video from Florida in twenty eighteen making this very critique. So

yeah, I agree. Yeah. Now, within neopaganism, it's usually a lefty movement and they now they police themselves really hard there quote unquote right wing neopagans like the ascid true neopagans. But like what these people failed to realize is like the Vikings, like they weren't Nazis, you know, like and they didn't attack Christians or monasteries because they were doing it for Odin. They were just doing it to steal stuff. That's why that's a great point.

By the way, they they were released the especially the right, the right wing as you called it, neo pagans were released in attacking me all week. And one thing that they're all part of, Rabbi Adam Green is I call them. But what's really interesting they have very thorough modern ideas that are not paid like biological determinism, Darwinian kind of. So I just I wanted to comment on that because it's actually true. Yeah, well what we find out is it really is. Yeah, it's just another way to be an

atheist with different costumes. So remember remember we are on YouTube as well, so we're going to keep it to you know, let's not get too sassy with what we talked about Did you have any other issues you wanted to get to Thomas before we move on. Yeah. One thing I want to say about right wing Neopagans or a lot of neo Pagans in general, is I I view them as nonpracticing atheists. That's how I yeh, that's exactly right. Yeah, absolutely, it's got the same spirits. They've got the same

arguments. Yeah, spot on, yep, yeah, yeah. And I'm not trying to be rude or know it all or like, but if you go watch my twenty eighteen video critiquing paganism where I'm wearing a wig and I have a sword and I'm singing pagan songs, the original one, not the skid I did a year ago. Yeah, I was. I was making that same critique now. The reason for that is that I was arguing with an act interacting with the Pagans even back then at that time. And no,

those arguments are never going to change or get any more sophisticated. Yaru, what's up? Yeah, there is no like pagan tradition to go join. And you know, remember the Boglord Debate Dave debate, Right, we did the Boglord Dave Debate back in twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, and what we noticed from that debate was it's just sort of atheist arguments relativism, subjectivism, and materialism, but maybe a little bit of mythology, you know,

basically the same type of mythological view of Jordan Peterson. Basically, so yeah, there's there's no there there so to speak, Yaru was up, Hey he yep, So I think I have a problem with tag. I'm wondering how exactly God could play a justifictory role to epistemic norms because I thought the only thing that played just victory rules were epistemic standards norms. Yeah, but this is talking about the preconditions themselves. How are they justified or how are

they made coherent? So raise the bar to one higher level of meta justification. And that's why it's God, because it's not just any old God, but specifically the metaphysics of Christianity and the epistemology that Christianity offers is that is the justification. So why exactly is God a preconditioned for logic because all of the transcendental categories have to in the words of for example, Thomas or excuse me, doctor ed faser. They have to be housed or interrelated in some

way or in some place. And so that's the function that the divine mind place for us, which is to string all of this, all these golden string the pearls together, so to speak, on a single string. Does that make sense? Words? In other words, the categories don't like function on their own as independent, discrete things. So universals ties into logic, logic ties into ethics and metaphysics, you know, all these things kind of

hanging together as a specific type of worldview. And the only worldview that has the solution to those problems is the Christian paradigm. Yeah, why can't it be just the good? What? There's no account for just what the good is? So to say that it's something that's sort of impersonal or abstracted like that doesn't work because you need to excuse me intentionality. In other words, for example, to have te lose or to have a universe that's purposive,

you need an intentional being. So it can't just be some abstracted platonic idea like the good. Uh? Why does it need to be intentional to have purposiveness and to have telos? Uh? And think about it this way. If it's non intentional, it's accidental, in which pays everything is distantly love yes, and everything is meaningless. It's an oxymoron. The the accidental laws

of logic, the accidental laws of physics, accidental meaning. So in a world like that, there are no argumentes, there's no meaning, there's no semantics or anything like that, because it ultimately is accidental. That's why, by impossibility the contrary, it has to be purposeful and intentional. Okay, yeah, I think that's good. I might want to go back because I

think the skeptic could maybe say something earlier. They might want to say that, Oh no, all these things like logic, the soul, objective, morality, or whatnot, those things are actually all disjointed and they all just exist on their own. But notice what he's saying. He's making a statement about Yeah, in a world in which statements are impossible, Yeah, So

how are statements possible in his worldview? How are statements possible? Yeah, sentences are only possible in a certain type of world, namely the world that we are arguing for. So when he makes sentences, he's using preconditions and categories that don't make sense in his worldview, and so he's unjustified in using them. So he can't even argue or make sentences. So yeah, that

might be right. What does he just say something like, oh, a monkey is able to communicate to other monkeys in the same way that we are again saying, he's making statements about a monkey in which statements are not possible. So okay, he can't even get off the ground. Yeah, that's so's right, all right, appreciate it. Yeah, good questions, Yeah, really good questions. Let's see, so we're giving precedents today to people

who disagree. Uh, let's see Pakistani Psycho. That's an awesome selling name. We gotta go to that guy. Thank you, guys for the support. Our support the show via super chats. You can call in via the Twitter link that is linked in the show description and in the chat it's the excell link that you see there. Everybody always asking the link that we share

and tell you about literally one hundred times throughout the chat. Uh. And then you can also support the stream via stream Labs super chats, and that is this link right here. Did you want to talk, dude? I don't understand that people request to speak and then they sit there silent for they won't talk. I don't know. Open eye Institution. What's up, dude, shout out to the chat what's up you guys? Thanks to the mods keeping it real. What's up, Paul, what's up? Bell sprout?

What's up? Greedy? Speedy? Go ahead? Yeah, Well, you gotta understand, religion is made by civilization that thinks they could set all the rules that they are the authority of God. But the original, uh the name of God was these aliens coming down on spaceships and we called them the gods. Okay, uh, but did you read did you watch that on the History Channel? Been watching the History Cheneral? I'm the one that sees I'm a psycho. I'm a scientist and stuff, and I do field research

out there in the field. But what what's what's what field of science do you study? Uh? In physical dimensions, arabology, Arabology. Yeah, I'm the number one scientist of the paranormal thing. It's kind of like I believe, you know, because of the scientists of Yeah, I mean,

this guy studies you guys, so he's trumped you. Yeah. Well, let me explain to you, uh, the profits and the gurus that fly y'all flying so high, right, but then you find out you're flying so low because I'm seeing y'all flying really low and y'all wreckon into the mountains and telephone poles and ship like that. That's wild. Dog, Hey, listen, I appreciate it. You're you're the number one paramental paranormal scien man on the Internet. So I will concede that you win the debate. I concede

to you. Dog. Let's see Houston, who hoo? What's up? Who hoot? Number one science man on the in, and that I started the shack ofsphere like like Rush Cole, I'm you, bro, Houston, Houston, we have lyftoff. Where you at? Bro? Where you at? Dog? He's trying to connect. He gotta he's got a kind of a a little bit of a borrow look going on to him. You know what I'm saying. He got a little bit of a barrow face, Houston.

Where you at, Dude, try coming out and coming back in because you're not You're not gonna man, Just try coming out and come back in. You gotta eat borrow a face. I'm ready to bring you on, man, punk giver, Punk giver, mhm, I said, oops, up side your head. I said, oops, upside your head. I said oops up side your head. I said, oop upside your head? Unmute? Man picking buglers? I put a bugger on the basketball and I passed it to him. Tristan didn't even know who biz Marky was. Can

you believe Tristan didn't know who biz Marky was. I'm like, what, that's awful? How do you not know? Oh? Baby, you you got what I need? Will you say? You just a friend? Anyway? Uh? Biz Marky has the song picking burgers that was on the first tape I ever bought as a kid, had biz Marky picking burgers on it. You gotta unmute, dude, punk unmute. Hey, how's it going, Jay? Can you hear me? Yes? Sir? Hey, Well, I've got one question. I'm a feist and I've got a question in

regards to Quran. I watch a lot of politic debates, poetic debates, and I found one argument by myself. I've never seen it anyone anywhere else, and I would like you to rate it and check its validating. What do you think? Can I go for? Well? Hey? I mean

sure, I mean I'm not an expert in Islam. So you know, for example, you know Rid Vaughan, he found that really good argument against Daniel Hikikachu about the name Yahweh. So yeah, it's it's always possible to find a new argument, all right, all right, so let me try. Okay, I'm going to talk about a Sura eighteen, which is the sura so called Cave. Yeah. It talks about a narrative where Jews from Medina try to understand know whether the Muhammad is really a prophet, right,

so they instruct some people from the Courage tribe asking three questions. The first question was about a group of young men of ancient times with an extraordinary story. By the way, I'm reading a commentary from the study Quran, page seven. The second question was about a man who had journeyed until he reached the east and west of the earth, who was supposedly to be so called dull Kornaine yeah meaning two horned one in Arabic translated. And the third one

was about the spirit. Well the question in regards to the first question, they're known in Christianity as the sleepers of the Cave, supposed supposedly venerated saints who slept Yeah, I brought this up in the debate with Daniel gets you because it's in the It's in the Gabriel sied Reynolds book. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's it. Well, well, it was a trick question,

right, Jews do not believe this at all. It was a question whether they wanted to know whether they Mohammad aligns more with Christian narratives or their narratives. And they asked him this trick question. Okay, that's the first one. The Jews couldn't accept this answer because Mohammad basically affirmed those sleepers. Right. The second question, which is more interesting, is about du Cornane. As I said, it means literally two horned one right. And my

assumption, the first assumption is when Jews asked this question. When Jews asked this question, they they must have known about this tol Karnane, right, that's my assumption. Well, which which versus this? I'm gonna tell you right now, give me a sec surah or cough eighteen eighty three, Qurana eighteen eighty three, straw eighteen verse eighty three, right, go ahead. So they asked him about this dull cour name, Well, no one know that name is in the battle, right, Oh is there? Well,

let's step out of this question for a second and let's ask ourselves. Right, if you were a prophet of God or God himself, for example, and a Christian wanted to know, you would ask him who would you wanted to know about? Right? Who wouldn't average Christian wanted to know about more more than he already knows. Let's say Jesus, I mean exactly, Yeah, who wouldn't average Muslim wanted to know about Muhammad? Yes? And Jews, as my assumption goes, wanted to know about Moses. Well, yeah,

that's it. Well, the thing is sorry about that. The thing is that there were Latin and Hebrew manuscript Latin translation of Hebrew manuscript that had a copist error found in Exodus thirty four, twenty nine to thirty five, where Moses steps down out of the Mount Sinai, right, the horns and the yeah yeah, yeah, exactly, and the original Hebrew words in exibus U described the radiance as you said, as horns. But it was a translation error, right, right, So from that point onward, a lot

of Roman Catholic art and like with Mickeylang exactly exactly. And then Muhammad basically proceeded with some bogus story about dolkor Nain when the Jews wanted to know about Moses from the start. And that's basically it. That's basically I've never really heard about no Christian apology to talk about this, and I wanted to know what do you think about this argument overall? So you're arguing that the Koran is therefore not very perceptive because if it was from God, they would have

known that this was a mistranslation. So exactly the Muhammad and and Allah would know what she was mean by that b karmng. But yeah, yeah, that's it. That's basically yeah. I think that's a good point. It fits very well with uh. I think Gabriel side Reynolds in his book he lists about ten discrepancies like this. I don't remember him mentioning this one. So yeah, I think that would be a good one to throw into the

the pile there. But there's quite a few. There's quite a few of these, you know, weird versions of things in the Quran that that make no sense in terms of the Biblical story, or they've mixed up the details, or they've got it reversed, or it contradicts so yeah, thank you, thank you for this review. Absolutely, yeah, I'm trying to think of how how Muslims would Uh, They're probably just gonna say, you know, Moses really, what this whatever really is a two horned person or something?

Who knows. They'll just say, oh, the Bible is full of errors. So they roll out the Bibles full of errors, until you know, they realize that giant portions of their religion are built on the Bible, right, and then their religion says also that the Bible didn't have errors. So storage file. Yeah, I'm mute, hell sir, what's on your mind? Oh? Just uh, just wondering about you know, like this the sacrifice or the horns or whatever. Did you al say that Moses had

to warns no horns? Who had horns? Or what? The Quran is using the mistranslated text that thinks that Moses had horns is the mistranslation of a word, So the Qoran wasn't aware of a mistranslation. It's similar to the argument I make about the papacy. How come the papacy didn't know about the forgeries that they based themselves on. I would think that if they were a divinely guided institution, they would have been able to know and spot forgeries,

but no they didn't. So I'm just interested in the like, yeah, like the Orthodox Church, and like how like you know the cop Into like the Coptic Church, and how like the Coptic people. How the was it Marked that went and founded the Coptic Church. Uh, well, Saint Mark went to Alexandria. But what's nowadays called Coptic, we would say is a schismatic church. And that's like Middle like they use like a Rabi, they

use like a rape or like something like that. Well eventually they use Coptic, but Greek and then now Coptic. But thank you for those questions. Are going to move on to people who disagree. So remember today's discussion is primarily if you take issue with my approach or arguments for God's existence, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, the papacy, Vatican one, Church history, Vatican two, Islam, et cetera. It is open forums, so feel free to

come on hop on. But if you agree today is not for you, guys, you're welcome to hop on and ask questions later on another stream or via the discord or whatever. People can ask questions to people in the discord. I'm not usually in the discord, but sometimes there's people. Sometimes I'm in there maybe once every few months. Thomas, I was gonna go back, Tyrone Baggins, what's up, Tyrone? Does anybody have any arguments or

disagreements today? Is we're giving preference to people who disagree Tyrone. I see that one guy left and never came back Houston. He probably got his feelings hurt because I was making a joke. I'm just saying, you have you kind of look like a bar. I'm not saying I'm not being meaned, you man, It's just people can't even lose their mind if you make a joke. Aiden, what's up? Aiden? Alexander's Oldeniessen sends five dollars and he said, what do you think about Nicola Tesla? I think he's pretty

cool. He definitely had some insights. I think he went from Orthodox though, and kind of got into theosophy or theosophic type ideas. So I know that the Serbian priest read a book about him. I've heard of this, but I've also heard that later on in life he kind of went into theosophy. But it seems like a very cool science esoteric science, metaphysic metaphysics. Man Aiden, what's up? Dog? You gott im? Mute? Man Aiden? Do you want to talk? You came on? It? Just

unmute dude, Cody, what's up? Cody's coming on? Cody's the next up. So remember, guys, if you try to come on and it has an issue connecting, maybe weird cell connection or whatever, just come out and come back in is the way to do that. And then hit request to speak again. So it looks like Cody's having a hard time connecting, and go ahead on mute Cody. Hey, hey, good to talk to you, sir. What's on your moum? Yeah? I was just interested.

I read. You know, I'm a Bible believing Christian and I believe the Bible was tampered with, like apparently like there was different books in the Bible, like the Book of Enoch, which was taken out of the Bible. But it was in the Bible for over five hundred years and it was taken out. It's quoting in Jude chapter of Revelation. Say it was in certain can you mute when it was in certain churches in their copies? But yes, there's not one Bible until about the further or sixth century, probably

not anymore. Yeah, no, I'm saying that there is. You said that it was taken out of the Bible. It wasn't taken out of the Bible. Well, I believe like in the Council of I see it in the Catholic Church take certain books out of the Bible. No, they did not, and I see it to not determine the book of the Bible. Well do you know who did? Yeah, it's the Council of Tlo, which is many centuries later, and that's affirmed of the sixth and seven dicumentical

councils. Do you uh, do you believe like the Book of Enoch was ever in the Bible? It was in certain traditions. Sorry, man, it's there's too much feedback. We gotta we gotta go, so punished something. What's up, dude? And then they drop off interesting. Joseph al Kouri, Joseph Alchemy, what's up, Joseph? I'm mute. Uh, Joseph, do you want to talk? Yes? Yes, hi, j yes, sir, yes, Joseph Kouri. That's it's an Arabic name. It's I was making a joke, right, So obviously AlCH is not alchemy.

It was a joke. No, that's that's fine. I jointed late. I'm not sure whether my question is going to be irrelevant. I'm wondering about the Daniel seven where where you have you can say, let's say, is speaking broadly as as it you have two divine hypostases. You have someone called it the what about it? Yes, and the Son of Man.

I'm wondering, uh I, I agree with the with your approach that all the divine manifestations of the Old Testament are that of the pre incarrent hypostasis of the Sun and the Stune here is manifesting himself, and usually broadly speaking, it's because im correctly, if I'm wrong, is it that because the Father

will not manifest himself and only the Son takes that kind of role. And if that is the case, is there going to be some sort of tension with Daniel seven if we take that approach as somehow axiomatic, because you have Ancient of days and the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of days and standing

before him. Yeah. So this is why in the Orthodox iconography of this event, the image of Christ looks like an old Christ and that's because in Ezekiel one in ten and in Revelation one and two, the description of Christ is having white hair and a radiant appearance, same as the Ancient of Days. So what that means is that, as Jesus says, is the only image and icon of the Father is the Son. So there's two hypostasies there, but we don't have an image of the hypostasis of the Father because he

has no image other than the Son. So that's why the icronography of the Ancient of Days pictures him that way. Okay, So in this case, the figure of son of Man is gonna be a What is the identity of that figure in this case Jesus. It's the ascension. Jesus is ascending, and this is called the session where he comes to the throne of God and is given authority over every tribe, tongue in nation. It's what's described in the Book of Revelation when he comes before I mean, it's the same description

in the Book of Revelation as well after the ascension. So it's it's the son of Man. Who else would be the son of Man? So in this case, in Dan seven, both hypostats belonged to the hypoesis of the Son. Now there's no image of the Father there. It's the Father speaking, just like when the Father speaks, this is my beloved son. There's no image of the hypostasis. An old man didn't appear to baptize Jesus.

A voice is heard, right, and so that in our theology, just like we never see the hypostasi as the Holy Spirit, we see an energetic manifestation proper to that person. So there's an energetic manifestation of the Father granting to the Son all authority, power and dominion. There's an energetic manifestation of

the Holy Spirit as a dove and as tongues of fire. But those are not the persons of the Holy Spirit or the Father, because we never have a direct hypostatic image of either of those persons or energetic manifestations of them, just like the voice. So there's two hypostases present. Doesn't mean there's an image or a visible form of the Father m So it's it's more of an as it's a physical description, but in essence it's more of an audible manifestation.

Is that's like a more of a that's what we see in the baptism of Christ. Right, nobody sees an old man in the sky, right, they hear a voice. Right. And you notice Jesus says there was no No one has seen the Father at any time. Right. And when Moses talks about Mount Sinai, he says, you saw in a form, but you heard the voice. Jesus is the visible manifestation. He is the

voice. Yes, my, my, my, My thinking is when we take that back in the Old Testament, the figure of the insane of this in this case the physical description is therefore is it going to be for literary purposes, But the essence of the manifestation is more of an audible and tandem with the with the scene of the transfiguration and the baptism in this case,

let me let me pull it up here. Yeah, so again like, let me find an image of you have to we have to find a Yeah, hopefully that's not like a weird heterodox So the way that's describing the ancient of days here, right, his hair was a garment white of snow, right, fiery flame of fire. Right. That image is the way that Christ is described in Revelation one and two, and also and also in Ezekiel uh. And that's depicting the hypostasis of the son as the icon of the

Father. Right, it's not it's it's the Father in verses nine and ten, right, giving the dominion and the power to the son of Man right when he ascends. But in our theology, the only image of the ancient of days is the son of Man. Does that make sense? I understand which which you're saying. But but in this case, by the way,

bro, I'm an orphoist like you. But this this text is one of the one of the one of the texts that that's still in a sense I'm I'm still trying to innocence, come up, come with terms with it, because because when when I read the text, it seems that you have uh. Like as as we both agree, there's two divine manifestations, two divine figures. But in this case, yeah, but that first, that first

divine figure is the image of Christ. So it's not to Christ. It's the Father as the image of Christ speaking to the son of man Christ. Does that make sense? It's not two persons, it's not to Jesus. Is it's the only legitimate image of Jesus. It's a it's a in other words, it's what you said originally, Yes, it's it's a figurative description outside of time and space. That is, the person of the Father as the image of the Son speaking to one like the Son of Man Christ.

Does that make sense? Oh so yeah, yeah, so so the okay, it's not too Jesus is it's the Ancient of Days, the Father, but he's only accurately described through the imagery of the Son, right, Okay, I need, I need, I need to think more about what you say. So this is if you want the explanation of this. The Icon Council, the Moscow Icon Council, deals with this issue and it's a it's called the Ancient of Days dispute. There's a big dispute at the council over

who the Ancient of Days is right. And there were some people who said, well, the Ancient of Days has to be Jesus and the Son of Man somebody else. But then the passage where it says one like the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days and is given dominion. That's mirrored in the Book of Revelation, where it's clearly Christ being given dominion over all the tribe songs and nations. So the the identity of the Ancient of Days

is the Father. And I think Saint Nicodemus or somebody points this out and notes that it's it's the only accurate descriptions of the Father are the images of the Son. But that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that it's not the Father in the first description. Does that make sense? It's the Father? So okay, I'm black, I'm confused again. So the Ancient of Days in Dan sivin, if we take say the try to come with, it's the

Father. So verse nine and ten is the Father. Okay, Now that same listen, the descriptions of the Father in that passage are all descriptors elsewhere in the Bible and Ezekiel and Revelation that are referencing the Son. Okay.

So what that means is not that there's two Jesuses. It means that the description of Ancient of Days has similar deified transfigured imagery of Jesus, because Jesus is the only icon of the Father in this case, the Son of Man is going to be like the prophetic vision about the incarnation in this case that it's the ascension, the ascension the Okay. So listen. In the Book of Revelation. Revelation is describing after Jesus has ascended and he's in heaven incarnate.

Yes, yeah, that's the Son of Man, and it says that he is given dominion over all tribes on nations. That's the very thing that Daniel seven is describing. Okay. So Daniel seven verses thirteen and fourteen, I behold one like the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven, and he came to the Ancient of Days. He brought him and was given to him glory, dominion, and a kingdom. His king will not pass away. This is the same text in the Book of Revelation describing Jesus's

ascension. Hmm, okay, gotcha. So it's Jesus coming to the Ancient of days, the Father in heaven after his ascension. But the imagery of the Father is only going to use Christic imagery because there's no other legitimate icon of the Father but the son. So it's not too Jesus'. It's the Father with Christic imagery and symbolism, presenting and granting the kingdom to the son. It's not to Jesus'. It's just using symbols and imagery that John and

Ezekiel see about the resurrect the glorified Christ. Does that make sense or not? You're still confused? Yeah? Yeah, partially, I would say to be to be in complete transparency with you. What what's confused? Well, hold on, let's slow down. What's confusing? Yeah, because I'm still if if and I agree with you the the descriptions that we have in the issue of the Ancient of Days and down seven are applied in the New Testament

of on Jesus. But but I'm still if if so, as you said in down seven versus the verse nine, when when the first appearance it's the father Daniel nine, Daniel seven nine is the father, Yes, that's that's that's the father. And when when when the son of Man is presented before the issue of Days, that's that's gonna be. That's that's a reference to the ascension of Jesus Christ to the to the highest seven. Yeah, because

it's in the when he's so so. But but but my, my, my, in my mind, and still in this case, I still have to listen the symbol and imagery of Jesus as the white hair glorified being that's applied to the Father does not mean there's too Jesuses. No, I agree with you, like I'm ruling this out. I'm ruling the two Jesus is uh, let's say, right, so what so what's unclear? My my,

my, my, my? My issue is still if in verse nine we have the engine of days and in this case the angine of days here strictly with verse nine, is that a reference not physically the physical description, but the figure himself is a reference to the hyposis of the Father. And directly through the image of the Sun. Is that is that? Yes?

And yeah? Correct? And indirectly there is There is a good way to put it, because sometimes in the nuances of the icon dispute, the question arises, well, if it's not the person of the Father, what's being signified, what's being signified as the idea of the Father, or it's the energetic manifestation that points to the Father. So there's never a direct incarnation or manifestation of the person of the Father or of the person the Holy Spirit,

then what is it? It's the energetic manifestation proper to the person of the Father. Now I know the energies signify nature, but they come and they appear hypostatically, in hypostatic, so in the mode of the persons that have them. So it's the person of the Father manifesting the energy is proper to him to signify him, to point to him. But it's not his hypostasis that's being incarnated or imaged here. It's indirect, as you said, it's a good way to put it. So that's why he uses the imagery of

the Son to point to the Father. That's why Jesus says, if you've seen me, you've seen the Father. No man has seen the Father at any time. Jesus says, yeah, yeah, yeah, thanks for that, appreciate it. So there's not two ancient of days. There's not two, Jesus says. There's one ancient of days here that is the Father, as Saint Nicodemus says. But the imagery that's used to signify and point out the idea of the Father is imagery that is appropriate to the glorified Christ.

Because in Ezekiel one and Ezekiel ten, the form of God and the glory of God that appears is one like the son of Man and one that rides the chariot. He is the image of the Father, the image of the Invisible God. Yeah, yeah, and he said which council goes more into details about this. You see the Moscow Icon Council goes super deep into this. Read the Lasky Aspensky book, Volume two, Theology of the Icon Volume two goes into great detail about just this. Questions counciliate that, Yeah,

those are really good questions. And I'm not trying to be a you know, impatient with you. It's it's good. It's a it's good questions. It's a little confusing. First, Houston is back. What's up, Houston. Let's see try hitting a mute Matt Belcher says, five dollars. What's the best argument for proudinance process about the second Commandment? Yeah? I link the icon article, Matt Belcher, How do I call in? If you guys want to call in, it's through the ex Twitter link there in the

chat in the show description, go ahead of Houston. What's up? Yes, sir? Yeah, I can hear you. Man. What's up, Dimitri? What's up? Demetros Heay? What's up? Yes, sir? How's it going, Buddy good? What's on your mind? All right? Phillyokuay? Ready So if we go to Ephesians two, and Ephesians two says grayce and peace be onto you from the Father of our God and the son Jesus Christ. Passages like this can be used to say, look the Holy

where the grays in peace is the Holy Spirit. People that are not on the Orthodox side of the Philioka argument to point to this and say, you know here it is. Now that being said, my ultimate question is has this theological argument ultimately become irrelevant? And no, and this passage has nothing to do with the philo. So well, here's the second thing that and

then I want to hear your thoughts. Okay, another argument will has been made, like there was a misunderstanding at the Council of Florence, for example, they would say the Orthodox were thinking about the structure of the god Head as far as as Philly, sure, and the Catholics were thinking too. As how it translates down to the man in the street, which this passage could again be used to support that your thoughts okay, So what you're describing

is called economia. So the first confusion about if the Ephesian's passage is about the economia, so nobody, nobody denies Orthodox or Roman Catholic that Jesus sends the Spirit into time and space through being incarnate. Okay, clearly he says, I will send you the Holy Spirit as the comforter he breathes on them.

The Spirit comes at Pentecost and so forth. The question is the hypostatic origin of the person of the Holy Spirit, And the Council of Florence clearly does designates that, citing the counts of Lions and citing Saint Augustine before him, that them that there's a double eternal personal procession from the Father and the Son is from a single principle. So that's what the Orthodox disagree with, because the only single principle in the Godhead is the person of the Father and

by extension, the single divine nature that he communicates. Gotcha. So that way, you can't say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from this from the son, because the hypostatus already exists in the son. Well, if the Father generates a son whole and entire, then the Father must also aspirate the Spirit whole and entire, because there's nothing there's no splitting, there's no parts, so there's nothing that the son could contribute to the procession of the Spirit that

the Father doesn't do right, So it's whole and entire. There can't be a composite procession here. So, and there's no principle of unity that two persons share as a father son principle of the spirit that would then degrade the divine nature that the Holy Spirit has. So there's no property of causation that father and son have that the spirit lacks. Causation is precisely the hypocidic property

of the father. So now if you give the father's hypersached property to the son, you have a father son, which is a diead as Saint Photia says. All right, I'm gonna have to go dict this a little bit more, but I appreciate it. Yeah, we have really we have a three hour talk on the Phillyoak away from the Sashchensky book. Houston, you want to try again? Hey, Hey, what's up? Hey? I had a question about Orthodox theology. So I'm a Protestant from the My background

is the Church of Christ. If you're familiar with them, I am. Yeah, So I'm coming out of the Church of Christ, and you know, I've been listening to you for a while but okay, they are Credo Baptist, you know, and so they you know, they don't baptize babies, and but they also believe in baptismal regeneration, although they wouldn't they wouldn't use that term. I don't think. So infant baptism makes sense to me, and baptism or regeneration makes sense to me. But also with Orthodox teaching,

would you say it's accurate? My understanding is that infants are born without the guilt of that. So my understanding was like for Catholics, I always thought, well, they baptized babies because they want to get rid of original sin. And so with Orthodox theology, you know, you don't have original sin like Catholics do. So what's the reasoning for baptizing infants with an Orthodoxy? Because infants have the effects of original sin, not the guilt of original

sin. So they still are deprived of grace. So the nature that they have is good, but they're not lack They're lacking the uncreated grace and so that's the status of all of us. So that's why we baptize, is to bring them into the kingdom. It doesn't mean that they are guilty of actual sins. This is why both Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology distinguishes what's called original sin from actual sin. Actual sin sin strictly speaking, is only something

that you can commit as an individual choice by will. So there's no state of sin, there's no state of guilt. It's an action of the will. Even according to James, James says that the desires that we have themselves are not sin. He says, but desire when it's given birth. Desire when it's consentative, gives birth to sin. So when you go against God's law is the sin. It's an action of will, it's not a state

of being. So Roman Catholic theology has over many centuries tempered its view, tempered its Augustinianism, to where nowadays in the Roman Catholic Church you don't even have to believe in infant limbo. You can discard it or believe it if you want to. It's made optional via the Holy Office. A few years ago when I think Rath Singer or somebody put out that document saying that you don't have to believe in limbo. So that's the key thing is to just

distinguish original guilt from original sin. Most Roman Catholics agree with Orthodox on that specific point, but I think that a lot of times Roman Catholics still think of it in the terms of original guilt because they talk about it like it's a stain. I mean, a stain is something has substantial existence, and something that's a deprivation of grace is not a stain. So it's bad and analogies that they use. Right, So the argument that you know, my

Church of Christ friends will use is infants do not commit sin. You know, they're not guilty of sin, and therefore they don't need baptism, they don't need to experience. Yeah, but baptism is not salvation, and baptism are not just a situation like all Protestants think of. Yeah, changing your status of legal status, right, Okay, that's the mistakes an ongoing process, that's why. Yeah, well it's not just an ongoing process. It's

also regaining the Holy Spirit. So the ongoing process has as its goal the attaining of the life of the Holy Spirit, uncreated life, and no Protestant teaches that true. Yeah, well they'll say we teach the No, you don't teach the Orthodox view of participating in uncreated grace. Almost every Protestant teaches

the form of creative grace. Yeah, what's uh, I'm not really looked into the I've heard you talk about the you know, uncreated grace versus created grace, and a lot of it's going over my head, I'll be honest. So what what should I read to better understand that? Well, I mean, as you get into Orthodox theology, you know, if you read, uh, Lasky has a great book, it's the It's not a mystical theology, it's the other one. I think it's a vision of God.

There's multiple chapters on grace being uncreated in that that are good. But uh, you know, really it's just the the sentergy distinction. It's it's the same they read the debate between Polla, Moss and Barley might dollog between Orthodox and Barley Mighte because the whole debate, the debate shifts away from essence inergy

distinction into what do we participate in? So either we participate in another creature, which is the Roman Catholic position still to this day, or we participate in an uncreated reality distinct from God's essence, which means there has to be an essenceniory distinction. So yeah, all right, yeah, good questions. And uh, I was joking when I said that, I just saw a little face with a beard, so you don't literally look like a barrow, So don't take that personal. It's just being silly. Flame. Two.

What's up? By the way, a lot of people in the chat shout out to you guys. We got up to nine hundred, almost one thousand, and then of course every time I get every time I get close to a thousand, it suddenly YouTube has an error that there's not enough data and it drops down to seven hundred. But that's okay. If you guys want to you hop on. The link to call in is in the show description there. It's the ex link Twitter link you hop on when you request to

speak, you will be muted. Unmute yourself. Hello, Hey, what's up? So I've quite I kind of learned a lot from our last conversation, and I was thinking, like, what what was our last conversation? Though it was a lot of morality and figuring out what the good was and things like that, and what I was wondering is how can we truly figuring out what's true? Because I thought about this for a long time, and I thought that, like, we can't figure things out like what comes of

spirituality. We can't figure things out empirically because let's say somebody had a vision and they saw an angel. Let's say they can't know if that was their mind making it up or if it was a demon or whatever. So we'll start with divine revelation. So what's the problem there? Well, okay, with the Bible, how do you know it was from God? Well,

there's a lot of different ways that I might go about that. I could take a philosophical approach and consider the transcendental argument and the type of theism that's presented in the Bible, and what's unique about that theism. Or I could look at say Messianic prophecies dozens of them in the Old Testament, and how they're fulfilled as an attestation to divine inspiration. Those are some of the ways.

Yeah, but even in relation to prophecies, how do you know it wasn't How do you know it wasn't some hyper dimensional beings or humans from the future, Like, how do you know it was actually God? Hyperdimension Why would hyperdimensional beings from the future teach that Christ is that they might I mean

I don't know. No, you're misunderstanding. So reading those prophecies gives you specific dates about a certain type of religion and a certain type of Messiah, a certain type of Jesus born point at this time, and the religion that he founds as part of those prophecies. So, in other words, the

church is also included in the prophecies. So why would why would the church teach the theology that I'm talking about if ultimately, secretly it was interdimensional being there's no reason to believe in inter dimensional beings from that, There isn't, But there's no way to prove that it was actually from God. Why wouldn't the fulfilled prophecies be an attestation to the veracity of the Bible. Well, because it's ultimately still guessing, isn't it. Why would it be guessing and

it would still be guesssing because you're still inferring from something. So, for example, in your world view, don't you think it's impossible that aliens would exist? Right, it's not logically impossible, But I've not seen any evidence or the reason to believe in aliens. So if an alien appeared to you and you're able to touch it, basically, like Thomas, you would believe

it exists. Are you equating Jesus's resurrection to aliens? Do you understand that there's an entire thousands of pages of books describing the meaning of the arrival of the Messiah has nothing to do with aliens soul? It would be absolutely nonsensical to bring in aliens when you've got you know, if you thout two thousand years of prophetic literature and revelation describing the specifics of the arrival of the Messiah and then to say, well, maybe it's aliens, there's no there's no

reason to conclude aliens. Okay, but even in like relation to these prophecies. So, I mean, just for one quick example, it'll be the strongest example of these prophecies. Well, I mean there's just descriptions of when and where Jesus would be born and what he would do in his lifetime, like Genesis forty nine or Daniel nine, or Psalm one ten or Psalm twenty three or Isaiah six through eleven. I mean, there's there's literally probably hundreds

of prophecies if you want to be specific about it. Well, the location of Jesus' birth was, like I mean, it was talking about a tribe Bethlehem, Afria. I don't even I don't think you're even familiar with any of these prophecies of the Bible at all. So how are you compliment How are you qualified to speak on what it's talking about. It wasn't best time. A tribe would not be bethlehemmer is not a tribe. Do you know anything about what you're critiquing? I mean, if you want to make a

critique, you should know about it. Have you read the Bible? Yeah? Really? Yeah, you've read the Bible and you think Bethlehem is a tribe. Well, Bethlehem Ashrata is mentioned in the Old Testament. I believe that was was it one of the tribes of true though? I believe Bethlehem is not a tribe. So you don't know what you're talking about. You're not familiar with any Messianic prophecies even though you read the Bible, I don't familiar. It was okay, like what name one? Well, it was

said that the Messiah would common save the world like us. Yeah, so you're not exactly. So again, people that come on and they don't they're not familiar with this stuff, but claim that they are claim that they know this stuff. So again, if you if you don't want to go the route of knowing or looking at biblical prophecies, then I would say the transcendental argument for God would be the next philosophy. If you want to go into the domain of skepticism, which is what it sounded like. Yeah, okay,

then let's talk about the transcendental argument and refuting skepticism philosophically. Layman, what's that? Laymen? So I don't know anything about the Bible, but I'm gonna I'm gonna say, well, maybe it's aliens. Okay, but if you had read the Bible, there would be, you know, no reason to think that it's sitting to do with aliens. What's up? Man? Call me from Pakistani toilets? What's up? Dude? Are you on a child's playphone? Like? What are you calling me? On? I

can't hear anything you're saying. I can literally can't hear anything. Let's see, Bob. What's up, Bob? Yeah, elon. That's why I always tell people to unmute at the beginning. You're supposed to know to unmute. Okay, So Bob can't connect? Come out and come back in when when it does this, I don't know why it does this. So if you can't connect, come out and come back in. Fresh tap? What's up? Fresh tap? Guys, guys want to remind you too to head

on over to chalk dot com. That is the show sponsor. I've got a nice sexy adam gonna show you here in a minute about chalk dot com and boosting your testosterone through supplementation. What's up man, Fresh Tap Pop Pop? Are you there? You're on? John Q? Taxpayer? What's up man? We set it straight, lay down the law and set a straight John Q. Taxpayer. Unmute yourself. Hey, how's it going? Hey?

What's up? Hey? I wanted to ask you a question. I've been just watching a little bit more of a guy on YouTube, Michael Heiser. He had an interesting view when it comes to I don't know if you've ever heard of divine council theology. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on it, if you've heard of vote or not? Yeah? I mean he before he passed away, he was a subscriber to my website. I read his materials twenty years ago. Yeah, from the Psalms, so

anyway, thank you for that. I appreciate that question. Uh fresh, tat do you want to talk or not? I guess not remove you? Ricky, do you have a question? I'm excuse me. Do you have a disagreement? Because today we're taking people who disagree, so I'll bring you on, but today it's disagreeers. Got im mute? All right? TANGI tangy t A n j I. What's up, Tangy? We'll set it straight. Hello, Hey, what's up? So? I'm like a Southern

Baptist kind of I don't actually align theologically. Well, I'm trying to look into Orthodox. You know, I have a few questions. Okay, I know you've been getting a lot of non into three years today, but I didn't know one else that could ask so, is that alright? If I asked questions about what? So? Do you think that non Orthodox Christians go to help? I mean, we don't make personal judgments on people's destiny because we're not told that. But we do tell people that they need to become

Orthodox, because that's what we're told to tell people. Okay, and then what exactly is the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin that everybody who descends from Adam has the consequences of his sin, namely the death and the inheritance of the

passions, but the consequences are not themselves the sin. Sin is defined as an action of the will against the good, and so there is an age of accountability by which we do begin to sin in terms of personal actual sin, but that it's not the same thing as original sin, and that's not original guilt. So that's what we reject. Okay, do you in the orthodol church? Is confession and necessary thing like confession to a priest? Absolutely?

How does that work? Exactly? Because Jesus says that whoever when he breathes on the apostles, he says, whoever sends you, they're remitted. Whoever sends you retain, they retained. Okay, I like you. Yeah, good questions, Yes, sir. So dude in the chat bro thinks he's the voice of regent. Do you want to come on? And you're welcome to make your arguments. I don't know if you're talking about me or somebody else that was debating, but you're welcome to come on and make your

arguments there. What was his name, far Han? Do you want to come on far Han, You're welcome to make your case, your argument. So we got Laura, Laura, what's up? Laura? Just I mute? Are you talking about it about me? Just I'm muting? So I just want to honor you, mister Dyer. I'm not a disenter, so

I may be inappropriate for requesting a mic. But with the previous person's question is not so simple as where it says in Genesis chapter five, when is talking about the genealogy of Adam, that that that that Adam lived one hundred

So chapter five or three and Adam lives. Do you have an objection or do you have an objection or disagreement or topic you want to get into, Yes, sir, I just want to say that that is a common thread that people say that we are created in God's image, But that was Adam specifically that was creating God's image, and so in all human beings are created in God's Image's right. But if we go to Genesis chapter five, we're

just talking about the genealogy of Adam. It says specifically that in verse four, in the days of Adam, after he hadn't gotten set were eight hundred years and maybe got sons and daughters, and and okay, wait, no, sorry, so verse three and Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his un likeness, And that was after he had sinned

in the garden. So therefore with he begat a son in his unviteness, after his image and called his things said, would that not perpetuate the that we are no longer creating God's image but in the image underneath original sin? No original sin is a deprivation, not an image. In many texts describe the fact that we made the image of God even after the fall. So again, thank you for that. Not sure to be mean, that's the the spirit of Phronsie have spoken, freezing, what's up freezing? We're taking

disagreeers today. Appreciate your comments. Pop pop got an unmute freezing. Hey, how's it going, sir? Hey? I just had a quick question. So, like at these ecumenical councils set the side doctrine and refute heresy and stuff like counts it on? See how did they just side? Like like what's chris? Is it all based on scripture or like oral tradition or

like where are they mostly going on? Well, I mean they explain in the councils the sources, and typically the sources are kind of laid out in a structure of the scriptures and divine revelation through tradition and the arguments from the church fathers that preceded them and the councils that preceded them, and arguments from reason. So that's typically the structure they use. Okay, sweet, So it's not just it's not just mostly based on scripture. It's oral tradition and

other stuff as well. The first most important tier is scripture and oral tradition, and those things are linked. They go together. They can't. You can't separate the two because you can't know what the scriptures are apart from tradition. Sweet. All right, thank you for that. I appreciate it. Yeah. So a lot of times prodises one's set up an either or like, oh, it's easy, either you follow the Bible or you follow the traditions of man. So it's a both and right. Ryan Harvey is in

the chat. He's got pictures of him running and sprinting, so I hope he doesn't run me down. I will uh oh go for it. Set me straight, my phys I says, of what nature are you taking in the Christ? The uncreated energies? As Cyril says, Okay, so yeah, they would they would say though, like like we're taking of Christ? So how is the uncreated energies Christ? Because every energy is in hypostatic, It comes to us from the person that has those that nature from which the

energy proceeds. Gotta run, Yelifornio, El California, he see what you go for? Me? Bro, you better hurry. There's a lot of arguments being made. April. You barely you could barely get on, Bro, what kind of argument you got? You gotta mute? El California. I'm you man on you Bro, El Muto, L California, I'm you mock California, California. Hey, what's up? Jay? What's going on? Bro? Hey? Bro? I left my wallet in Elsa, Gonda. What's up? Okay? What's up? Man? Y'all? I wanted

to tell you Roman Catholics got valence sacraments. What do you think about that? Oh, Indie, Bro? Time for me to go home. SmackDown? What does it mean? I mean quite valid? What does that mean? Does that mean that the church, the ortho, our church can decide to accept the Roman Catholic priests and through vesting. Okay, I don't have a problem with that. Does that mean that does that mean that the sacraments themselves are graceful outside of the church? How do you get that? Well?

I guess what I'm saying is like, let's say you have confession in the Roman Catholic Church, if your sins are truly forgiven, Well, they're forgiving on earth as they are in heaven, and as you know, as far as I'm so, it's not a question of valid it's a question of whether they're efficacious in terms of the grace. So you're trading on confusing the words valid and gracious. Okay, But if it's validated, it's gracious because it hasn't. No, it's not. That's that's the point I'm making.

How do you know it is? Okay? How do you know it is? How do you know that the Orthodox sacraments are too coque? What about them? That's fallacy? All right? Well, okay, what about the Eucharist? Barely do you think do you think they got a real true blood and blood of your Christ when they offer it. I'm not talking about the normous ordal obviously, not, but like, maybe wait a minute, obviously weld on obviously not the novisorder. But what defines valid sacramentology in Rome is

communion with the papacy. Well, I don't know. I think a lot of people in the SSPX and some of the Easter rights who speaks for Roman Catholics the papacy or the SSPX, because valid juris so having the keys and having jurisdiction and having illicit celebration of the sacrament. In Roman Catholic theology also depends on being in communion with the pope, so they might have illicit celebration. But you're saying valid, Well, it's valid in the sense in the

Roman Catholic theology of that. Well, let me let me phrase that. Technically, you're correct that in the Roman Catholic system, the SSPX have a valid sacrament, but they don't have jurisdiction, is what I was trying to say. So let me let me set that straight. But the orthodoxy of Sacraments is different from the Roman Catholic or the SSPX position. But regardless, it's not the SSPX that speaks for Roman Catholicism. It's the papacy That's what

Vatican one says. Yeah, that's what Vatican one says. But I mean pre Vatican one, I think you pretty much had the formulas written in stone. I believe in like nineteen forty eight two they had like the Vatican had a document it was like sacramentous or so what Like all this stuff's a big contradiction. It's a big bundle of contradictions. So why who even cares what Roman SSPX says. I don't care. Well, I think we should care

because I think the most of the Western world is Roman Catholics. We want the yes, the world to come back to normality before you know, the fall of Vatican two. Well, I don't think the normality is Vatican one Catholicism. I think normality is the Orthodox Church, and we don't have the same sacramentology. So there you go. I think I do lean more toward the Orthodox position too. But you know what about the Orientals? Do the

Orientals have valid sacraments? As far as you're confusing, You're confusing this acceptance of the valid celebration of a ritual and the Church then saying that we don't have to repeat the ritual because now the impediment of the grace has been removed. You can be received by vestiments or something like that. That's not the same thing as saying that they have the grace within the sacrament outside of the

church. Two different things. And the argument always hinges on confusing people with the question of valid It's not a question of valid because that's the Latin idea of how you interpret the sacraments. Is it valid or not the sospx are valid. It doesn't matter in the Orthodox view because in the Orthodox view, if you're in schism, you can doesn't the legal status of the sacraments doesn't even matter because you're outside the faith. Roman Catholicism says that you can have

the celebration of the sacraments and the grace without the faith. The Orthodox view is that you can't have the sacraments with the grace of the sacraments outside of the faith. If you surrender the faith, the grace is gone. That's the Orthodox view. That's not the traditional Roman Catholic view Allah of the Late

Middle Ages. Yeah, yeah, you know, I guess the problem here is the Roman Catholics kind of keep changing, like the requirements for validity, and yes, I'm going off the Latin terms as far as like, so the orthodoxy is not the same. So if they have jurisdiction or not, you know, I guess in some Latin sacraments, jurisdiction is a requisite validity,

which is does it actually take effect exactly? That was my point about the question of jurisdiction, because for example, I'm going for memory because I don't remember everything about Roman Catholic canon law and I don't even care. But so there's something about in order for for example, a schismatic bishop, like does he have the office of the keys? And the question is no,

because if you're it doesn't matter about how valid enlisted your ordination was. If you're not in communion with the Roman see, you no longer have jurisdiction, and that's different. So that would mean that a schismatic SSPX bishop in the Roman Catholic perspective of the papacy does not have jurisdiction. That means that his exercise of the keys is also not really the exercise of the keys. So do you see what I'm saying, Like, so if he hears your confession,

is your sins really forgiven? Well, I mean, if he's lost jurisdiction, I don't know that he can exercise the function of forgiving your sins because he no longer has jurisdiction, and forgiving sins is one of the elements of having jurisdiction. But I mean, all this stuff is inane and ridiculous, like this is like splitting hairs over stuff, when the papacy is like out here pushing like butt stuff, like this doesn't even matter. Man,

they're pushing butt stuff. Obviously that's not the true church. You know. I guess I guess what I'm saying is. I know, I agree with you all of your position, but I guess what I'm saying is like, look, I don't agree with the butt stuff. I don't agree with a lot of the weird old things. Okay, well, the papacy pushes it, so it's over. It's over. The papacy pushes it, it's over.

But I guess what I'm saying, as long as there's some type of validity, some type of grace, like hidden away in the eastern rights from the SSPX like maybe, bro, it's not hidden away. It's not hidden away when the church is built on Rome. The Roman Gallic church is not built on eastern rights. That's just one, and that's kind that's what you're grasping a straws, dude, like you can't pick and choose which ones you want. I am Orthodox, by the way, I'm just arguing against you.

Why are you arguing Roman Catholic positions of your Orthodox doesn't make any sense. I used to be a Roman Catholic, and I guess so you haven't gotten rid of all the Roman Catholic stuff. Is the issue? Then? Look, I guess what I want to say is this like when the Spaniards showed the Aztecs and the Native Americans in two continents how to become Christians, how to become Catholics. So I'm the priesthood, the sacraments and all that. Yeah, again, we don't have to make personal judgments. Listen,

we don't have to make personal judgments. And all those people you listen to me, are you listening to me? I'm answering your question. We don't have to make personal judgments on the determinations of their eternal destiny. We can commend them to God. We don't know that. But none of that makes Roman Catholic sacraments suddenly gracious. Well, if it converted the Aztec Empire to Christianity. I think there's some grace in there. I never denied that there's

again I didn't. I don't know. No one could come to the Orthodox Church if there wasn't grace outside the church. That doesn't mean that they're the church, you see, because the Orthodox view is that if you separate yourself from the church, you lose that membership in the church. You're no longer the body. I definitely think that the Roman Catholic Church is definitely schismatic. Oh so the mistake here is thinking that like Roman Catholics think Allah the Augustinian

sacramentologist. By the way, it's not even consistently Augustinian, because Augustine thought that if you commit the sin of herrising schism, you no longer are in the church. Even though so the sacrament can be quote valid, but you're not benefiting from it because you're outside the church. So he believes in note salvation outside the church. The qualification here, though, that's different, and I'm trying to tell you what the specific point of departure is is that the

Roman Catholic position thinks that you can have the celebration of the sacrament. It's the grace of that sacrament outside of the faith, and that's the key point of departure. The Orthodox says, no, if you leave the faith, Athanasius says in its festal letters, you no longer have the celebration of the Eucharist or whatever. It's not the Eucharist. And father deacon, you could comment on this in regard to the way that the Orthodox Church treats priests in

terms of canon law. Are you there, Yeah, I'm right here, No, father Deacon, Father deacon, bro you sound like you're new to Orthodoxy. Maybe you should just relax and learn this stuff before you start just freaking out. Listen to a clergy tell you this. Oh yeah, sure, So what was the question? Sorry, why don't Roman Catholics also have

the grace of the sacrament? Because people have really converted to Jesus And I'm saying you often make a really good point about Orthodox canon law and the permission to have the sacrament. Yeah, so why should those outside the faith? How how more blessings and a greater privilege than those in the Orthodox case. So, if you go to the Orthodox liturgy, the intimates, those are what's under the Gospel. And then when the Gospel's taken off and set to

the back of the altar. When the consecration on there is the authorized signature by the bishop. So the priest can't actually perform the sacraments. Nothing would be efficacious because the church is where the bishop is is sandang Natius says, So what's happened in Orthodoxy before is a bishop can suspend a priest and he takes his intimates, meaning the priest can try to consecrate the Eucharist all he

wants, he has no power apart from the bishop. So if that's true, then why is it that those outside of the faith have a inter prerogative like, oh, but they can do it. Do you understand that argument? They're not even connected to a valid biship. He left, so I bring you on and he leaves, so I don't know, maybe his connection dropped, but I mean, he's not even listening to what And I like the way that you put it too. So what this means is the church

and the faith doesn't matter. Yeah, this is what leads the Roman Catholic Church to say that if you're a Satanist, you can be ordained a Roman Catholic priest. That very night, become a Satanist, and for the rest of your life you can consecrate the Eucharist. This is what leads the Roman Catholics to say that an atheist and a Muslim can baptize you. This is ridiculous. Serve you because that's where the view leads. Now people, when we bring this up, Okay, he dropped off, so I'm bringing him

back. Go ahead. Did you hear the argument? Now he's let's see what he says. Are you there and canio? Oh? I see him? Go ahead. Just I'muel California. Did you hear the Did you hear father Deacon's explanation from Orthodox kenilall? Yeah? Hi, hello, Yeah, I heard some of it, but I got disconnected for a one. So basically, I'll make it really quick, look really quick. It's very simple

argument. If an Orthodox priest has to get the permission of a bishop to even have the Eucharist the antimin the permission, then why would people outside the church have a greater privilege than an Orthodox priest? Makes no sense? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I guess. I guess I'll just argument from the Roman Catholic Catholic point of view of like you know, so relearn. You need to relearn. You got to relearn your sacramentology. You can't map on

Roman Catholic SSBIX sacramentology onto Orthodox do so it makes sense. Yeah, it's hard. Man. I live in Spain and I go to a Russian Orthodox church and the priest has only been in the country for two years. He doesn't speak Spanish, he doesn't speak English. It's like purely Russian. So it's like I'm going to the church, but it's like I'm really an Internet

Orthodox, and there's like the Spaniards all Roman Catholics. So I understand a lot of good for a lot of people internationally, you know, Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, I'm not being mean to be mean with you. I just thought you were. I thought you were I didn't realize you're Orthodox for us out I thought you were a Romancaolic. Getting getting salty, But that's okay, no, no, no, But you know,

I don't know. I like to think that more people are saved. I like to think like half of the world isn't doomed, you know, especially, we don't have to judge people's that we don't know. We don't have to judge people's destiny. We don't know their destiny. God can unite them in his own ways to the mystical body of Christ. And I mean he does this with the thief on the cross. So God has his own ways that he can unite people to the mystical body outside the norm but the normative

way is through the Orthodox you know, sacramentology and theology. So yeah, I definitely definitely agree with you. I've been Orthodox for about three years now, so so yeah, it's been it's been an interesting experience, and yeah, learning a lot of like especially about like theosis, things Roman Catholics won't talk about. Yeah, I've noticed like how they put the divinity of like Mary everywhere, and then you go to Roman Catholic Church and Jesus always getting

like beat up and whipped and like like half dying. You know, It's like you go to Orthodox Church, Jesus was always like God and resurrect yes, exactly resurrected. And Mary's like more humble, like a regular ladies. She's not like crowned, like flying through the sky. You know. It's like, yeah, I think that those are those are realizing that, right, Yeah, those are kind of like uh, you know, patterns of exaggeration that we see in Roman Catholic theology exactly. I totally agree. Yeah,

thank you for that. Hopefully that we didn't get too salt there. Layman wanted to come back. Did you come back? Or you forgot what you were talking about a minute ago? Maybe we couldn't connect. What's up, Layman? I'm mute hi him, Sorry about that. Yeah. So, so I'm a watcher of like the Diamond Brothers like that in Catholic dot

com. I I know that may be like a bad thing, but they brought up a point about Saint Lead the Great talking about uh like the the light of the transfiguration coming off of like Christ's face, and and the light being basically from his like specific to his human nature. I was wondering, like, does that contradict the uh the idea that it's uncreated if it's specific

to his human nature. Well, it's specific to his human nature, because everything that Christ does, he does in the two natures that he possesses. So this is the Kyrelene idea of the communication of idioms or the communicatio idiom autum. So whatever is predicated of either nature, whether it's walking on water, whether it's the uncreated light that shines through him. It's also appropriate to

say that it occurs in the one incarnated hypostatic Christ. So it's one Christ acting, and he acts, as Cyril says, in both natures and by both natures. But that doesn't mean that his person is reduced to the nature. So there's nothing wrong with saying that the uncreated light proceeds from and through his human nature, because that's what it is. But first, the end of Paul's letter to Timothy identifies God as the uncreated light. So do you

think that God is a creature? No, No, I was just thinking more about like his body. Okay, do you think the why would the I mean the light? There is a it's called the transfiguration because a famous passage showing his deity. So if it's a created human light, why would that testify to his deity? Well? Yeah, I mean I don't know for sure. I mean the only thing I can think of is maybe it's

like his humanity kind of being brought up, brought up. What do you mean, like like, well, I don't know, maybe being givinized in a sense maybe, Like okay, But so John one, the light of Christ is identified as the uncreated light, contrasted with the light of Genesis one, which is created light. One Timothy six Paul says that Christ is potentate, king of King's, Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality, dwelling

in unapproachable light. So the light is it's always used in the New Testament. Where is there ever any suggestion or reference to God's light being a creature? Yeah, yeah, I mean it's not a creature. So a quote where uh it's talking about I'm assuming I have the quote in front of me. But the quote where it's talking about the eminence or the emanation of the light or the radiance of the light from his human nature, does not mean

that it's a created light. Because the uncreated light comes to us. We participated in it through the human nature of Christ, just like the Eucharists saying, if you look at Cyril Cyril and Ephesus describes what you eat in the Eucharist, right, do you think you eat created grace in the Eucharist? Or do you do you? Or do you eat as Cyril says, the uncreated immortality and energy of the God man, I think the uncreated energies.

Yeah, So it's over for Roman Catholicism, because they teach that what you partake of is a supernatural creation. Do you want me to cite Ought for that? Uh? I mean I could look at up. Yeah, I mean, no, I appreciate it. Yeah, I mean is there any other energy passages or anything you'd like me to address? No, I was more it was really just as it. Ok, thank you though, Sure A good question. Yeah. So, m I've lost my note in Aught where I've got to know my letter? So that or excuse me, and

my h that's the procession of the spirit. That's not the grace here we go, where's my note on grace? Here? It is so little we got bono mials of Catholic theology sanctifying grace is a created, supernatural gift really distinct from God. And because Roman Catholicism, as Aught explains in the first few chapters, defines God as identical to his essence. His attributes are identical to his essence. He's defined as an absolutely simple monad essence. The cause

is unique. To show me the existence is identical to the essence, I should say, act as purists. This leads them to then conclude about grace that grace cannot be anything identical to God. It must be a created, supernatural accident in the soul. And that's explicit in what we just saw in Ought. So that means that what you partake of is not an uncreated reality, it's a created reality. Freezings back. Uh, what's up, dude? Set my straight? Yeah, yes, sir, I mean, man,

hey, hey, thanks for letting me back on. Okay. So, I was reading a bit of of the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Lawsky, and I think it's a bit above my reading level. So, and I'm kind of from like a Protestant background. So what would be like some books you recommend together? I would start with Clark Carlton or something like that, like Clark Carlton's trilogy or Orthodox Church by Myndorf. Stanis what's

up? Stannus? Hey? There? I was inquiring into Orthodoxy and I was wondering, what is the Orthodox view about I suppose consuming media like K pop. I mean, I don't think there is an orthodox view on K pop, but I think that any media that you know, significantly promotes degeneracy is something that we should probably avoid. Uh, let's see who's next. Bart or no bat Salo. I thought, I said bart bat solo. Brett Sale says, I just finished reading St. Cyril of Alexander and the

Christological Controversy. Incredible book. Thanks for the recommendation. It's been a game changer. Thank you Brett Sales for that ten bucks. Yeah, that is a really good book. Unfortunately the author kind of went off the rails, but the book is still a good classic treatment of Cyril. What's up that, salo? Uh? Yeah? Hello. So I've been watching a lot of your videos recently and I love your debates of the atheists. I think

atheism is total nonsense. I was baptism in the Orthodox Church as a child, but I kind of left because I live in Scotland. Atheist, but I'm heading back into it, I know. I'm just curious. In your debates you always say that Orthodoxy is the only is the only world. You gives a proper account for all the things like logic and all the trans and dental categories. Can you go into a bit in depth as to how that is? Because I don't really get that part. You always lose me there.

Why is it orthodoxy specifically? Yeah, giving an account means justification like in an epistemic sense. So, as we talked about earlier in this discussion a couple hours ago, when we had an atheist or a former atheists asking that question, Christianity presents a certain specific metaphysic, a certain specific epistemology,

and a certain specific ethic. That metaphysic, for example, gives an account for how all of the transcendental categories, which are the preconditions of knowledge, how they work together, how they in here and interrelate with one another, and where they're located, namely in the created world and its structure patterned on

the divine mind. So that's what I mean, Okay. And one second thing, how do I talk to atheists who try and like science me like they like they say things like like the Bible says that the Earth was created in seven days and stuff like that. How do I refute them? Well? I would start studying, you know, critiques of evolutionary philosophy and evolutionary paradigm. I would start with stuff from like doctor Sarfatti. I would read

Sara from Rose's book Genesis Creation Early Man. I would read the Titus Bruckhart's essays that critique evolutionary philosophy from a philosophical perspective, because the problem with going to the science papers and all that, like, you'll never get anywhere with all of that, And really science is built on philosophy. Even the modern science people don't know this or recognize this. If you can go to philosophy, you can actually cut to the chase a lot quicker, especially when you

can explain to people that science isn't neutral. It works on certain presubpositions, preconditions, and paradigms. So the questions that we're talking about in terms of philosophy and metaphysics are actually prior to the doing of any science. So science is not bad or not a problem, but the interpretation of the data and the various theories of science can never get you to explaining or justifying the metaphysics

and the epistemology that undergird science itself. You say, so that's the route that I would go, But specifically, how would I answer claims about science that directly like go against say the teachings of the Church or the Bible. With what I just said, Okay, okay, thank you, thank you. Yeah. By that, I mean that the debate would kind of go back to questions of epistemology, justification, what it means to know a thing?

What can science actually prove or demonstrate? Because a lot of times, again, the people that we're talking about, the people are dealing with, they don't know anything about philosophy. They think that it's kind of like what weird theater people do, sitting around speculating because they can't do science, and they don't even recognize that science is actually based on all kinds of philosophical presuppositions. And that's why every time we have debates with atheists and scientism, soy

men, they absolutely crumble because they have no idea about these topics. So, master Blue, what's up? Look for the bare necessities? What's up? Blue? Mother Nature's recipes for good? About your worries and your style? What's up? Yep? Right? Just set a question. What's your interpretation of a book of relation fourteen fourteen? Let's see? Do you think like is Jesus himself? Or is it like one like a son of mine? And I'll do the fine. How do you see the sickle in his

hand? Is it the reaper? Do you imagine him being the reaper? Did you imagine him? Ideas about it's the same son of Man always in the Bible as Jesus, Yes, and writing on a white cloud. Right, that's the same descriptions of Ezekiel Revelation one and two. Yes, as Jesus. The sickle just signifies that he is prepared to exact the death penalty on the enemies here Earlier, it says in the text that he has the keys of death and hades, so he has the right to decide life and

death. Are you there, Ballou? Are you there? Bro? Hello? Uh? Lost? You can't hear you, dude, Nope, this guy is ready to they it just say nope, what's up? Nope? Hey, So I hear you talking all about this tradition and stuff. And you know what the Holy Father say about having a long beard. Where's the beard at? Bro? Talking about all the traditions and stuff. What are

you talking about having a beard? Where's your beard? You said? I talk about all the traditions and stuff, bro, Yeah, like the tradition of having a beard. Yeah, you think that that's what makes an orthodox person? Is canon law about having a beard? No? I just think it makes somebody super based in trad if they have a long beard. You want to think parish like those will come in with a big long beard and we'll have like a prayer rope and they're doing the Jesus prayer and they're just

like, man, yeah, I'm right. Well I'm not piassed and I don't have a long beard, so I guess I'm not really orthodox, so I can I can see your point. Okay, fair? So what else? What other arguments you've got for me? Nope? Uh that's it man. I just think you should throw the beard out. Uh why is that? I just think it would make you look. You know, Augustine himself, the father of the Western Church, says, you know that that's that's

what you call someone when they're a man. They they're they're a bearded man. Okay, do you have a beard? I do? Okay, so you're more of a man than me. You got me. Well, you're conceding a lot, and this is crazy. This is my first time calling in, this is my first debate with DJ Dyer, and and I'm winning. Do you think it's you think this is a debate? Uh No, I don't. It's definitely a joke. But I do appreciate you conceding the points. Well, how did I conceive the points. If you know that

I'm not being serious. Oh so you're not being serious either. Well it's been fun and I'll let you go on the more serious topics. Yeah, tongue to block man, he left the frock of blocking. Yeah. I don't have any patience for the piety signals. Look for the bear necessities. The bar necessity's talking about my bare face, my shaven face, because I'm not a fool man, because I got a bear, a baby bear face, not a real man. Atheism United, Uh, it's getting real now.

Oh damn, what am I gonna do? What's up, dude? You there, hello, Atheism United. Little h I had a question, this is a question. Yesterday we were trying to explain to ourselves what the Holy Trinity was, and we we looked at the mind map of what the person that the three persons are like the Holy Spirit. The mind map not a mind map, but like an illustration. What it's depicted as persons and as energies. And I had a question for you. Okay, So,

from from the Father to the Holy Spirit, there is procession. Correct, the Father precedes the Spirit. Correct, all right? From the Father to the Son there is generation. Correct? So if you look at the procession and there is eternal manifestation, what is the difference between precision and eternal manifestation. It's the movement of the persons in the trinity versus the origin of the person's in the trinity. So, in other words, one uh talks about

the persons, the other one talks about the energies. Right now, the movement of the persons versus the origin, and by extension, the energies also have the same movement. That's true. That's what so manifestation is referring to both the persons and their energy is how they move in the triad. M So the difference is origin versus movement. Yeah, can you elaborate more on the movement twice? It's important because God is revealed as a triad generating and

proceeding. M hm okay, I understand. So the procession itself, it's a vehicle, correct, I don't think no, it's it's the way, it's the mode in which, well, the procession of the spirit is his hypostatic origin. I don't know what you mean by vehicle. I will give you the Google definition of it. I know what the word vehicle means I'm just I don't understand your usage of it. A vehicle meaning that it's so curate says relating to the person of the Trinity. A vehicle meaning that it's

connects. It is like an arrow which passes from something to something else in that way, A vehicle. I mean, if that that's the sense in what you mean, and that's what I mean by movement. Okay, okay, all right, that was my question. I watch your show and I agree with a lot of the points you're making. It's pleasure of being on the show. Yeah, thank you, appreciate it. Now to the guy in the chat again, mod's if these people take over the chat, just

boot them, dude. If the guy won't come on, there is no debate. If you mute me, you're stoning me. Okay, well come on and debate. I don't know what you're talking about. Muting you is not stoning you. That's it's not the same thing. So, uh, where are you in the chat? So if CW doesn't come on, just spoot this person. Yeah I'm aggrevating. I'm inviting you on. So you're saying that I'm scared of the truth and all this stuff. So I mean

You've been given the link many times. So if you're not gonna come on, you're just gonna get booted. So last chance. If I don't see what's his name? Christ wins, thank you, Chase, just beat that guy because he's not gonna come on. Let's see n A D what's up? Nod? Yes, sir, it's not me. It's just what I think. I think you got the wrong guy. But anyways, I just he's not in here, So I'm going to your next that guy's not show up. Okay, sure, so I'm orthodox. I just I don't have

any like hard or like questions. But well, today is about disagreement, So do you have an area of disagreement. I don't have a disagreement, but I have like some some like argumental questions about like it's not it's more, but I need to more something. So it's about so this. There's dischismatics. And there's also the like some churches or something this churches that aren't agreed upon in some patriarchates, like like some churches don't agree to oc A

is a church. Some do agree it's a church. Because you've got you got questions of canon law, like I don't do canon law. That's not mine. That's why, So go ask the priests or something about the sacraments. There's no nobody thinks that the sacraments are not valid. So anyway, I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't do canon law stuff. Maddie Ice, what's up, Maddy Ice? So it's open for him. You can request to speak. Today is for just people that disagree. I

don't do candilalal questions and all that kind of stuff. Not being mean to you, just it's just not my my dumbain people in the chat. You're not going to come on debate, go ahead. Yeah, uh so I'm just pull the school you're on, uh Roman Catholic inquiry the Eastern North anyway, But I guess my first point that I wanted to bring up is in terms of Eastern Orthodox. Yeah. Lost, you dude, don't have any audio. Sorry, try coming out and coming back in Cody's back. Go

ahead. You gotta unmute yourself. Are you got on mute Cody or what? Oh? Sorry man? Hello? Yeah yeah yeah it was you know, and then I was Genesis six, like I don't know if the Catholics believe in like you know what the fallen Angels came into the Daughters of manner of like about the Sons of Seth theory? Do you do you know any more about that? Thank you for taking my call again. Yeah, I know all about it. I do I know all that. What do you

want to know? Yeah? I thought the Catholics believe in the Sons of Seth theory more like the Falling Name. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but Roman Catholics don't have a set theory on Genesis six. There's no dogmatic statement on Gesis six. It's pretty interesting, like Genesis six, very like, that's one of the most fascinating parts in the Bible for me. It's just you know what's in the Bible. Yeah, thank you, it's very like interesting, it is interesting, Yes, sir, appreciate it. Dude,

Abby, what's up? Abby Good? I'm mute, Abbey, uh uh, I'm you? Abby, I'm you? Or don't Novus now? Novus always? So I'm gonna go to Ethan because it's for disagree ors tonight, guys, people that disagree. So it's not the FA's. There's plenty of places people you can find the faus. Go ahead, Ethan, Hey can you hear me? So I'm a Protestant and I've been a Protestant pretty much my whole life. Probably about a year ago I would have been full on

solo scriptura stuff like that. But late last year I kind of started getting the Orthodox stuff. I watched some of like father tread and stuff some of your stuff. Right now, I'm in a class at the university I go to. It's a Church of Christ university I go to, and it's interpreting the Bible class, and we started talking about soul scriptura. And one of the arguments that my professor brought up was that because solo scripture, like because

scripture is inspired, because it's inspired, that necessitates sol scriptura. And I never really heard that argument before. But how would you answer that, Well, it necessitates that scripture is authoritative. It does not necessitate or prove that scripture is the only final authority and also doesn't tell us which books make up the scripture, right, right, And that's kind of what I was thinking.

And like I understand how tradition works and how like Orthodox is the Orthodox conception of tradition and everything, But like, even in talking with my parents, parents who are staunchly Protestant, they will be like, well, okay, you can rely on oral tradition, that's fine, but you don't know what the world tradition is because it's not written down. So how would you respond to that? First of all? Sometimes hold on, so, first

of all, sometimes the world tradition is written down. So we do have a text in the Orthodox Church that are written down, and those are things like liturgy. So first of all, some of the world traditions are written. Not everything has it's not. But if the idea is that you can't know it unless it's written, then that would actually undercut Abraham. No. Uh, I mean, we don't have any record of any of that revelation

being written. So I guess they didn't know God because it was all oral, right, Yeah, And I think a lot of that comes from at least from what I see, Like I'm still Protestant. I'm kind of in a position where I can't become Orthodox yet because I still live with them, understand. But yeah, like from what I see, like at least for Church of Christ, because they're very exclusive, they're like, we don't believe

in any of the denominations. Were the one future, right kind of yaird to me, but I think it comes from like they look at history and this is what I've done too, So I'm still kind of struggling with this is like looking back at history and being like, well it doesn't fit my conception of my interpretation of scripture. So yeah, so it's a blackout,

right, There's a blackout until Alexander Campbell and the cambelights. Right. Then one last question, another thing that my professor mentioned, and I wanted to challenge him on this because I've been reading that formulation of the Christian Biblical canon that she recommended. But I brought up, how well, like the canon wasn't decided until later centuries, right, that seems to be a historical fact, And he was like, oh well no, it was like it was

agreed upon, and that's an argument. I hear a lot from positive okay, by whom and where? I mean just saying that it's not an argument, it's a social right. Like, but that's something I still hear is like, well it was already like agreed upon, but the council just confirmed it. And again like, well they have to demonstrate that, so demonstrate there where from whom? What's the proof of this. That's just an assertion,

right. And then finally, if I was to join an Orthodox church kind of where I'm looking to live in the future, there's there's an Orthodox Church that's in the kind of like the Russian jurisdiction, like ro corpor whatever it's called. And then then there's a American Orthodox Church. Would you say that, like, what would you say? Which one should I join? Like, I don't know what American Orthodox Church is O C A yeah, what was the other options? The it was like the Russian Orthodox Church outside

of Russia. I'm not sure if there's like A yeah, I would say typically, I would say typically, probably definitely go for the real Court Church. Let's see. Moving on to Aiden. What's up Aiden? So again tonight if you disagree, it's for you, bring on your disagreements, your challenges, your arguments for Roman Catholicism, Papacy, Protestantism, Islam, Atheism, Hinduism, Muslimism. Jim Jones is hello, yes, sir, Oh

finally, Jesus, I'm sorry for last time. Basically, I just have a ton of questions after reading uh some of Manly p Hall's where it's not okay, but what there's an argument or what. Uh, Basically, Christianity is like super dogmatic against other religions, and I don't think it takes it into account what they're really trying to teach. I learned that in one of in the Secret Teachings of All Ages, Uh, they say that the polytheistic

religions like Paganism are actually meant to express elementals of the One God. So it is mono theism essentially. Well, that's called thesm. That's not monotheism. Hmm. Yeah, I don't. I don't deeply research all of it. But if you have multiple elements representing one God as you do, like angels working for the same God, isn't that essentially the same? Now that's what it's called henotheism and not monotheism. Hmm okay. Also, why would

you think Manley P. Hall is a viable source on this? Why why would you think that he's who we would go to? Uh? Basically I looked into how certain sacred teachings were taken in hidden like like in the Masonic lodges and stuff. He is. Yeah, but you know that Mason's lie, right, you know that's in morals endogma, Right, People lie. Okay, but I'm specifically talking about Masonic teaching that they delude the public and the lower ranks. Do you think that's what Manley P. Hall was doing?

Absolutely? Read if you read Secret Destiny of America, it's a lot of bullshit. It's made up nonsense. It's Gibbs Secret Destiny. Okay, But there were some things that caught my eye. He said that Jesus said that he told his followers to be wise as serpents, and that serpents were just a symbol of knowledge, which I have seen many people agree with, and that the serpent giving the fruit of knowledge to Adam is a word concept fallacy. Do you know what that is? I heard you guys. Are

you talking to basically make mistranslation? No? Okay, what do you mean? So the word serpent in that context, there's a trait that that snakes have, which is to be cunning. So Jesus is saying not to be stupid and foolish, but to have wisdom and to have some cunning to operate in this world. He's not telling you to be like the fallen angel in Genesis. That's even worse than being wise, to be cunning, telling your

followers to be cunning. Well, there's nothing there's nothing inherently wrong with being wise and cunning in the way that you deal in this world. That's what I think. I think that we have all of these symbols that we perverted and turned into like some crazy Let's just cut it. Let's just cut to the chase. Let's just cut to the chase. Freemasonry is bullshit. So

you're just arguing about the bullshit. How do I know? Because what it teaches is lies and deception and it doesn't even have a coherent Ultimately, it's atheistic, but it's really not, though, because it teaches you how to center yourself and connect. What does that even mean? What does that even mean? What's the divine? Basically God? I mean basically because there's a million different ideas about what that is? What's the God? And Masonry ultimately

ends up it ends up ultimately, it ends up being worshiping yourself. So it's just a stupid delusion. And that's why they tell you. Yeah, that's why they tell that to me. That's why in Morals and Dogma, which is the bible of Freemasonry, it says to delude and deceit it is, it says, to delude and deceive the lower ranks. So how do you how do you know you're not being deluded to deceive. I just believe that Manly Hall himself wasn't out to cause harm in the way that someone like

Alistair Crowley was like talking about all. Well, that's just you don't think people can be one side of the coin like as opposed to everyone is evil. Everyone in Freemasonry is evil the teachings of Freemason. I don't care what mainly Pall's personal life was. I'm saying the teachings of the philosophy and the teachings of Masonry are objectively false and easy to refute. M I mean as anyone could say that about anything, though people know I'm ready to. I'm

ready to. I'm ready to dem sky Daddy that reincarnated as a as a as a man, but he's also the spirit the moment. So there, you don't even know what Christian theology teaches, so showing that you're confused, so you have no idea what we even believe. So you have no idea what you're talking about. Here's the thing. I don't discredit any of that. I think that every religion has some piece that is true. So let's talk about that. Okay, how do you know that that proposition or there

is true? Because, and here's the thing, there's actually starting to be physical evidence of these giant megaliths that no one knew how was How does megaliths tell you that that proposition is true? You don't even understand what I'm asking. You don't even know what I'm talking about. No clue what I'm talking about the proposition that there's truth in all the religions. I said, how do you know that proposition is true? Let's go to that. Let's start

with that's your star. Do you understand that? Your answers your answers, no, because your answers are not explaining how that proposition is true. You're not letting me get to it though, because it's not an answer. There are ancient, sophisticated pyramids on that doesn't answer the You don't even understand the argument. I'm gonna boot you until you demonstrate to me that you understand the argument I'm making. Okay, you made a claim that all the world religions

have truth in them. That's your that's your starting point, right, I want to know how you, as an individual know that that is true when you start going to the ancient world religions, that's your interpretation of the ancient world religion. That doesn't tell me that that proposition is true. I want to know how you know thattations all of our interpretations is not. That's not true. That's false. It is not all of our interpretations. All of

the human beings do not interpret that to be true. So that's not a thing that you can appeal to. Right, many humans believe this is wrong. So that is nothing. So that's a fallacy. That's fallacy how because it doesn't You could watch the laws in America, a Christian country, changed overnight, I mean one century. Don't you don't even know what we're talking about? You literally, you're just talking. You're just talking. Do you

know what I'm You don't even understand what I'm asking for. I want epistemic justification for the claim. Do you know what that means? I'm not a big word guy, bro, I'm just so these aren't good arguments. It's not about the words, it's about bad arguments. Do you understand that? I feel like you're blocking it out a little bit, bro. I mean, there's there's there's evidence of ancient sophisticated technology all around the world. No one knows who did an none of that. Even if that's true, you

don't understand. You don't understand. Even if that's true, it doesn't prove the first proposition. How does you could look at the evidence? It's like an eighty ton stone lifted into it a complexity. You don't even understand the argument, why did they do this? And and those religions are going all the way back to both the Atlantean priest king all that stuff. This is all gibberish, and it doesn't prove they were talking about solar worship through Christianity,

which is a pagan thing. It's a pagan thing. And you guys are like, oh, where's all the pagan You're not even you're not even You're not even at that level one of understanding what the argument even is. You have no clue what you're talking about. And so I ask you basic questions and you fly off into these claims about megaliths that has nothing to do with justifying the claim on the planet. It's right there on the planet.

Do you understand that that's do you understand that that is a bunch of Jewish people with ropes dragging things around it? Do you understand that that's not an You don't even under what do you think an argument is? Do you think it's just spouting out megalith stuff that's an argument for? Do you understand that that doesn't justify the claim? No, but I'm going back to these teachings that go that none of that you're not addressed. It's not an argument.

Do you understand it's a fallacy? All the things that you're saying in logic or fallacious moves? What do you mean exactly? So? If you're gonna make these arguments, you need to learn those things first. What do I mean you don't even know? Do you know you have things written? Dude? If you don't know what a fallacy is, what's on your paper is not going to do anything for it. Like a vocab guy, what are you doing? It's like I'm giving you an action, a vo cab guy,

and you're going you don't know this word. You're an idiot. That's not that's not a debate either. You're an empathetical epiological fallacy. It doesn't make any sense. I mean, I have all these questions. You're just making an idiot of yourself. Man, I'm sorry, you're making an idiot of yourself. Empathetical. That's not even a you're making. It's not even a word, empathetical fallacy. No, that's why I'm I'm I'm I'm making an impression of you. Yeah, but you're just making yourself look silly,

and you're making yourself look silly. I'm giving you some real ship. But I listen, can you tell me what a fallacy is? Like the teaching of duality? Can you tell me what a fallacy is? Because you don't know the basics of philosophy and that if you're gonna make arguments, you need to know this thing. I'm giving you my stance and you're going, you don't know this vocab. It's not the voc you don't know the vocab or

what the vocab meaning. Books. You've read like a million books. I'm trying to get some knowledge and you're going, you don't know this word. What the hell? Bro, you're trying to make an argument. You're too dumb to even know what we're talking about. You're trying to make an argument. This is the thing you Christians? Oh, you guys are so dumb. You guys are so dumb. Thousands of religions before you, guys, before you guys got all So you're spurging out. Do you know? Do

you know what a fallacy is? You can't even tell me what a fallacy is? What is it? Bro, I'm not a book nerd. So you just made a complete this is so, this is what? This is what masonry gets you. This is what masonry gets you. Is this it's a complete good grief? Oh my gosh. So you notice how people just

like spurg Out, They keep you keep asking them the same questions. He doesn't even understand what a non sequitary is, and then he gets his feelings hurt because he thinks I'm using bad big words to like insult him or something. If you're gonna make arguments, you have to abide by the rules of argumentation. Those aren't arbitrary, They're not fancy words that people just made up to sound smart. It's just like playing chess. There's rules to chess,

so likewise, an argumentation, there's rules to argumentation. And he doesn't even know that. He doesn't even know what a fallacy is. Just complete nonsense. What's up? Daygire. Oh, hello, m I just had a question about the about churches in my area. That's not the topic today, man, But what's your what? I got a question, and that's an argumentative question. Uh huh, what's that? Yeah? What is it?

He leaves. So, so we see by this example that freemasonry and the philosophy of freemasonry and reading Manley P. Hall, who, by the way, is a complete goof is if you read, if you listen to his lectures on astrology. He ends the whole lecture course by saying that, by the way, the purpose of this whole lecture course is to get you to

believe in socialism in the United Nations. So so we're opening up to people who disagree if you have an argument, and an argument is not arguing, it's not machine gunning out idiocy about megalithic marvels which have nothing to do with whether the proposition that you started your arguing with is true. See, maybe there are aliens and megalithic marbles and all this stuff, but that doesn't mean that the first proposition that all the world religions have truth in them. I

just want to know how you know that that's true. Maybe it is true. How do you know it's true? Well, mogaalithic marvels. That doesn't prove that proposition. I mean, it's like, let's take a let's take on a pistemology one on one class. Quit bitching about big words. I mean, come on, dude, you're an adult. If you want to be an adult and be treated like an adult, don't come bitching about me using big words. Learn the big words. It's ridiculous. So we got

three people who've already been on asking questions, and I'm asking them. I'm looking for people who disagree. So you guys just want to come on, But who are the people who disagree? So, I mean you people that spurg out like you can't even walk them through an argument. They just they just they're like just you know, there's like, I don't know, a blender. They're like they're like Taz, right, like more like spinning in a circle like Taz. You know, the freaking Hannah Barbara whatever character.

What's up, Novus? Yeah, I just had a question about canonical jurisdictions, because that's not what we're talking about tonight. I'm not turning to me into you. The topic is not canons and jurisdictions. I've already said that like challenge, it will be a challenge to Orthodoxy. So they belong to the World Council of Courages. They don't all belong to the World Council of Churches. It's not true. There's multiple jurisdictions that don't. So what are

you talking about? Do the Big five of Russians do? Right? I don't remember exactly what. I don't think Rokor does. There might be some jurisdictions that do. But what the Russians are listed and and so we're like the top five of them, Mark. So my question is for this, we an Orthodoxy go around defending Orthodoxy against all these type of what we call

heresies, which they are. But we belong to an organization that promotes diversity, equity, inclusion, which the Georgian Church left because they were promoting homosexuality and women priests about thirty years ago. So how do we reconcile that? I don't I don't think anybody should be a member of that, but membership probably means that they go and they present papers at conferences. It's like it's like the IOTA conference that FDA goes to like membership in That does not mean

that FDA supports everything that IOTA does. But I agree that there's there's not really any point in being involved in that. They also contribute financially to which is the issue? Which is what? Which is the issue? Because they're supporting it. It's following a United Nations Agenda twenty thirty. Well, hold on, how do you know that? How do you know that the Russian

Church gives money to the World Council churches? Because when you look up who supports the World Council as well support it, it's the members of the Council. How do you know that that means that there's monetary donations? I mean, if there is, I disagree with it. But does that Well, that's what I looked at. Financially, who supports it? And that's what at least it's said. It's stating that I should say, Uh, yeah,

I've said that that's not a good idea. All right, all right, that's all I have appreciate it. H Now, I'm curious, Novous,

because a lot of your posts talk about Coptic Christianity. No I was arguing with the topic recently and Oriental Okay, Well, I did if you, you know, if you don't want what we talked about over here, it's fine, uh, pink, it's probably because I don't have a beard, because really the only way to be Orthodox is like how long your beard is, Like the length of the beard is literally like the test of the orthodoxy. Pink, shirpa, what's up here? You're a character? Yeah,

no you are. You're cracking me up. So I have a question. It's interesting because like I literally just I went to like I'm Roman Catholic, and I went to like a Catechism class after a Mass today while my kid was that religious ed and and we actually were going over this section of the Catechism regarding ordination and then you know, when a priest is something heinous, you know, their capability of still performing like you know, the substantiation

and all that grow. But I that's not what I wanted to ask you. I had a question that was actually something I was going to ask in my class today. But I realized that pertains not only to Roman Catholicism, but also possibly Orthodox Christianity, and that is like, okay, so it is hard for me articulate. But recently I was reading through and I don't remember which part of the Bible it's in, but it's when Jesus rebukes the rabbis in the temple as like a pretty big event, right, and chastises

them for million a million things. But when I read that, I hear a message that is pretty much eternal, that in all of your rituals you can still be completely defunct, and and that at that point in history. I want to speak about today, but at that point in history, they just lost all meaning behind all of the rituals that they were performing. And you know it, yeah, I mean many of the prophets say this, Isaiah says this, Jeremiah says this. You approach me with you know?

So my question is then, and I was going to pose this in in my in the class today, but it's we didn't get to it. We got stuck on another topic. But is you know, how do we walk that line? Because I feel like sometimes we lose perspective when we do these kinds of debates, which I I believe me, I believe in our rights. I sense that you have some hostility to the Catholic Church. I personally

would like to see us reunified at some point in history. I mean, I will probably won't live to see that day, but I would like to see you know, the churches UH unified against I don't. I don't have any hostilities at all towards Eastern Orthodox, any of the Eastern Right churches. Okay, but the problem is that the reunification requires us to join into a spiritual communion with Pope Francis and the rest of the goblins in Rome. And that's the problem. Okay, Well, you don't need to insult me.

How was I insulting you by saying the goblins in Rome? Because you're calling the people that I care about very much, you're calling them goblins. And whether or not you I mean, have you read producio supplicants? I mean, they're promoting schedule. You haven't even answered my question. And see this is this, I mean, you're I'm not mad at you. I'm just asking you a question. Bro, if you if you want to, you know, keep it that you know above. Look, I'm not mad at

you. I'm just I'm asking you. Look you're the one. Hey, Look, I'm not mad. I'm just asking you a question about But you just you're just curtailed insults at me. I mean, I always going to ask you an honest question, the question, are you a goblin in Rome? You're not. You're not a cardinal. That's where you lose your credibility is because you can't just come and have like an interreligious dialogue. It boils down to a dispute over richal you took personal. It's not a dispute over

rituals you took personally. The question why don't you why don't you calm down? You're you're the one that's upset. You're you're gapping. Listen, calm down for a second, just chill. No. I know you want to control your show, but you do need to let me speak. If if I mean I'm explaining something, I'm explaining something to you. I'm not stopping you from speaking. You can try and explain something to me. I'm not. I'm not stopping you from speaking. I'm explaining that if I criticize the

goblins in Rome, that's not you shouldn't take that personal. I'm talking about corrupt people in Rome. That's not you personally. Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. And you're kind of begging the question when you courtail insults instead of trying to have an interview. That's that's called rhetoric. Are you familiar with rhetoric. It's where you joke in the midst of making an argument.

One, I'm a lawyer, and two I majored in philosophy and I went to Catholic schools for sixteen years and I have a law degree, So I really know what well you can tell your career, right, So joking as part of rhetoric. If you're mature enough, I would like to hear your your perspective on that very thoroughly tailored question which you don't want to address. I'm happy to address any of your arguments, and I do it all

the time every day. First of all, religious listen, I know that you're used to spouting out, but this is not your show, So chill out. Chill out for a second, just stop yapping for a second. And I'm happy to answer your question well, because I'm trying to restate my question that I would like you to answer. And in all can I point out that there's a thing I disagree with. I disagree with the way you worded it, that it's a disagreement of rituals. It's not a disagreement of

rituals. It's a disagreement of the theology. That's the first point. So it's not just rituals. Okay, keep talking. It sounds like you're on the right track. You're actually trying to answer the question. Now. Yeah, I've always been answering the question. But I like to make jokes when I answer the question because that's part of rhetoric. You should know that you're a lawyer. You have degrees, right, Sorry, are you trying to

curtail insults again? You're a lawyer. You started touting your credentials. You said you know rhetoric. Doesn't rhetoric include jokes and jabs. Supposed to be theologian? I mean you should be and how to be respectful in a debate. I know I don't claim to be a theologian. I've debated the top people in the world. So you want to talk about credentials. I'm one of the top debaters out there. Okay, I mean that, is that true or false? You're a real funny character. You're a character? Is

it true or false? Do you are you aware of that? I'm not answering your questions, I'm asking you the question, So go on and talk about it. I mean, it's a legitimate question. I'm interested in hearing your perfect minus the insults. Again, you can do that if you're mature enough, if you can listen. So you can't. So if I make a joke about listen, if you said that my patriarch was a corrupt goblin, I wouldn't take that personally. I would agree with you. Do you

see the difference there that you took personal something that wasn't about you. I'm not answering your questions. I'd like you to answer. I mean, I think in your mind you think this is a law court. It's not. It's a open form discussion. So what's your question? What's your question? What's your question? Are you gonna unmute and ask your question? You've complained about me making a joke. What's your question? So you're not gonna stay

your question? Hello, you're still here. I'm mute. What's your question? This is? This is I'm not enjoying. This is actually fun. Pink Sherpa, are you there? What is your question? So the point is that the papacy promotes today skittles topics, which is a complete contradiction to previous people teaching. So That's why I have such a disdain for the papacy is that I think it's an organized crime institution, and you took personal something

that wasn't personally about you. Are you gonna come back on? Are you just gonna sit here muted? All right, We're gonna go on, move on from that? Seven seven seven, I'm mute? All right? Are gonna minute to say something quick? Do you have an argument that you like to present about the topics listed? Yeah, I was gonna bring a different

kind of idea to the It's all related. So the Bible says that sixty sixty six is the number of a man, and we have six protrons, six neutrons, six electrons in our carbon items, in our melanin and DNA. It looks like there's nothing to do with any of that. No, but six is it looks like seven's and Hebrew and Arabic and like ancient languages and like that six letters, but looks like a seven backwards and then Jesus schizo stuff. No, goodbye, roy R. What's up? I am

not a theologian. I list myself as a comedian, and I'm happy. I'm happy to transition. I'm gonna transition into being today's stand up. Okay. There's a lot of people out there trying to say that they as a religious lead. That's not me. Okay, I am now officially calling myself a comedian. Do y'all hear that? I am the king of comedy and Tristan Haggard and all of these players out here, all of these haters, they are nothing to me. Okay, you heard it here. First twenty

twenty four is the year that truth comes to light. Royard, what's up? That's my cat Williams. By the way, that's Kat Williams. That's called a joke for those that don't understand. Yeah. Uh. In terms of open god debate, you mean like like debating on God? Right? Yeah? Correct, yes, sir correct? Good soup? Why are you there? Hello? Did you want to make an argument about the God or whatever? Dude, we lost him. Try to come back in if you

want to overlooked pictures. It's getting wild tonight. It's wow, it's a wild gnostic night. Go ahead, you got an un mute dude. I'm about to just start getting ridiculous or wordculous. I'm about to start breaking out the box wine, the Phransia. I'm about to start being a wine mom for y'all. I'm I'm gonna fill up a big god full of Phronsie wine mom wine, and I'm all bust out Virginius lambs in between each of these fangers, and I'm gonna puff them all until they burn down to my fingers

overload picks. Do you want to come on? I'm you. I was waiting for the invite. I was enjoying your your bit there. But thank you, mister Dina. I'm not sure how serious I've just dropped in, not how serious the debate is really going, but I do want to try

and serious things up a little bit. When it comes to the the thought process of what some say, let's just bracket into the type who believes and the type who does not believe for whatever reason, when it comes to the question of revelation through a world that's created and the role of faith when when it comes to to an atheist is used. An atheist the extreme example, not an agnostic for someone who actively disbelieves. When it comes to that sort

of mind mindset of thinking. If if we posit the idea of a creator who for whatever reason requires something more than just mirror observation, something that a machine could do, you know, to register its environment. This kind of thing, this idea of having faith beyond appearances, seems to be seems to

be critical when it comes to an atheist way of thinking. If they were to come up with a cosmology where there is a creator who in some sense is obvious that is also hidden, there is some active step, some leap of faith literally required to cross that barrier. What what other way, well can we imagine such a such a sort of a cosmology occurring that there seems to be, you know, if we are full, free willed agents who in some way resemble something divine, but not entirely you know, we have

we have certain capacities, but also have certain limits. From an atheist mindset, what other game could be played by a creator who doesn't want servile mechanistic, necessarily believing sub agents. I don't know if this I'm sure, I'm sure this thought has occurred to you before, but it just occurred to me. How would one how would one as an atheist begin to presume such a

world? You know that there is some sort of hidden order that is in a sense of waiting to be discovered and that is part of perhaps the game. Does that make sense? I feel I've covered a lot of a lot of angles simultaneously, which has been confusing. I realized, Yeah, I'm not. I didn't volue there. I just I mean, if you're asking what the logical philosophical argument is as to why I would believe in God, it's the transcendental argument. So this is like a medieval sense of the original.

Is this a Thomas or is it a tas Artes or a type of who we? Who are you referring to? You mean that specific? I mean there have been plenty of people making transcendental arguments, from you know, ancient philosophers like Aristotle to im Manual Kant. But the specific transcendent argument for God is people like Bonds and van Til and some people in the Orthodox world. I'm not sally with them. Is it possible to quickly not show that

just to be in the room. Yeah, I mean. The idea is that only the God that we argue for, the specific type of deity that is triune and creates the world with structure, and that metaphysical structure which underlies reality is itself sort of the grounding and the foundation for the possibility of knowledge. So transcendental categories are held together, function together, interrelate with one another

because they're grounded ultimately in the patterns and structures in the divine mind. So an omniscient God in the created order, with the regularity that he puts into it, is the basis for how we can have knowledge, ethics, and metaphysics at all. Okay, So the fact that the will that we encounter is structured and we is structured, not only implies but necessitates. No,

I didn't make the theeleological argument. I made the transcendental argument. I said that the preconditions of knowledge, all of those that presuppose some kind of order, some kind of mind, some kind of personal God to give us intentionality, to give us all of the categories, is only fulfilled and justified in the Christian conception of God. Well, thank you very much. I've got

to put some new people look up. You mentioned I think, I think an ancient thinker that I hadn't come across before about half a minute ago. Could you recall you mentioned it wasn't it wasn't Thomas, and it wasn't besides aristotom you mentioned someone else that sounds like a German name. I said, Kant makes transcendent arguments before that, but I'll go check out, thanks very much. Yeah, I mean I have many, many talks, good questions

there. Appreciate that many talks on transcendental argument for God. So you could also look to those where I reference a lot of the people and a lot of the the literature and whatnot. Let's see row yard did you you were here? And then I lost you? You fell out? Hello? Can you hear me? Okay? Finally, sorry it cut out last time. So in terms of the trinity, uh the world in debate that I assume, Yeah, sure you want to okay. So is that is that pure

monotheism? Well, monotheism is a late term, and theism in the Christian tradition refers to the person of the Father and by extension, the Son and the Spirit. Okay, So that would mean that would make the son God also correct or no, correct, because God is a generic term that can pick out different things. Okay, then Jesus, Jesus, it would be

correct to say that you think Jesus is God? Right, yeah, okay, And by God, we're in understanding that God is all powerful and all the characters that God would be right, right, The word God picks out different things. It doesn't have one reference. Yeah, I'm aware, I'm aware. We'll like you could stop me if I were like, God is all knowing, God is all powerful, God's not lacking in anything, correct,

Like we're gonna agree on that? Well, yeah, but God can refer to different things, So it depends on the word God picks out different things. It doesn't have one reference. Like what does I mean? Like God, like the Creator and God we believe, can pick out the divine person, the divine nature, and the divine energies. It can also pick out an angel and dealon and a human, so God doesn't have a team can be God and a demon can be God. The word God has different

reference. That does not mean that you're always talking about the word. I mean the being I'm talking about. I know, But I'm saying that the word picks out different things. Even in God like it can mean different things. Yes, I understand that. Then in God it picks out different things person, nature, essence, and operation. Uh sure, okay, So God all powerful, all knowing, right, we can agree on that A

very basic thing unless I'm wrong. Yeah, but God can reference the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and Father, Son and Spirit are all three all knowing, okay, so they're all all three of them are all knowing. Correct, Okay. Then out of curiosity, why didn't Jesus know the hour? Yeah, if you read letter two thirty five and of Basil, he explains why that that's a misinterpretation of the text. It's a use of rhetoric because elsewhere Jesus says none is good but God letter two thirty

six of Basil. I'm just saying that. That's where he gives the explanation to this old Aryan argument that Jesus didn't have omniscients, because you know what I'm saying, there's other passages to talk about Jesus having omniscients, right, So it's a use of rhetoric, like when Jesus says there's no one good letter Basil, it's either two thirty five or two thirty six, and I'm

explaining it Saint Basil, Letter two thirty five, two thirty six. He gives an explanations right around in there of why and how we show that it

can't mean that Jesus lacks knowledge in the Bible. Letter two thirty six of Saint Basil is a theological writing about what I'm talking just referencing that the essay that talks about what I'm talking about, and it gives a lot of the explanations that I'm giving you, namely that the words when it says that he doesn't know are rhetoric because in other places you have similar uses of that rhetoric, like there's no one good but the Father. Does that literally mean that

nobody is good? Because other passages say that the Son is also good and the Spirit is also good. So it's a simple use of rhetoric. Mm. Okay, So do you believe that the Bible is the word of God in a sense? But ultimately no, the Word of God is a person. It's a divine person identified with the second person of the Godhead in John One. Mm hmm, So the Bible is not the word of God. Okay, did you You didn't so you didn't hear what I said. I

just answered your question question. No, it's not. That's a false psychotomy. I didn't say in between simple question. That's a false No. It's called a fallacy of either or do you know what the fallacy of either word is? Yes, it's either an apple or an orange, a little bit in between. No, I didn't say. I never used the word in between. Don't put words in my mouth. What I said was, I didn't say in between. You're putting words in the name. I'm your like

synonyms, man, go ahead, go ahead, explain. No. I said very clearly that there's a sense in which the written texts are the word of God. And then I said that ultimately that's not correct though, because the Word of God is a divine person, the second person of God had identified in John one being. So you don't understand basic turn So you're giggling, all right, you're not. You are giggling. You don't. You have no clue what you're You don't know what you're talking about. So again

it's just people with no education, no knowledge. They can't do basic grammar. When we talk about a word concept fallacy. You see that. You see the silliness of this. So well, words have different reference. You're not coming back on, dude, We're done, goodbye. A word can

have two different reference. This is called hermeneutics, right, This is how we interpret this, the science of interpreting a text, and every heresy of Saint Basil says, trades on ambiguity and heretics, thinking that words have one meaning. Not every heresy is based on that, but it's a characteristic of many errors and heresies to think that a word only has one meaning. And

people get tripped up on Jesus using a figure of speech. Jesus uses figures of speech all the time, right, like, cut your hand off if it makes you sin. Do Jesus trying to tell me those so forth? Dude, it's called rhetoric. We utilize, excuse me, it's called a figure of speech. We utilize hyperbole in literature all the time. Okay, when you go to read Dosiewsky, when you go to read Shakespeare. Okay, if you're an edge educated person, not a random goober who doesn't know

anything about how to read, you don't automatically take every text literally. That's why it takes time to learn texts and how to interpret them, to learn exte Jesus, to learn hermeneutics. And one thing you learn is that you don't go to a passage or a text, isolate that text and think that that's the one text by which all the other texts are interpreted. Every aryan every aryan heretic. Does this Jesus lacks knowledge? Dough it says, right,

did these Jesus lacks knowledge? Do? Don't use the big words on me, do. It's the use of rhetoric, exaggeration, hyperbole. Just like when he says cut your hand off if because you dissent, He's not literally telling you cut your hand off. It's hyperbole, just like when he says there's none good but God. This is a grammatical thing. It's a ter. It's a usage in literature to be will not know the hyperbole metaphor is used in literature. Okay, so this, I'll bring you back on

if you'll slow down. If you spurg out and spit out a bunch of mega liiths which doesn't back up the claim, then I'm not gonna I'm not gonna bring you back on. Can you calm down and have a conversation? H go ahead? Aiden? Are you there? You're on muted, daid make your Masonic argument? What's up? Can't hear you? Dude? Don't hear anything? So I don't know what what's up? H? You want to try again? Are you there? Aiden? Okay? I don't hear

anything, dude, So I don't know what's going on. Pope Francis is calling in. What's up Pope Francis tonight? It's if you disagree, you're welcome to come on. Remember that disagreeing means that you're gonna present an argument. You're gonna present a case. You can question me, you can interrogate

me. I don't mind, but we're gonna learn to debate. So part of what we do in these exercises, in these live streams is we're not just learning the facts and all that's good, we're also learning to debate, hopefully, and so sometimes it requires pointing out that, like, you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm gonna keep pulling you back to the point so that you learn what we're trying to say and what real argumentation is.

There's rules to debate. It doesn't mean you just spout out whatever you want. That's not what an argument. There are laws to thought and critical thinking. That's what we're trying to elucidate here, and Pope France is going to help us do that. What's up, Pope Francis? You get an unmute man, Hello, what's up, your holiness? How you doing? What's happening in Rome tonight. Did the did the Skittles orgies? Did they just complete? Complete? Are they done? Is it over now? Well?

I actually do have something to say it It is an opinion and an argument at the same time, and neither of them. So I'm just going to share it and it'll take a moment, Okay, So momentarily I will be donating five dollars to Jade Meyer. There are seven hundred viewers here. I'm talking to you all. If you all that is you all donated a few dollars, would make five dollars is equivalent to the price that be hot and ready pizza. I encourage all of you to take a small step in

good faith to promote this high level no bullshit dialogically. I don't know what all that was about. Johann sig what's up? I'm having fun or I wouldn't keep doing this is tonight has been wild? I mean it's like, Johan, hey, did you yeah? Yeah, yeah? How's it going? So? I believe in God, but I wanted to just mention a passing remark reaches that like in the world of power, he says, somewhere

I was hesitant to call in because I don't have my books. But in the Wild of Power he says that like Paul was basically just experiencing epilepsy. And if you sort of take this remark and dovetail it with some remarks of Robert Sapolski's about like the resemblance between sorry Hindu cleaning rituals and also cleaning rituals and Judaism, and he has many other examples and they really resemble OCD behavior.

So like the argument, like I said, I happen to believe in modern modern Judaism Allah, rabbinical Judaism is not the same thing as what was going on at the time of Christ. That's why Christ reduced that stuff and Paul left Judaism. So how does this relate to Paul being ac The argument is more so that all this phenomena is a just a mental it's just mental stuff. It's just mental illness. It's something that's results the result of human

beings on the spectrum of mental illness. Like that's the argument. Like this these remarks of niches in Uh and also bring that together with these remarks of Robert sapolskis, I don't want to give a long speech to explain the whole thing because Christianity and religion as mental illness. Okay, is that? But how is that interesting that Nietzsche ended up dying of going insane mentally ill? But yeah, I know, right, So, but how does that that's

a that's a claim. How does that demonstrate the claim to be the case? Well, I'll tell you this Tag. Perhaps this is just a criticism of TAG. Like I said, I respect the argument, I'm not necessarily arguing against it, but it does sort of lack a volitional push into belief because like actual belief, because at the at the core, it does seem like you're saying God exists because we are able to have this debate right now. But the fact that we were able to have this debate right now is

so plainly, dully real and obvious. There's an immense gulf between the psychic image of belief in God, which is supposed to be an impressive something or other, and the plain, dull realization that we're just having a debate. And you're using a lot of rhetoric and prose to call it plain and dull. But the question is, actually, what's the logical and metaphysical structure that makes language and meaning possible. So your subjective idea is large question. Well,

that's what tag is. So that's how TAG moved. That's the movement of that argument. So whether you call it, I mean, sure it is prosaic, I suppose, but I don't think that that actually removes It's you're using a lot of prose and using a lot of rhetoric that doesn't address or deal with the actual argument itself. That's like saying that math is boring. So math is boring. So math is boring. So hold on, that's not what I'm saying that I didn't say, that's what you're saying,

Chill, I said, that's I said. It's like that that's an analogy. Okay, So it's not. You're not saying math is. It's to say that the conversation is boring. It has nothing to do with the questions of preconditions. So the you know, tag tag hinges on the status the status of preconditions give an account for them. Like, well, I don't want to keep repeating this. I happen to believe in God, so I

feel sort of like insincere at the moment. But it just seems that this issue that I just like, I'm trying to dovetail this with the picture of what's happening that Nietzsche and the Robert Seppolski remarks like, if you know, Tag just sort of fails to push one into belief and for that reason, and part of the reason is it seems required the education you have, Jay to understand fully, that's none of that has anything to do with whether the

arguments true or false. So those are it remains a flaw. It means it like limits Tag's ability I suppose to push any went into Like I mean, at a certain a lot of people have converted hold on looking for proof, Okay, to keep looking for that. I don't think you understand what you say. That a lot. I don't think you understand. I mean, I do have a master's degree, but I maybe I'm also a little stoned right now though, So I'm at a weakness's and strengths and I'm not

at my house my books, so anyway, can't continue. I'm listening. That's up. I can't hear anything moving on the four hundred m Hey, Jay, can you hear me? Okay, Hey, I was calling about I just wanted to ask a question I'm working at a women's shelter right now, so I don't have a ton of time. I was wondering when, like during the week we're able to do like more of these. I'm just connecting with some of your work recently, and I've got some questions. Do

you have a not so much debate but more like feedback? Uh huh and uh yeah. So so if you could start with, like, when's it good? Like I think this is the second session I've kind of like logged into listened to for a couple of hours. Okay, so the topic, it's so it's a debate for them. What we do is we offer people to come on and give argumentation where they disagree with Protestant ideas kind of the

ideas Muslim ideas, Atheist ideas versus arguments that I might present. So, okay, you have that or not, Well it would pertain to like I co founded an abbey based on like the ancient Irish tradition as as obscure and veiled as that maybe coming from a Protestant like background last few years, mildly enchanted with some of what's going on in the Orthodox tradition, always kind of wrestling back and forth. Am I doing the wrong thing? Am I in

the right stream? So yeah, we're kind of floating a little isolated because we don't really have a place in Protestantism. Some things are attractive to me about Catholicism, but not many a couple of things. But I would it would be more a present or like, well, an interaction with you about here's kind of what we're doing, here's why, here's I mean, that's not really I'm not trying to be mean or rude, it's just not that's

not my I can't facilitate or answer those kinds of questions. So but you know, maybe you could reach I would say, reach out to like an Orthodox bishop or you know, the Orthodox Church around you. But thank you for that comment there, Jamerican. What's up, ja American? We've got JAMERICOI in the house. Virtual well insanity, speaking of jamericoy, virtual insanity is what's happening tonight. I'm on that. I'm on that virtual insanity tip

tonight I'm dancing like m may require virtual insanity. What's up? J American? You gotta on you? So y'all see how my patience has been extremely tested and pushed to the point of snapping tonight. I've been hopefully somewhat patient. I have really had to kind of really struggle to be patient tonight. So uh, j American, Uh, you had your chance, Thomas. You came on. All you guys already have been on, and you guys know that it's it's disagreement night. Hick House. That's a good that's that

sounds good, hick House, Jack, you're doing oh my bad? Oh ship? So I thought roy R, I thought you already came on. Go ahead, Hickson, hick hicck whatever, hick House. Yeah. No, I was going to say, you're on a you're on a terd night.

I uh, in thinking about what you've been talking about, I was I figured you may entertain me for twenty seconds on the idea of you know, say, you know, you and me are you know, spiritual beings showing a human flesh shoot, and we're at a supermarket picking of religion, right and uh? And the question is like, what what what are your requirements for religion? Because you know, I think everyone has their own I

don't know. Uh, you can look at the you know, neurons wrapped around feelings from you know, religion, they're taught in childhood or this app and the other. And so my question is, I don't know to you if you're you know, say you're on the open market for religion, or say no other religions exists and you're going to create one, you know, what is that? What are the priorities? Look like? You know,

what are the what are the need to be there? You know, like pure capitalists, you know, let's make a religion, which I sort of think I'm on the open meat market. That's what I'm saying. If everybody looks at if you look at these guns, you'll see the meat market. Now, Tristan's over there sweating and getting nervous. I'm sorry, Exon, I don't I don't understand. That's what we're gonna have to move on there.

What are the requirements for a religion if we're shopping? I mean, I guess it's going to depend on what you think religion is or what you're looking for. I mean, Orthodox Christianity offers to man, you know, the pathway to eternal life, becoming like God, deification, theosis. That's that's what we believe in. But thank you for that question. Let's see now somebody's in the chat fussing saying uh ro yar. Didn't you already come

on? Like everybody who's all fussy has been on flame too. You've already been on you can come back on. Yeah, just make it. It's weird to me that people can't make They just have no idea what an argument is. I just think it's like arguing or something. Go ahead, Okay, I can hear you. Okay, so you're talking. I just wanted

one quick question that I'm out of here. You were talking about without Mason guy, about my MP whole and how his lecture with astrology at the end of that, except that it was all about just yeah, socialism, United Nations, that's the whole selling point. Yeah, what part was it? I wanted to look like the last of the whole lectures on astrology. So I don't know it used to be on YouTube. I don't know if it's still there, like the lasts of it, his last election on astrology.

At the end, does he just say it's about socialism? Yes, and it's not what freemasonry is all about. So it's just well, I mean, freemasonry is not absolutely necessarily socialist, but many socialist Revolutionaries were absolutely Freemasons. Absolutely. So the topic tonight, guys, is God's existence. Cause the Alicism paper is he Protestants, not the philosophy of Freemasonry, unless you want to say that Freemasonry has the correct theology of God or something. Roscoe,

Roscoe, get on you can you hear me? So? I just got a quick question about something you were talking about angels? Did you said, did you have a topic to debate about protonism with al says unorthodoxy? Oh no, I don't, okay, So it's it's open debate. What what were you What do you want to ask about? Uh? I heard you on another streams say that when the angels were tested, they were tested

in just a moment. But I was reading a book, The Religion of the Apostles by Stephen DeYoung, and uh he said that angels were appointed over nations and then they fell away out of out of the uh, the the counsel of God. Yeah, I agree with you. I agree with that. So if they were tested in the moment, how could they fall out of that council, the divine council? Because the angels exist in the aon, which is outside of time. It's a timeless eternity. Yeah, but

how were they in the council and then out of it? Because that's in the aon, the timeless eternity. It's not a it's not a thing in time. Okay, I don't know if I quite get this right. So if you read Vladimore Lawski's book, Uh Orthodox Dogmatics, there's four pages in that book that deals with the Aon and what that means in Orthodox metaphysics.

And this is something that contrasts our view with platonism. So we have a uniquely Orthodox idea that there's a created eternity known as the Aon, and that's the realm in which the angels live and inhabit. So they don't they can be in time, but they don't exist in time the way that we do. It's called the aon aio in and many Orthodox elogians, including Saint Maximus, talk about the eon. So yeah, I mean like people saying they want to come back. Bro, if you didn't, I mean you came

on you major arguments. It didn't work. Ryan Burr, what's up? Do you have a disagreement? An argument you want to make? Nate says, for five dollars, how do you keep up between the politics of the seas. I don't keep up with politics. I mentioned in geopolitics we talked about a lot Garrett sixty four five dollars. What are you about the concept of panpsychism. No, we don't believe in panpsychism. That is a heresy that we would reject. Thank you for that, super jet ricky five dollars.

What's wrong with belief? In the Roman Catholic sense of the eucharists created grace? So that's two different senses. Obviously, the Eucharist is a created thing in the sense of bread and wine. The question is the grace that we get in that Eucharist is not created? So the grace itself, as Maximus excuse me, as Ephesus and Cyril say, is the uncreated energies of God. And this is dealt with in the Decree of Ephesis and the Two

Lettershystic Census, where it talks about what we get in the Eucharist. Go ahead, Ryan, So like I've been looking around, like the world around us, and does this not remind you of like nineteen twenties Germany before, like you know, you know, Okay, So the topic is Protestantism Catholicism. I know, but it has like something to do. No, it doesn't. So the topic is Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam atheism. I said at the beginning, We're not here to talk about Middle East politics. We're

not here to talk about tiny mustache man. That's not the topic tonight. Uh so, Wouler, what's up? Ruler? Doctor Chillonson's five dollars and said, in regard to your debate with Jake, have you watched Khalil ad Nanni's cross examination of Jake. Yes, I've seen all the discussions between those two. Doctor Khalil annihilates Jake. I'm familiar. Thank you that for that, Doctor Chillon, Oh's oz pod one dollar. I've seen a paper that

was scholarly calling Saint Athanasious a Sibelian. I'm sure you can find an academic paper. This is everything I mean. I had classes where, uh the entire class was about trying to prove Shakespeare was gay. So you know that that's what academics do. Can you explain this? I would just read orthodox sources. Don don't worry about that stuff. Octavian twenty five dollars? What trans I mean, it's it's absurd, given how often Saint Athanasius defends the

Trinity, that he would be a Sibelian. It's preposterous. What transition do you of the Orthodox Bible do you recommend? I mean again, I'm a big fan of the Orthodox Study Bible. I've been using it for many, many years. You know, the notes overall are really good. Doesn't mean they're always correct or infallible, but you know ninety percent of the time they're really good and correct. Guy Guy, Guy, Guy, Guy, three dollars? Could God have made a better world? And this gets into Leibnizes

arguments about best of all possible worlds. I'm I'm not sure what I think about that. I'm not sure true Pachamama believer. One dollar? Are you ar FDA aware of creationist books against evolution? Yes, I mean there's hundreds of them, so I referenced many of them earlier. I thought there was one coming out. I mean there's a lot of them, so I mentioned them in earlier in the stream aquaemtas one dollar. How do you commitce a

Mennonite that Christ recapitulated everything in the Escaton? You don't because of Menna Nite it's not going to know what you're talking about. Just fix the damn wheel on his buggy and move on. Just just love him by fixing his buggies and buying his meat. Cody Cigar one dollar fresh tat breath. The atheist guy is a requested speaker. Oh fresh, I thought I'll let him on, but he didn't, so he was the breathy atheist. I think he dropped off or we couldn't hear him. So if he's still there, he

can he can pop back on. Guys. Sometimes on Twitter spaces, if you come in, you gotta like come out and come back in. I don't know why, but sometimes it works that way. BMX shout out longtime super Chatter a big fan of BMX since ten bucks. Thank you so much. Bat dude won two three five dollars. I am a Christian. One characteristic that I hear Protestants describe is that God is immaterial? Correct? How can the material universe come from the immaterial God? Well, it matter comes

to be out of nothing ex nilo. And the only way that we know that that's the case is because divine revelation tells us that that's what he did. But we're not ever told how. Right, So the Bible isn't really describing the mechanics of creation. It's describing the what, not the how. So it's fine for humans engage in scientific activities, which is the how. But again, the Bible's not a science manual on how God did this. It's just telling us what he did. So I don't know how, Aiden

says, I have disagreements. Yeah, I know, Aiden, Now maybe this was prior to you coming on with the Masonic arguments. Kabibe fenboy one dollar. My mother is becoming a Messianic Jew. She's celebrating Passover Sabbath blah blah. She and my Baptist church and her judy as her friends are mad

that I'm reading church history. Pray for me. Yeah, I mean, if you watch show your Mom Lewis's documentary over at Orthodox Shahta about the continuity between Jewish worship and Orthodox worship, because Orthodox Christianity is the real Messianic Judaism, none of us seven seven, seven ten dollars. I'm convinced by the pizza argument of Pope Princess. Well, that's good, appreciate that. And also, I am not a man because I have a little bit of beard.

So, by the way, what actually counts as an Orthodox beard? Like, what's the actual like do we need cinimeters? Now? I can't use cinimeters because that's my sonic. Did y'all know that the decimals jamis in their laugh And it's true though, the decimal system actually comes from Masonic dudes, So we got to only use King's English here, and it's got to be basically a foot is like this, right, So the beard literally pretty

much got to be out about here or I don't believe you're Orthodox. I'm just now beginning to maybe think Father Deacon Anonius might be Orthodox because this beer is pretty long. Tristan. No, in no way, dude, notn Orthodox at all, probably not even a man. So basically there's only like probably three Orthodox people in America because how many people actually have a beer that long? A handful, if that much, Paul Kelly tonight, everybody's being

idiots. Jay, Well, Paul, I'm inclined to kind of agree a little bit, but thank you for that. Ten dollars Christus Victor christ Vicker on Earth five dollars math problems. Five dollars plus seven hundred viewers equals that's a lot of money, but I don't think we're going to get that much. Die or give me one more chance Conservative ex Masonic arguments Aiden. I mean, I don't know. If you're still in there, you can come back on. I don't care. But we gotta understand what an argument is.

And if you're just gonna fuss at me that I'm using big words, then there's no point in doing that. Matt Belta, three dollars. Can you show me where the church Fathers speak of the Trinity as we know and understand it today? Oh, the church Father's the first three centuries. Well, you could start by going to the discussion that I did with Inspiring Philosophy.

We did, I think a two hour podcast where we just highlighted Trinitarian theology in the first and second century, so we didn't even go into two to three hundred. I don't even think we now, we didn't go into the third century. So I mean, there's a whole almost two hour podcasts you can go watch Inspiring Philosophy, Jadeyer Trinity Ricky again, three dollars.

I can't wait for the debate with Jake made the Spirit empower you? Well, I think the main thing is that, you know, the hardest part about these debates is reading these really long Islamic texts, and so you know, the even to me a text I'm having to read. I've got like four of them, but one of them, two of them I did. I've done. One of them is the really long one, and it's pretty dry and boring. So it's just it's just a matter of like, I

fell asleep twice trying to get through this even to me a book. So what's that ruler say? Yeah, my question is how would you respond to the contient objection of a tag that it's the categories are just in the mind? Well, I mean that would reduce to the problems of Kantianism, which is that his whole system could not be known because he can't know what's outside of his own mind. So, in other words, the whole system is undercut by not being able to know because other minds are part of the Newmena.

But you're just using the exact argument he gave, but flipping it to prove your argument. No, I'm flipping it to prove that Kantianism doesn't work. But so you're using a transcendental argument. No, I'm not. I'm not. I'm saying that on its own grounds. Kant system doesn't allow Kant to know if other minds work that way. But I don't think his argument

is a question about minds. You just said that, what if the categories are only in the mind, that's consposition that the categories exist in the mind. In the mind theological question, not a metaphysical or ontological question. So do you understand that if they exist in the mind, as Kant says, that's consposition. Kant's own worldview is undercut because he can't know if other minds

work that way, because other minds are part of the noumena. Well, we share the same nature as humans, so we each have our own that goes outside of Kant's. You can't go there with if you're a content that's the noumena, you don't know that. How can you prove that the categories exist? Well, the hold on that's a different argument. So my argument is that it's not const argument. The categories have to be really existing metaphysical

things like Aristotle thought. Why so for one, because I want to just say that about con because there's no other way to structure the logic of sentences means it's not jump from that reputation to saying, oh, therefore it actually exists a positive claim. No, the argument is that the by the by the impossibility of the Kantient system, they must be really existing things. Mm

hmm, how are you like verifying that? Well, if there's a disteleological world, then sentences aren't possible, so teleology must be a real metaphysical principle. Okay, Well, can you go back to the reputation of the Kantian system? How does not know? Are you not aware of the critiques of cont like there are already many many critiques of KNT, and this is a very famous critique of con Okay, but then the response would be, it doesn't matter. If we don't know the nature of other minds, then he

can't say that that's that's true. He can't say that that categories exist in the mind. He only knows about his own. Are you not listening to what I'm saying? Are you not listening? You can't it's an unjustified claim. Do you don't understand how you can have to actually like give an argument and not just assert your claims. I'm not making an argument I'm talking about CONT's own position, not working on content grounds. It's not me asserting Christianity.

I'm saying that this is a classic critique of Kant. You're not aware of this. I am aware of it. You're not articulating it. I am articulating it. What do you mean? I just gave you multiple articulations that Contoonne claims about his own system. Go outside into the new minal realm, which, by cons definition you can't know. Do you want me to bring a professor in who can help you with this, because he'll say what I say? Do you want a professor in here? That's an appeal to

authority? No, it's not. It's an attestation. No, it's not an appeal to authority. It's helping you out. I'm not saying it's true because father Deacon says it. I'm saying that he will help you understand that what I'm saying is accurate. Okay, why don't you try explaining it in your own words? All right, We're done, Bill Vanier? Bill Vanier, I'm mute. Hey, how you doing? Brother? Uh? Just

two quick questions for you. I'm not calling the debate or offer an argument or anything okay, but that's what topic is tonight, So Protestantism as related to dual politics. Again, I'm sorry, man. That is multiple times, multiple times tonight specified that. No, that's not what we're doing of mine. I'm not trying to be mean to you. You're welcome to call back in. I do open it up for geopolitical discussions at times. Bays quotes what's up, dude, thank you guys for the superstar. Oliver says

a dollar. If we have free will, should we be scared of temptations? I think we have to fight our temptations win. They're temptations towards sin, the passions. But I don't think we should be afraid of free will. Go ahead, based Bays guy, what's an abased guy? Just an Abays guy in the house. Hey, mister Dierk, can you hear me? Yes, sir, So, I'm trying to wrap my head around tag.

But I guess I still don't understand. Couldn't the atheist theoretically just say that he presupposes, like his worldview just presupposes like all of those issues, you know, the fundamental issues that you talk about a lot. Yeah, but it's not a matter of just saying that I presuppose or just you presupposed. We already agree that everybody has presuppositions. It's a question of giving an account for those presubpositional categories. So that's two different things. It's not just

saying, well, I presuppose, God, you presupposed categories. So I guess we're at an impasse. No, No, everybody presupposes the same categories the preconditions for the possibility of knowledge, and the question of tag is just just who can give an account for those categories? Okay? Is that register or is that not clear? I'm trying to think And I guess I recently watched your debate with Dela Hunt, and I guess that was kind of what

he was trying to argue, and I didn't really understand. Yeah, so Matt said the presuppositional transitional categories just are okay, But that doesn't work in a debate. Just are what and just saying something is. It's not a justification for how that thing exists. As Matt himself says, you should never believe in something that is empirically verify. He admits in the debate that transnital categories are not empirically verified, and he says they just are. Just are

is not an argument, It's not a justification. It's an arbitrary assertion. It means absolutely nothing in a debate. Just are what? Just are? Where? Does that make sense? Or are you there? What's up? Yeah? Yeah, that makes sense. I think I'll look more into it. Okay, Yeah, good questions there. Yeah, I think if you go through like some of the discussions that Father Deacon and Ice have had in the past about like epistemology and justification, those talks that we did would actually

be very helpful for the topic that you're bringing up. We'll go to We'll get a bunch of more people hopping in here. Zar Gones, you know what, I'm gonna have to go t T. So I'm gonna have to go t T. Y'all just hold on for a minute, but I gotta I gotta mess is from our sponsor. Don't go anywhere, and we will continue on because I'm just in a mood. I'm feeling some type of way. I'm feeling some type of way. I'm feeling some type of way.

Hey, and we're gonna continue this because I'm having fun. And you know what, I've just submitted to the fact that it's gonna be crazy stuff all night long. I don't mind. It's okay, I just just does just marry the madness, bring it on. But look, I gotta tell you about our sponsor first, and that sponsor is chot dot com. Baby, I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Now hold on one minute. Puzzling synthetic dies and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know

it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences. There's a new certified Sigma Male pre work out powder for sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your coworkers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and

dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors, which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula experience. The pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue spirolina extract organic lemon cherry and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract which will get your mind going and pump you

up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind. Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose Each this dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to

fire your boss and dot. People do call in at times to try to, like, you know, get you riled up, and it doesn't bother me. I'll just roll with it. In fact, I wanted that beard dude to come back, the dude saying that I'm not actually mascular man. He ran off so so nope, trying to trying to call me out, basically saying I got a basically a gay beard and that's okay. You know what, man, you know what, I just sometimes I gotta come out of the closet with my gay beards on. So argon's Matt, what's up?

Jargon? So to depict, I would like to say that to Protestants and Orthodox holds us firmly to the conviction that the word became flesh, they do, but they don't. I would argue that they don't embrace the doctrine to its fullness. They don't see all the way to the bottom or draw out. Okay. So, so who truly has the right answer on it? Catholics see gods continued in fleshment, in the oil, water bread. Who has the true answer? A kah, the true answer? You said?

Catholics and Orthodox don't have the true answer on it. So I'm asking you, okay, who does Who's got the right answer? No, they have, they have the true answer. They just don't hold as firmly to the conviction that word became flush. Okay, who truly holds to it? Then? You? I mean, who who's got the right answer to the confident Church? Okay? The who the confident Church? Okay, So we don't have the true answer, but the Catholic Church has the true answer?

Yeah, what do you I'm not saying what's the argument? The argument would be that the way that confidence, uh but believe in the incarnation of Jesus is more profound, it's more deep, it's more firm. So what you're saying Roman Catholics have a better understanding than Orthodox is that what argon? I wouldn't say a better understanding. I would say just more rooted and firm and

tradition. Could you understand that the Orthodox Church holds to the christological teachings of the First Seven Councils and the Roman Catholic Church typically doesn't even know what those are most Roman Catholics, So I don't know where you would get that. What what's the correct christological view that we're supposed to have here? Okay, I'm sorry that became God became humans so that humans might become God. Yeah, I mean that's orthodoxy one oh one. All right, Well, yeah

that's the case. That's all they got to say. Okay, m gohan bach, what's a this is? This is wow? Good grief, og cowboy, five dollars. AI will reach superintelligence proposition one. This proposition two constitutes a mind refute this. Why would First of all, intelligence is not equivalent to complex algorithms. AI is always only input data and algorithms. That's never intelligence. When we say that it's artificial intelligence, it's based on an

anthropomorphic analogy that computers work like human minds. So it's another kind of like bait and switch word concept fallacy to think that because the computer works like a mind, that it is a mind. So putting in more algorithms is never going to make it conscious, nor does it ever make it a mind. So there's the reputation of what your point, it trades on fallacy of uh well, the word concept fallacy. Gohan, I mute, bro, This

is just it's just too entertaining to not continue with this. I mean we don't usually get this much. Wow feral activity. I mean hey yeah sure, mm hmm. Well what's up? First of all? Yes, sir, how you doing? Back of the ball? All right? So real quick? Was that I saw a screenshot earlier? Was the pope really on this street? We're going to put you on something? Yes? Him, I'm going to put you on something along? Was he? Was he really the speaker? Dude? It wasn't a pope? Come on all right,

Look, I just want I want to believe. So that's that was the first question up. Yeah, I mean that's that was actually the most pressing thing. I'll pass the mic. Thanks Jack, m Matt, what's up, Matt? Hello, Yes, sir, I just have a question about Wait, it's about atheist argument. It's not really an argument, but it's a It was well, my friend was arguing with an atheist and he asks, if we were made in the image of God, then how can we

sin? And I just don't know how to respond to that. Well, being made in the image of God partly means that we have freedom, so that means we have the ability to choose different options. And unfortunately, in the fallowing world, that means we have the ability to choose sin. So being made in the image of God does not mean that we are equivalent to God in virtue. We have to learn to choose virtue versus choosing advice by you, Jared us up by you? Yeah, So, Aiden, do

you want to come on the stream again? And I'm happy to explain these things if you can relax and not just machine gun. So, and when Orthodox Christianity says that we become God, it does not mean what masonry means in terms of being your own God and apotheosis. So this is why words don't always have the same meaning. Okay, it's a word concept fallacy. So by you are you there or what's up? Yeah, I'm here? What's up? You wanted to get your your view? What is your view

of the nature of scripture? And do you have like an evidential argument that you can provide to kind of substantiate that. I do believe that the scriptures are inspired. I don't think they contain theological error. I think that there are copyist errors. I think most people believe that there are minor copyist errors.

But that the unanimity amongst textual scholars for the first you know, a few centuries of the thousands of manuscripts, in terms of the ninety to ninety five percent unanimity amongst the texts, I think suggests that the veracity of the text. I mean, the New Testament in the first few centuries is like the most attested to document in history. It's even more attested to than Plato's

writings. So if you're talking about like historical attestations to the veracity of the New Testament, I would say those kinds of things are examples of that. But the reason I believe the Bible ultimately it would be things like messianic prophecies being fulfilled, very precise prophecies, as well as philosophical arguments like the transcendental

argument and so forth. Okay, yeah, because when I was seen a lot of Christians debating skeptics, they it seems like they get back into the most that they can say about the scripture is that it's, you know, mostly historically reliable, and they I haven't I haven't seen Christians step into the ring with the skeptic and actually try and defend that the that the scriptures, the Old and New Testament are the literal word of God. You know,

it kind of depends on your your definition of inspiration. Do you believe that the Bible is is equal to God speaking in every so, the Word of God is the second person that God had Jesus, the like the Messiah is the Logos. They're identical. That's the one person that's present in Christ. So the Word of God is not equivalent to a book. The book is called the Word of God because it's the revelation of the person of Christ. So it's not identical in the same sense. And that's I I'm not saying

you do this. A lot of Protestants commit the word concept fallacy, where they think that because the Word of God is Jesus, Jesus is the Bible. Right. This is like KJB fundamentalist type people. We wouldn't say that. But I do think that the Bible is historically accurate and so forth, reliable, inspired, et cetera. So if someone were to convince you of an error in the Bible with what would that do to your faith? Well, again, it would depend on the type of error, because I said

there are copyist errors, and I have a not a copyist error. It's something that all of them. Let's say, let's just say theoretically every manuscript agrees this is the correct reading, and it's some historical fact that is proven to be like incorrect or And what's the argument? Where is this argument? It's a theoretical argument. I'm not making this specific arment. I mean I

can point to there's the in the gospels. Is where you're going to find the most You have two different you have three if you're talking about this in optics, you know three different accounts of the same event. And this is where most of your you know, quote unquote contradictions are going to run. I'm aware of many of these claims and made the arguments, and there's a lot of scholars and there's a lot of argumentation that reinterprets and robuts those things.

So that's why, for instance, there's one in particular that I've never really heard anybody address. Well, I mean, I've brought it up before, and people say, well, it's talking about two different events, but I think if you read the context, and it's clearly speaking of the same event, which one the gatherering demon event. No, this is the parable of the wicked husbandman. So at the end of the parable, Christ says, what therefore, will the Lord of the Harvest do to those wicked husbandmen

or something along those lines. And then and then Christ answers the question, and he'll he'll miserably destroy those wicked men and give the vineyard to another. Right. And then in another gospel Matthews, Yeah, I believe it's in Matthew, Mark and Luke. In one of them, Christ gives the response he's going to destroy them and give the vineyard to another. And in another one of the gospel accounts, it's the scribes and Pharisees that respond. He

asked the question and then they respond. So in one gospel, and if you read the context, it's the same. I can't remember exactly what the context is, but it's the same surrounding context. Right. But matthews audience, for example, is a Jewish audience, and you've got other gospel writers

focusing primarily on gentile audience. Right, So if there's a highlighting of the response of one group that's in Matthew's gospel, it makes sense, for example, why it would point out things like scribes and Pharisees, whereas, uh, you know, the gentile direct the gospel might not talk about that because it's not real as relevant to that audience. So yeah, but so who said the response Jesus or was it the Pharisees, because it depends on which.

So this this one really got me because now you're if Jesus said that, then one of the gospels is putting the words of Christ into the mouth of the Pharisees or vice versa. And that's that's why it really caused me pause, because I'm like, well, this is these are this is actually Jesus speaking here. So this isn't like, you know, he he crossed the sea and he landed someplace he shouldn't have landed, and this is putting

the words of Christ into the mouth of the Pharisees. And also just like the view of you know, I mean, it depends on how you look at inspiration because a lot, it seems like a lot of Christian apologists and stuff, when they even talk about the Gospel of John, they're going to admit that a lot of this dialogue and monologue of Christ in theirs is rough approximations. These are not a word for word the things that Christ said when

he prayed to the Father or something like this. And you pretty much have to argue that we'll just the Holy Spirit just told John what to write, because no one can really understand exactly where he would get this type of information from. Well, but I mean, if God is God, why couldn't he do that? I mean he could, but I mean that's the same

argument that anyone could that's the same argument that a Mormon could make. Or well, yeah, but I mean yeah, but the fact that a Mormon could make that argument doesn't have anything to do with whether that might be the case here, right, So I'm not saying it's true, because other people could make that claim. But what I'm saying is on its own grounds, that's not a problem. So the fact that some other person makes that argument isn't relevant to this case. But I mean, by the way, so

hold on, let's go, let's go to the first one. So I've got Matthew, you know the parable divine dressers pulled up here, and you're talking about at the end of the parable or okay, okay, So it says like forty five the chief priests Pharisees heard the parables and said he was speaking of them. They sought to lay hands on them at the question, and he said, what is he going to do to those wicked men? And they said, and they said, he'll He'll destroy them and give the

vineyard to another. I think christ answers in Matthew, and then he goes and he and he tells another very short parable after that, the stone the builders rejected. Okay, yes, correct, So it's before the stone that the builders rejected, right before that, like the verse before that. And you're saying that because in another gospel there could be the I mean, maybe Jesus has made this point in the past and so they're repeating. I mean,

Jesus does re emphasize and restate things. So I'm just not saying why this would necessarily be a contradiction. But what's the other what's the other text? Well, I don't it's I'd have to look it up on my phone. It might take me a second to do that, but if I just do a search for so, you're talking about the same parable in uh what, Luke, Yes, it's the same parable. It's the same it's the same context around it, like that, all the narration leading up to it

is the same. So the argument that these are two different events is a bad argument. I think. I don't know why you would make that argument other than to just try and reconcile and harmonize. There's no other evidence that I've seeing to do that. You know, it's the same parable. He asked the same question at the end. The same response is given, but in one it's Christ responding. In the other it's the Pharisees responding. I'm gonna try and pull it up here. Okay, well I'm in Luke twenty

twenty one. Okay, look twenty is the Luke's version of the mind Dressers. Yeah. Yeah, so Matthew twenty one to forty. When the Lord therefore the vineyard cometh, what will he do to those husbandmen? And they say unto him? So in Matthew they respond to Christ he will miserably destroy those wicked men, and he will let out his vineyard to other husbands, and which shall render him the fruits in their season. So that's in Matthew.

And then let's see So the it's Luke twenty Okay, I appreciate you taking a look at it, because, like I said, I haven't really gotten it. I mean, it's I'm not I've not heard this one. I mean I've heard a lot of these over the years. I'm not. This one's just not familiar to me. So I'm always willing to take a look and see. And it says, yeah, so verse let's see twenty Luke twenty thirteen the vineyards. Yeah, you can pick it up in like

fifteen. So they cast him on the vineyard and killed him. What therefore, So here's the versekin, what therefore show the Lord of the vineyard do unto them? And then christ answers, So this one, it doesn't say and they said, so mine keeps the words in red. But we'll disregard that, you know, the red lettering because that's not inspired. Right, Well, hold on, you mess me thinking of a KJV person. I don't. I don't think that the non read letters are uninspired. I don't

know where. No, I mean the the it being color coded red is something that the translators do. I'm aware that's their interpret saying that this is Christ speaking. I know, because that's that's the it has nothing to do with Yeah, but that's nothing to do with like our theology. But go ahead. Yeah, So in this one, uh, it's Christ answering his own question. You know what, Therefore, of the Lord of the vineyard, do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall

give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid. So obviously that's not them speaking that answer, that was Christ. So this is the this is the same parable. And if you look at the contact. Yeah, but like, I just don't understand why this is a big contradiction because you could have multiple people in an audience engaging in similar types of things, right, like, for example, the way that the Bible describes the death of Judas. Right, there's two aspects to the

same event. Right, He's hung, and then his body falls off of the tree and it busts open. Right. And then people say, oh, it's a contradiction in the way that the Bible gives you account of Judas's death, when it's just two different descriptions of the same event from two different angles. Right, one is the hanging, the second is the fulfillment of the prophecy when the hanging body gets bloated, pops and falls off of and

open busts open when it falls off of the tree. And so what I'm saying is that you could have Jesus describing this parable, and perhaps he's told this parable before, and different people in the audience are replying to him, and Matthew and Luke are highlighting different responses. So even this isn't necessarily a

contra addiction. So explain to me how they how they both respond with the same response of Christ respond the same event because it's a crowd of people, right, And you can have within a crowd of people, if Jesus has,

for example, made the same point many times throughout his ministry. You probably have people that have already heard this, and so you could have Jesus and people in the audience both responding like oh oh right, like a like when you're having a lecture and a lot of people are in the audience and then some people say oh, yes this and then you say yes this right.

I mean, that doesn't seem like a plausible or reasonable explanation to me because Luke is is he is writing down this account of Christ, right, But Luke's writing for it. Luke's writing for a gent audience. Matthew's writing for a Jewish audience. So what they what they emphasize will be relevant in that regard. Sure, And I mean there's other little things you know that

I don't mind, like wording differences or whatever, or emphasis different. I mean it's not a word for word the same, obviously, it's there's differences. But the problem is that that Matthew has Jesus answering his own question and then Luke sorry, yeah, but I mean this again, this is like why cannot I mean, have you ever been in a large crowd of people where you're having a loud debate and a discourse with lots of people done.

I've had it many times, right, And so if for example, you've stressed something in the past, they can the audience can shout something, and then I can also say it too. So it's in other words, it's like a false either or, like it's got to be either way. And what all I'm saying is that, I mean, why can't there be you know, the same just the same phrase being said by both Jesus and by

the Pharisees. Why does it have to be either or? Because that just seems that to me, that seems weird, like the more but it's not weird. But it's not weird if both gospel writers are emphasizing different things for different audiences, one for Jewish audience, one for a gentile audience. To me, the more plausible explanation is, so Luke was not present with well,

we don't know, we don't know that. Well, as far as we know, he went people to write his gospel, right, and I mean he's he's he's picking up these stories from the eyewitnesses or the people that he's interviewing. I mean, does he say that, does he say that at the beginning of Luke I don't recall I mean maybe that's what he says, I mean, or is it? Are you saying that's what scholars say?

That's what he says. At the beginning of acts he includes, he says, the former Triotist treaties that I've written under you, O Theopolis, you know, to take an account the things which we are are sure surely believe, and and he says that he uh, yeah, he's got introduction right, I'm reading it right here, I've got it pulled up. But I mean, this doesn't say that he wasn't there, does it. No, it doesn't say he wasn't there, but we don't. He's not mentioned

in the gospel account. So if he's there, he's he's just he's not mentioned, you know, he's not like one of the But I mean there's giant crowds of people. So yeah, so he could be there. That's that's true. But I don't see any reason to think he was there. I mean, we just did. There's no a Well, but I mean you're saying you're just saying that we know that he wasn't and I'm saying, well, say that I'm not saying that we know that he wasn't. But

I think that he's you know, he's writing his gospel. I think is the is the longest of all of them, if I remember correctly. But he's he's he's got a lot of more like detailed information about different rulers and and and kind of specific historical things because he's ready for because he's ready for

a gentle audience. Yeah. So so he's going and this is this is why the view of inspiration is like and in errancy is kind of difficult because Luke is you know, when I first became a Christian, you kind of have this idea inspiration that Luke just kind of sits down one night and it's dark and he's got a candle light and God just inspires him and he just writes the Gospel of Luke one night or in a couple of nights. But this is a project that probably took him months and months, It's not years,

you know, investigating and interviewing. Yeah, I mean this is just like, I just don't this seems like a week one to me, honestly.

I mean, I'm happy to look at this and I just don't see why it can't be focusing on different different persons saying the same phrase which again, if we're talking about let's say, let's say there's a big debate that I have in person with somebody, and let's say that a bunch of atheists show up, a bunch of people that have followed my channel for a long time in the last three or four years, and they've heard me say a lot of stuff, right, And let's say in the course of me telling

a story, I'm talking to the crowd and they shout out something that's a phrase like, let's say they say, yeah, unmute dude, and then I go exactly, unmute dude. And then two people are recording the event. One guy records and Jay replied, unmute dude, and another guy records the audience shouts, unmute dude. Are either of those accounts false? No, they're both true. Just like the Death of Judas where he hangs himself

and then his body falls and his but it busts open. Right, it's not a contradiction describing the same event at the beginning and at the end of the event. Does that make sense? Why can't Why is that not a plausible way to interpret this? I think it's it's it's well to me. It seems ad hoc like you're just saying, well, they both said it. No, I'm just saying I'm saying that that happens in the course of

the Gospels when people repeat phrases that Jesus has already said. I mean, doesn't I mean the stone the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone that comes up multiple times in the New Testament, right, yes? Yeah, So I mean, like people have heard Jesus make and say these phrases and use these arguments probably multiple times throughout his ministry. For example, like he talks about, uh, you know, the Kingdom of God will come and many

many standing here will see the Kingdom of God coming. And you know, he says that phrase a lot, right, So we wouldn't we wouldn't conclude that oh well he only said that phrase one time, and then the other times he could have never said that phrase, right, I mean, why can't. I just don't understand why you can't have one gospel writer highlighting a response from the crowd and another gospel writer highlighting Christ saying the same type of

argumentation or response like he does often. Yeah, I mean, you you I think that's the only way. I mean So I've heard two responses, and one is his response for giving now that that Jesus said it and they repeated it back to him or something, and for some reason, Matthew wrote down, you know what they repeated back and which but if you if you

look at it, so let me continue my thoughts. So Matthew decided to write rep and Luke decided to write him him responding because they had different emphasis or something, or to say that they are just two different events. And both of those explanations are not as good to me as just saying, well, Luke, when he was getting his gospel information, that's the story that he got, and it was one detail of it was wrong or it was right. And Matthew one detail that he wrote, you know, he said,

he said that this person responding and it is actually this person. I mean, my my thing is like, well, that's okay if that's if they got if Jesus didn't actually answer and it was them, and one gospel writer said it was Jesus, that's okay. I'm I'm I can live with that. I'm not gonna abandon Christianity because of that. And I think the view of the inspiration of the word of God is like being God literally speaking,

This is like, this is God God. Do you believe that, I want to say, the Bible says that what they say, No, God says this. God says this, And it's like Paul talking about it. Do you believe that the account of Judas's death is a contradiction? No, that one is no problem for me. But it's the similar it's a

similar type of thing, right. So like if if we're admitting in the case of Judas's death that one gospel writer can emphasize the body falling and busting open, and the other gospel writer can emphasize that he hung himself, Like, by your logic, it should be either or right, because just like in this case, it should be either or To me, it's more like one writer says that Judas hung himself and another writer said that somebody hung Judas.

No, it talks about his body falling, talks about his body falling and busting open. Yeah, So that's I mean, I that's fine because it's it's two very different things that you can synthesize and harm harm whereas this is it's the same event. But again, have you ever been so if you've been in an event where a lot of people are you know, I mean, Jesus the most controversial person history, Right, I'm not that controversial. But I've been to live events where people stand up and yell at you,

and they yell out, you know, things that you've said. Bryce and Gray came to a live event yelling things out. We were yelling back and forth. The crowd got involved, the other debaters got involved. So if a person was at that event recording they have, they might record emphases of and Bryson Gray was saying blah blah blah and bryceon Gray was refuted by his own arguments, right. Other persons might record that, and Jay was

replying to Bryson and blah blah blah. Right, So it's two different accounts of the same event, emphasizing different things. Again, to me, this just doesn't I would I need a harder version of a contradiction to me, this is just to me, it just seems like a week one. Honestly, I mean, is there a I mean, if we already, if you harmonize them, so then you basically have to say something along the lines of this. Christ asked this question at the end, when when the Lord

therefar for the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? And then they say, unto him, he will miserably destroy those wicked men, and let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their season right. And so imagine the situation. So at the same time Jesus says, uh, what therefore shall the Lord of the vineyard do? He'll come and destroy the husbandmen and will give the vineyard to others.

And then they give this long answer to it's just like it doesn't make any sense. It makes more sense that they're just they've got their sources and there's a little bit of a difference there, Like I don't have a problem with it, but they both can't. I mean, I don't want to say

can't, but they both don't seem to come. So what I'm saying, Yeah, but what I'm saying is that if it's not on the surface a contradiction, that we have to assume that that it can't be reconciled through emphasizing the crowd and Jesus saying the same thing, like, I mean, I've had that kind of thing happen in crowd argumentation. So like, imagine that we're imagine, let me let me give another example words maybe a little more

applicable. Right, Imagine I'm debating a bunch of Muslims and one thing I've always said is that you know, God is one and many, and the Muslims always say one one, one equal to one. Right. So imagine that I'm making fun or I'm provoking Muslims in a debate, and I say, the Muslims always say one one, one equal one, and then the Muslims reply to me, of jash so as the muslim say one one, one equal one? Right? Is it a contradiction if one person says that

the Muslim said it, another person says that I said it. No, And I understand your explaination, right, But I mean, why why can't that happen if it seems like a very common type of thing that happens in big crowd level debates. Uh, just because when I put them, when I put these two, when I put these accounts side by side, that just doesn't seem like the most reasonable explanation to me. And that's just my

preference or anything. But I think that the deeper point of this is, like if you have a Christian who is convinced that there's a contradiction all right, like like I am of one. Even though it's small and pretty insignificant, you know, it's the most significant. It's significant to me because it's

Christ speaking or not, you know. But so so that sounds like it sounds like you came from like a Protestant evangelical background, and then you have the idea that there's this sort of mechanistic view of inspiration, like you know, like they're possessed and they write the text or something like that, like

there's not a human element to it or something like that. I mean, is that your background, like Protestant Evangelical, Yes, yes, right, And and the thing is you're you're taught that like if there's if there's one error, then it's all then it's all untrue. You might as well toss it in the trash can and you know, e drink can be merry for tomorrow we die. And I just feel like that's dangerous and I think it causes people to have problems that like it almost caused me to have problems instead.

I just changed my view of inspiration. And it's not just because of this one text, but for a lot of just learning more about how the Bible was written and transmitted, and and just realizing that, you know, when you read Christ speaking in the Gospel of John, that he probably didn't say those exact words. You know, it's probably something along though as lines.

And people just say, you know, God said this, and God said that, and they're you know, reading from I don't know, ruth or you know, okay, and so what and what is your view? Now? My view is that the authors of scription. Now what what religious view do you have? Now? I'm a Baptist, so I don't know how so but you were reading about the formation and history of the Bible, and you're a Baptist. Oh yeah, I love and like secularly, but how do you if you know about the history of the Bible, then why

would you be Baptist Because that has nothing to do with being Baptists. Like the Bible? Who put the Bible together? Like who formed the cannon? Yeah? Well, actually, I mean I can't speak a lot to that. I know Catholics say that they did, you know, or whatever, But and that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. I'm talking more about you know, I've read about manuscripts and how they're discovered in Egypt in different places, and okay, and that's what what is that? What

are you talking about, Nagamadi? What do I mean? Yeah, but that's the Gno. They find codexes, they find codexes, they are like I'm aware, I know that the books that are strange. It's like Jonah and an Epistle. Yeah. I would just okay, d thank you, all right. I would say I'll look into the history of the formation of the Canon and that will raise interesting questions about the church. Idara, what's up? Aiden? Yeah? Again, must manly p. Hall's philosophy is

not coherent, and I'm happy to address that. Aiden, if you want to come back on. But I don't see you in the chat. So Adara, what's up? Yeah, I'm mute. Oh hi, I'm so sorry. I was on YouTube. I'm going to put on I'm going to put you on. I was going through the spaces. I'm going to put you on something real quick. I want to participate because I've had some really

interesting experiences. I'm someone that grew up as a Christian, but I was someone who was really curious if God really existence, just something I really always wanted to know, and I sort of believed, you know, miracles and the stuff in the Bible should happen, but I just didn't know how. I mean, it just kind of seemed like, if it says that this is possible in the Bible, should be true. But do you have an

argument about the topics or oh, the topic about which faith is? All right, I'm not trying to be rude, but so the topic was debate, right, Debating Protestantism Witholicism is on atheism, and so for people to come on, you need to have a question to debate a topic to debate. Jack? What's up? Jack? What's up? Jet? What's up? Jeck? We're going full manson on y'all. What's up Jeck? You've

got you aiden sos of dollars? Says I've calmed down. I ordered a dictionary apologize from crackhead gen Z. I am conservative black man on X. I thought you were Aiden. So Jack, do you want to speak or you just wanted to sit there for a long time? Elliott Smith? What's up? Elliott? All right? My next starting to hurt. I'll know much more. I can go, by the way, if you guys want to support FDA. You can do so by getting the link to you Lower

Coffee, an excellent Orthodox coffee brand that you see behind me. The link is in the show description. I'll also put it in the chat right here. Elliott, you want to unmute or what's up? Hey? J uh huh? Yeah? J how you doing good? You have to mute me in the background, dude, can you hear me? Okay? Yeah, I'm not in the agnostic or I've been an agnostic for most of my life, but raised Christian, kind of leaning back towards Christianity and Deism. But

I'm trying to figure out the Orthodox perspective on creationism. And I know you're a creationist, I guess, But I'm trying to understand why is that critical to Orthodox like faith to accept the interpretation of genesis of creation because it ties into christology and the doctrine of Christ and what Christ did as the second atom. So Christ can't be like a second evolutionary atom. He's got to be

the same atom as Adam. Okay, but why can't? So? Why why why can't you accept like a sort of like a what do you call it? I mean, there's other reasons as well. Like death is unnatural. It's not a natural thing. For Orthodoxy, it's unnatural. In Roman's eight, all of creation is subjected to bondage, and so Christ's recapitulation would be undone if if Christ isn't the second atom, if he doesn't recapitulate all

reality like Adam did. Okay, so intelligent design would not work like like God sort of starting the evolutionary process in motion that resulted in death is a result of the fall. It's not a thing that exists for AONs to produce Adam and Eve. Death is the result of the fall. So there would be no death without the fall. So it's not a thing that exists for AONs to produce Adam and Eve. Okay, So like all animals would would

not die, there's no death before Adam and Eve. Therefore, death as a process of evolution cannot be the thing that exists for AONs to produce Adam and Eve. Okay, Okay, Okay, I get it, I get it. Okay. So then I guess I don't want to get into a huge scientific debby well, I mean, let let's just we can do like the philosophy of science debate, because I mean I'm not trying to be mean

to you. I'm just saying, like, most of the time, people that argue this stuff can never tell me why I'm supposed to believe in their theory of science. Well, I mean there's a there's a scientific process. You accept that that you accept the scientific process, right, Yeah, I know, I'm asked about the philosophy of science. Okay, Well, I don't know if I'm equipped to debate the philosophy of science, but I guess I'd just like to understand, like, how do you reject modern science?

Is like contention that the Earth is like four and a half billion years old based on radiometric dating, and because of that, all of that is based on presubsitions baked into the measurements themselves, and that people making these claims are going outside of the balands of what can be known from observation and making gigantic metaphysical leaps and telling me gigantic stories about the origins of the universe, which is not justified on the basis of a lot of times physics things that are

occurring that can be explained on both models. So a creationist and an evolutionary theorist or a big bang theorist or whatever. They can both have equally accurate descriptions of various phenomenon, So the phenomenon themselves are not going to tell us the gigantic age variations and differences. So that's when I say, how does empirical observation tell me O preori all of these gigantic descriptions of AONs of time?

And the people that I asked that question to can never even tell me about their epistemic theory to begin with, or why I should believe in empiricism. So for me, none of it philosophically gets off the ground because they don't even realize they're assuming all these metaphysical things and all these all of these things that go way outside the bounds of what empirical sense data can actually verify. Okay, so you're saying the scientific process itself is not undergirded by like

a proper philosophical basis. Yeah, I'm saying that most of the time, the average biologist or life science guy or a physicist. I'm trying to think of the people that I've had debates with from the science realm neurobiologists, neuroscientists, like they don't know anything about philosophy. And I'm not saying that makes my position true. I'm just saying that when I start asking them questions about

the scientific method, I think they can't justify the method. But the method is supposed to be the thing that, in their view confirms this idea of gigantic metaphysical truths. So how are we going to get back to metaphysical truths when modern scientists is premised on rejecting metaphysics. Well, I don't think. I don't think figuring out how old the Earth is a giant metaphysical question. It's just well, there you go. So there you just you just demonstrated

my point that science eve men have no idea what metaphysics is. They even realize that absolutely that's a gigantic metaphysical question. Of course it does well, it has, It has gigantic metaphysical consequences. But the science itself is when someone's conducting a scientific experiment or analyzing data, or looking at rheiometric evolution, you know, processes igneous rock. Okay, what do you think? What

do you think metaphysics is? What? I can't give you a definition of metaphysics, but a whole lot so you don't you know that science isn't making metaphysical claims? But you don't know what metaphysics is? No, I think that has metaphysical consequences. I don't think. I don't think a scientist has to be a philosopher, I mean a grand philosopher of metaphysics. Right.

A scientist can just be doing scientist a scientific experience experiments. Yeah, but that misses the whole point that I've just been making that you don't realize when you're going outside the balands of what the tool of the scientific method can tell you and what it can do, and you end up making these gigantic metaphysical claims. And that's the thing I'm calling into question. And then when I ask you what that is, you tell me you don't know what that is.

Well, I mean, just just to get it back to basics. Wait a minute, so yeah, let's back to basics. So how do you know that they're not making metaphysical claims if you don't know what metaphysics is. I I don't know that they're I No, I don't know that they're making metaphysical claims. You're right, But I know that they're making scientific claims, right, so you're you're just you're trying to poke holes in the scientific

process. By no, you totally misunderstood what I said. I just said, the scientific process is a tool for uh doing certain things studying the natural world. It can't give you the things they want to make it do. That's what I said. So I absolutely believe that I did not. I never questioned the scientific method. Okay, so just a basic question. So

why why does radiometric dating why cannot why cannot give you? Cannot give you evidence of the age of the Earth in millions of years or billions of years because the methodology already has in the system baked into it the long eons of billions of year date. It presupposed. This is the thing that I'm questioning. That's why I said both models. Are you familiar? Hold on, are you familiar with what's called the underdetermination of data problem? Vaguely? I

mean, I think I get what you're going What is it? Vaguely underdetermination of data? You're saying that you're drawing a conclusion from the data. They cannot be drawn, is what you're saying. Right, No, it's a problem in pistemology where certain theories can be accurately and sufficiently explained by different models, and so piling up more evidences or more data, for example, is

not immediately going to tell you which paradigm can explain the same data. So it's a famous problem in epistemology where it's a way to demonstrate or show that just having more data isn't going to tell you the paradigm of the data. And so that's why it doesn't work to say, yeah, but I can give you more and more examples of data which proves the age of the day, which is at the age of the earth, which is based on the

thing that's in question. So what I'm saying is that so like radiometric dating or the similarities between like the uh, you know, percentage of DNA that's shared between apes and man, both the creationists and the evolutionists model both have both have explanatory models of the data the same data. So it's what I'm saying is that data doesn't solve the underdetermination of data problem. Okay, but what about when different strains of science, different disciplines of science match the same

theory, In other words, they they corroborate the theory. Well that I mean that depends on the theory of questions. Well, it depends on what's in question. So but that isn't going to to tell you the metaphysical claims. That's what I'm trying to say. It's it's never going to get you

there. Yeah, I mean I understand that if you have different disciplines of science and they all point to the Earth being four point five billion years old, that could be biogeography, it could be play tectonic, it could be yeah, but those models all assume the models already assume the thing in question, right, That's what I'm pointing out. So your just point because all of the people producing those papers and those models already believe in the long date

thesis. And I'm saying, so you're I mean, I agree with this theory, like when it comes to climate change, but I have a harder time connecting. Wait a minute, Oh, so the system only lies about climate change? Does it lie about gender studies or not? Is that like, because I do meet a bunch of doctors that tell me that I can be a woman, I think it definitely lies about that too. Oh okay, but they don't lie about anything else, Is that right? No?

I mean I'm I'm I'm open to the possibility that, But I mean, are you suggesting that it's it's almost like an unspoken conspiracy about all these disciplines of science that are I'm saying that they make them the same mistake that you make, which is to think that looking at a piece of data like a rock or geologic structures itself a priori gives you an AONs timeline of date when the same model of a creationist model can accurately and sufficiently explain that as well.

So in other words, we're looking at let's say, strata of I don't know, like in the Grand Canyon or something, and we see these different layers of dirt and whatnot, and one model says, oh, the only way that this could have been produced is over AONs of time, And I say, well, but wait a minute. There was a thing that opened up in South Dakota overnight and it's basically a mini Grand Canyon that happened

like that, So how do I know? So in other words, I might look at the thing that opened up overnight in Montana whenever I can show you the article, and I might look at the structure and the layers there and say, oh, the only way this canyon could have formed is clearly by you know, one hundred million years, there's no other way to explain it. Or one other example, the fly geyser. Why this, you know, stalactite, stalagmite structures like this, these calcium deposits, they can

only form in you know, ten million years. That's how long it takes for it to build up, when everybody knows the fly geys are built up over forty years. So what I'm saying is that the models themselves are going to reinterpret the data that's in front of us to fit the model. So every time you tell me that, well there's another science team that says that it takes a zillion years for the light from Zaeta reticuli to get to Earth.

Well, God can create a universe where the light is already present from Zeta reticuli. It didn't spin spin off from a single big bang that took a billion years to get here, right, You see, both models can accurately sufficiently interpret data, and so more and more data, which is what you're talking about when you tell me that you can pile up science papers and science men, more and more data is never going to get you to proving

the model that interprets the data. That's why philosophy of science is prior to doing science. Sure, but I think empirical science can also build models. Right, you can go again. No, so you just showed that you don't know what you're talking about right there. Now, I'm trying to be mean to you. But by definition, empirical science cannot build you a model because models deal with prior to science, things like epistemology and metaphysics. So

maybe we mean different things about models there. I'm talking about world views. Yes, yes, we do, we do. Yeah, Okay, I know, I get what you're saying. So how far are you on to go with this? I mean the Biblical the Biblical story of creation, and so is your I'll tell you what how about it? Well, you tell me what the model is, right? So what am I supposed I'm supposed to believe in? What empirical science? How does empirical science tell me?

First of all, what happened uh on Earth one billion or one hundred million years ago? I mean I could go with I mean you want me to go into science, I mean it would be through the geologic record, But that's not empirical data of what happened eleven millionaire years ago. That's an interpretation of of evidence. Yet, well, it's an interpretation of objects, rocks, layers of strata, right, Yeah, and where where when you look when you look at that strata or that rock, where does any of that

tell you a date? It tells you a date based on the ratio. So now that's interpretation. So that's my point. The empirical evidence in front of you does not tell you anything like that. You interpret the evidence according to the paradigm. And the question is, how do you know you have the right paradigm? Maybe you do, but how do you know that? Okay, So what you're telling me is that we need scientists that accept the view that the Earth is about ten thousand years old. Then they need to

start doing science based on that paradigm and they will figure it out. They will figure out that the rocks are really not that old. No, I've just been giving you classic arguments and examples from philosophy of science about how philosophy is prior to the doing of science. But everybody does science doesn't recognize this

and doesn't know what I'm talking about or what philosophers are talking about. They think they're just playing word games or something when they're asking real questions about the things that are underlie the scientific method. How what makes the scientific method possible? That's the things I'm talking about, and those things I find that that's fascinating. Okay, but guess what. Those things are not in the purview of the scientific method, so they can never get you to that. But

did science just go off the rails? Then? I mean, what happened? Why have all these disciplines of science go on off the rails and taken on this erroneous theory. I already explained earlier that science and scientists typically don't know anything about philosophy, and so they don't know when they're talking about metaphysical claims that go outside the bounds of the limits of their system and their science.

But you're suggesting that there's a boundary that they shall not cross. If the science takes them somewhere they crosses a metaphysical boundary, they should not cross that boundary. But that's now I'm saying that they need to give an account for what they're talking about if they cross the boundary, and that they're not. They're subject to their own limitations. But they don't even realize that because

they don't know what they're doing when they do it. So it has nothing to do with all of scientists in the world going off course and buying into some grand conspiracy. It's more so that people adopted worldviews that became popular, normative and were pushed down from the top from Oxford, Cambridge places like that, the Royal Society. They have pushed this material Empiris's paradigm, which probably ninety five percent of the West believes, and it's a non sense sense,

gibberish paradigm which if they understood it would actually make science itself impossible. That has nothing to do with whether those people do science. So they can do science all day long, and they can come to true conclusions, they can discover things in engineering and mathematics and whatever. That doesn't mean that they can give an account for or justify their system, their claims, their beliefs, or the metaphysics that underlie it. That's what I'm saying. Okay, that's

fair. Can you just tell me real quick then, under your view, the Earth was created around seven thousand to ten thousand years ago, is that right? Sure? And was the whole universe created that moment with the stars and the Yeah, I mean that's have you not read Genesis? Yeah? Okay, So and the solar system as do you accept the conventional solar system too? What do you mean by the conventional solar system? I mean obviously like heliocentric model, except I don't have any I don't have any hard set

view on any of that. Okay, So do you believe in I mean you accept do you accept space travel and like Mars and Elon Musk and all that stuff? Uh? I don't believe that we're we're gonna fly to Mars? No, okay, but exist you believe that Mars exists and that it is rotating around the Sun of course Mars? Like why would I not believe

Mars exists? Okay, no, no, no, no no. I was just trying to I was just trying to understand that after your worldview on on the nature of like the Earth and the Sultan and all that stuff. I mean, I I don't claim to be a physicist or any of those things, and I don't have to be a physicist to ask questions to people

who make grandiose claims. Right, So a lot of times. For example, people in the science sphere will say things like, you know, outrageous wild you know, claims require outrageous wild evidences, and so I just hold them to the same standard. And I say, you want me to believe that something came out of nothing and that you know, various species who don't even have within their DNA the ability to be another species produce other species because

there was a mutation. So to me, that's a giant non sequitor leap that underlies a lot of these kind of ridiculous pagan myths. I mean, to me, the idea that something comes out of nothing and that one species mutates into it transmutates into another species, to me, that's a fairytale stuff. So so what about microevolution? Uh, yeah, I don't have a problem with that. I mean, that's just adaptation. We observe that. Has anybody ever observed macro transmutation? No, No, they haven't, doesn't

exist, they haven't. Well, I mean, yeah, there's got Oh but wait a minute, I thought you were an empiricist. So where's the empirical observation of this? You don't do metaphysics because that goes up. No, where's the empirical of macro transmutations that you said. I mean, I'm not I'm not a hardcore evolutionist in terms of human evolution, but I just have a hard time buying into buying into the genesis story. That's all so

well. I have a hard time buying into the conflicting, contradicting narratives of atheist retards who can't make sense of basic metaphysical claim. So I'll believe your science when you're telling me the philosophy behind the science understood. Can I ask you in their question? What is like in the garden of Eden? So when when God created like all the animals and all the humans and amnies, what you you believe that there was no predatory behavior between the animals like it

didn't correct. The orthodox view is that the functioning of the natural world prior to the Fall was much different than it is now. So it's a very metaphysically different world when Eden was there versus the modus operandi post fall. So we didn't have, you know, biologically engineered bodies to you know, try to chew meat like I wouldn't need incisors. The bodies were very different, and that's different than most you know, Western theology of the fall and all

that. So Orthodoxy is a much more cosmic, metaphysical account of the fall and its cosmic scope than what you typically find in Protestantism and run Catholicism. So they don't they don't accept that view. They believe that animals were predatory. Who Catholics. Most Catholics believe in evolution post humani arrests or whatever plies the twelfth. Okay, So so what you're saying is so we would have

had microevolution after after creation to become carnivorous. Yeah, I think all predatorial components and the I mean the very makeup of our bodies to you know, take in nutrients from meat, fats, and our guts, all all of that is post fall configuring so to speak. Okay, and do all Orthodox churches and priests accept this? Do they do? They preach this? No?

But I mean what that doesn't really have anything to do with whether it's trure false because you can read Father sid from Rose book Genesis Creation Early Man, and I mean I'm holding to the traditional view. Okay, okay, So what are you a minority? Is that a minority view or is that the majority view amongst priests or the doc. Yeah, amongst Orthodox priests, I don't even know. I don't even know that. There's probably never been

a survey of most. I would say probably most, like American Orthodox priests probably favor something like theistic evolution. But I have no idea what the percentages would be they favorite. Wait, which one do they favor? They would probably favorite theistic evolution because they're taught in Western universities. Okay, okay, I missed. I missed the earlier part of the show. What were the recommended books on creationist science stuff? Well, the NST Supercreation Research has a

lot of good stuff. Like doctor Jason Lyle, his books cover a lot of probably what you would be interested in. But again, I'm not a scientist, so I don't I don't claim to. I mean, people give science this sort of like authority in this power that they don't even really realize is like the emperors wearing no clothes, and they think that. I'm like, I'm not anti science. I'm just pointing out that what you think is

science is actually just a lot of metaphysics and alternative storytelling. And I would say, you know, real hard science is stuff like engineering, like people using principles to build you know, computers, and you know the outrageous algorithms that go into making this you know, Apple computer. That to me, that's real science. But people that you know speculate about what happened eleven million years ago and what what the monkey was doing when it was fighting with the

you know snake in the tree eleven million years that's just all bullshit. D that's made up stories that I'm supposed to believe. And if they can give me an account of the basic principles they are using to make these assessments, then I'll listen to them. But nine and a half percent of them can't. So why should I listen to people who can't give an account for their methodology? Isn't that, by the way, kind of being a scientist.

I mean, I'm doing the science of investigating your methodology whether it's solid or not. But isn't it funny that most of these people don't want to be questioned on their philosophy of methodology? Well, it's not that funny because they're not philosophers, right, they're not equipment. Oh so they have assumptions that they're working on, and they think that they're doing something and when I call it doing a question, they'd rather not answer those questions. Sure, I

mean they probably don't. They probably don't have a lot of time or inclination to study well. And they don't even realize that they're doing metaphysics when they're doing science. Well, they don't realize that. They wouldn't. I don't think they would accept that interpretation. But I mean, I get what you're saying. I mean you're saying you didn't know what metaphysics was. So how are you going to say that's wrong? I mean, give you a definition

of metaphysics real quick. Well, but wait a minute, you've been saying that they don't do it. I mean, metaphysics is what the philosophy of knowledge? Is that what you would call it? No, So you just basically showed you have no idea what this is about. Epistemology of that's philosophy of knowledge. Metaphysics is not. The is not epistemology, two different disciplines. So anyway, I'm not gonna be I'm not trying to be rude to

you. I appreciate your questions. We're just gonna we're gonna move on. I've covered that many many times for many many years. You can go buy my philosophy course if you want my free lectures, but they're all all all that's free free as well. Anyway, I can't do anymore. This is I'm super super tired. Thank you guys so much for a wild night.

I couldn't stop. It was just so wild right, But if you want to support my channel, you can go to the shop at JAS Analysis and get my big fat red Book. I have some of my philosophical critiques of evolution in the red Book. You can also get my Hollywood books there as well, like esoteric Hollywood want