Mystery Babylon: Ecumenism, Public Education & Intrigue - Jay Dyer

And what we've got to do is get rid of all these judaic ideas of ceremonies and calendars and going to some actual building and having some sort of baptism or whatever. All that needs to be wiped away. And he thought the basic way to do that would be to cut up the Old Testament and figure out that, oh, actually, none of this is really from a deity. It's actually a combination of different traditions. And you have what's called the it's called the school that has this idea of

the documentary hypothesis. And this is where you get the idea of J. E. P. D. The Yahwist tradition, the Ylowist tradition, the priestly tradition, and the deuteronomous tradition. And so anytime you do any textual studies, you'll come across all of this, and the idea is that, oh, well, well, so what is it? All right, So if it's not

from God, what is it? Well, it looks like there's all these different traditions J. E. P. D. Right, there's the Yahaist tradition, and these are the guys who at some point in the Old Testament were writing Genesis or whatever. They were using the term yahweh. Then there's this other group of people. They were the Elohists, and they were

using the term eloheen. And then there was the priestly cast and they were using the priestly ideas, and they interjected the levites and the temple and the ceremonials, and so it's basically just a big hodgepodge of garbage according to Vellhausen. And so what he thought needed to be happening, needed to happen was purge all that Old Testament jump in his mind, and then you get based the simple

message in the New Testament in Jesus. And in theological terms, this is really just a rehashing of the gnostic theology of the Early Church, where you had various teachers like Valentinus and other Gnostics who taught that that the Old Testament texts were from an evil God and that was a source of all problems. And really we just need the simple inner message of Jesus. Now. So that's a long winded thing, but it's important because this is where

we're going to get to ecumenism. So I should add as well that Martin Luther is important in this because he wrote a famous treatise called against the Jews in their Lives, and this would be very influential in German movements of anti Semitism of the time of World War Two. It would kind of have a rebirth, not castigating Germans, not saying that the Jews and Zionists are good, just trying to state what was going on. So Luther also of course shared a hatred for the law for Judaism ceremonies.

There's numerous statements in Luther's writings where he speaks explicitly this way. He says such things such as, I wish I could punch Moses' teeth out, you know. He says that everything in the in the Old Testament is you know, worthy of the trash man literally, and so This is where we get in Lutheran theology, the idea of the radical dichotomy of law and gospel. Right, So Luther had this idea that you go through the Bible and you read some textas law, toss that it out, read some

Texas Gospel thumbs up. That's good. And so this idea of everything judaic, so so called needing to be purged, actually kind of has a precedent in Luther, and then it filters down to Bellhausen. And with Bellhausen and the documentary hypothesis, you have this idea that the entire Bible

could be remodeled, cut up, chopped up. Now fast forward about one hundred years and the turn of the century you have the extension of that which was, hey, wait a minute, the documentary hypothesis is not just good enough. We actually need the Jesus quest. And so the Jesus quest is this idea that we need to get to the real sources of Jesus. And said they said, well, the New Testaments the exact same way. It's all from a bunch of different sources. It's a munch of gobblygoog

It doesn't mean anything. It's just a reflection of the Jewish Messianism and millennialism of the first century, and so it has a whole bunch of competing contradictory sources. And these would be things like the enigmatic queue that you'll learn about in textual studies. And there is no such thing as que. It's very much like Darwinism. It's just

a hypothesized source for something like the Gospel of Mark. Now, curious side note, in textuals this is actually no longer even adhere to the cutting edged so called progressive academia. If you go to places like Yale University, you can clind lectures of the debunking of Q. All right, but the Q was actually very popular for many years as a supposed source of various sections of the New Testament. So,

as we see, this is always in progress. There's not any real consistency, and you'll still find scholars citing Queue, even though the cutting edge liberal scholars no longer adhere to it. So it's another one of these things like Darwinism, where it's all in the scientific realm of academia, and it's just kind of trends, is really all it is.

It's just waves of trends that come and go, and just like with Darlinism, when you get into looking at textual studies, you'll find out how much of this actually

has absolutely no basis whatsoever. All are at some point who came up with an idea, came up with a theory, somebody probably put monetary backing behind it, some banking interests that like that, and the idea goes the viral, I guess you could say, and then all the universities then promote the documentary hypothesis or Q or whatever, and everybody just oh, yeah, well, that's just true. We know that's true.

And however, I guarantee you ninety five percent of the people who will talk or have been influenced by these theories have not actually done much textual research. They went to some seminary or university that was infected with this idea and they believe it because they were told it without having actually looked into the problems with it or evidence to the contrary. So how do we get to

acumunism from all this modernism? Well, so modernism in the realm of religion and theology in church is an outworking I would say of this ideology, this ideology of higher critics, because it says, hey, you are foundational documents that you believe in this religion. They're not true. So it's time to update, buddy, get with the times. Look, we've got Darwinism now, and all the higher critics, I should add, we're very much influenced by process philosophy, process theology. I

mentioned Schleiermacher earlier. That's processed theology and manual kant right and empiricism. And so you can see how as we get into the time of the Jesus Quest, now we're getting you know, post Darwin. Oh, everything is subject to change, and so certainly documents must be subject to change because they don't have any divine source. They must simply have some human source, just some guy running them down the

sociological interpretation of religion or whatever anthropological interpretation. So the texts are merely you know, human symbols and allegories. They don't have any real meaning. And so therefore your churches have to be updated. You've got to get with the times. And this is really what you see promoted at the time of modernism. And I can even tell you, you know, the different responses and theologians in the different churches who

are promoting this. So you have and for example, in Presbyterianism in the US, you have this is a big controversy I think in the nineteen twenties with what's called the pc USA and it is thornwell foreign, I forget things. That guy's name. We've talked about him before in regards to Riverside Church, which is the Rockefeller Church, and they had a pc USA minister, Charles Henry Thorn whatever the guy's I know that the guy's name always escapes me.

But he was all in that's it, that's it. Yeah, he was all into the and Jefferson Masonry and all you know, this is the church that has the statue of Moses next to Darawan, next to Thomas Jefferson, and it is so you have this. I believe on the front of the Century nineteen oh four or five some

sort of international congress or religions of some sort. And I don't think yet that the Rockefellers were intimately involved in this, but this was people who had a lot of Hindu ideology, and Hinduism is very syncretistic, and they thought, what we need to do is kind of move Western religions into the direction of Eastern thought.

and all of those things. Interestingly in us, all of those ideas which still today proliferates through Christianity, most of those ideas actually come from theosophy. There were a lot of a lot of the evangelicals in the beginning were into theosophy.

it's no longer about the book. It's no longer about what's in you know, New Testament or Old Testament. It's now about your direct experience. And this experience is not it doesn't necessarily have any consistent content. It could just simply be you know, your emotional hype, your reactions to the music, you know, and with the drum and the bass and all that, and the band playing and you know, flopping around in the aisles. Anything is a legitimate potential

experience of the quote spirit. So this existential phenomena or this this existential emotional experience is what takes over from any of the older notions, be it Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or whatever of that. You know, believing what's in the text, going to a building and worshiping in a certain liturgical fashion or whatever. It's now about ecstatic experience in emotionalism,

I would say. And so you're absolutely right. So the charismatic movement would be very influential in spreading a humanism precisely because it's all about a individual subjective experience. The charismaticism also has its origins in Pietistic movement, which comes out of the Reformation. As I mentioned earlier and with

a Kant, for example, was raised as a Pietist. His mother was a Pietistic German Protestant, and Pietism thought that it was a count of reaction to what's called Protestant scholasticism. So at the time of the Reformation, you had the reformers, and then you had the Roman Catholic response with the counter Reformation, and then you had as a response on the part of the Protestants what's called the Protestant scholasticism.

And so this would be like Francis Turitan or Philip Melancthon Luther's body, and what they would do is try to offer a you know, extended academic scholastic response, you know, to their opponent, much like medieval scholastics of Thomas Aquinas or somebody like that. A response to that arid, dry, technical,

abstruse perspective is Pietism. And this flourished mainly in Germany, and its Pietism that would come to influence the Anabaptist so that when you talk about Baptists Baptists actually descend from the Anabaptists, who are connected to the Pietists. So that's why we have these different movements today. They kind of trace back through these different ideologies. But you're absolutely right. Modernism is intimately connected with the early charismatic and new

thought movements. I should add real quick as well, there was a controversy in American Christianity with New Light and Old Light Presbyterian And now this goes back to like John Edwards and Princeton, the founding of Princeton University and so forth, where you had these old stuffy Calvinists, and then you have these other Calvinists who at the behest of the preaching sinners in the hands of an angry God.

By Jonathan Edwards, people started having these charismatic experiences, like Jonathan Edwards would preach about how bad hell was, and people started flopping around and crying and freaking out right. And so the idea was, oh, this is a you know, this is a revival, this is a movement of the spirit. Contrary to that, you had other Presbyterians who were the old line Presbyterians who were saying, no, no, no, you can't have that. This is we believe in predestination, election, Calvinism,

et cetera. You can't have these these manifestations like this emotionalism and whatnot. This is not of God, it's of the devil. And so you had this split in Presbyterianism at that time. And out of this, if I recall, out of this new Presbyterian movement would become American Revivalism.

So American revivalism also plays into this where you have Methodists and Baptists and different preachers who would were part of the Western expansion movement, and they would there were circuit preachers, and you would have like a Methodist guy who would get on his horse and he would ride out to the westward moving you know, families and so

forth who probably didn't have a minister. And so the minister would come maybe once a month that he would come and preach his healthfire sermon and that he wouldn't ride his horse aw to the next colony or whatever. And this is also influential in American revivalism. And so revivalism is very important for charismaticism and also very important

for ultimately accumenism. So you're on the right track, I would say, John, and so all of these movements collide, but they're also very useful from the perspective of social engineering. And I would cite as perfect proof of that the Berkeley lecture of Aldus Suxley. In that talk, Aldus actually says, you know what we're going to do in the future

when we social engineer everybody. He says, we're actually going to borrow the techniques of the revivalist preachers and the fear tactics of someone like Jonathan Edwards and Methodist preachers and so forth John Wesley, and we're going to actually use those fear and terror tech techniques of the pastor

in the government. And so what Huxley is telling you there is that the war on terror is pretty much like you know, Jesse duplanis or Benny hen banging his banging his fist up on the podium right and telling you you're going to help. So just an interesting side note there if you look up the Huxley lecture. But yeah, so modernism has all an influence from all those strands in the Roman Catholic communion. If this is a very fascinating story too, because I know that you guys would

probably have the perspective that Rome was always controlled. I don't take that view, having experienced Catholicism for a good time, I think that Rome had a lot of power, temporal power especially, and wanted to maintain it. And if you look at, for example, the history of the Republic of Italy, you'll have periods where Pious the Ninth, who actually shared a lot of the Masonic and socialist and republican ideals as a youth, as he when he became the pope.

This is like eighteen nineties or so, eighteen eighties and nineties, the revolution turned on him and the Pope was actually walled up in the Vatican, scared to come out because the revolutionaries were going to behead them or something. This is what resulted in the calling of the Vatican One,

where there was papal and fallibility. Anyway, a little bit prior to this, or excuse me, a little bit after this, was a pope by the name of Leo the thirteenth, and Leo the thirteenth heard about the movements of Masonry in different countries to not just get rid of monarchs and to establish republics, but also to get rid of the Church. And so I do think that there was a real historical battle between Masonry and Roman Catholicism and

ultimately most Christian and mainline churches. And so in each of the different churches that the battle plays out differently. But in Roman Catholicism you have kind of an outright battle with French Revolution and so forth, and you have a whole string of people and cyclicals issued against Masonry. And I would argue that it is mainly through the Jesuits that the free Masonic ideals really gained sway and

power in the Roman Catholic Church. And that is why the Jesuits would be instrumental in liberation theology with Marxist ties and so forth. And Marxism of course has ties ultimately to Freemasonry and Illuminism, and so the Jesuits pioneer not just a liberation theology, but also a kind of a rival to the papacy. And this is why when you look at the history of the relationship of the papacy to the heads of the Jesuit order, you will

find a back and forth swing of power. I'm not saying that that makes all the Postes good and all the Jesuits bad. I'm just saying that this is, you know, what I get from church history as I've researched it. So there'll be times where where the Jesuits were suppressed, and there'll be times where they were hailed as you know, heroes of the church, and so forth. You would have traditions saying that, you know, Jesuits can't be pope, and

so forth and so on. And so what Leo the thirteenth discovered was that there was a Masonic plot to no longer destroy the papacy, but actually to use it. And this is a famous document called the ultav Indita. Now, certainly people would debate the authenticity of the altave Indeta lodge and so forth. It's plans inasmuch as it promised, it proposed the idea to co opt the papacy, not destroy it, and to use it to bring in a

new religion, a new world religion in fact. And you can actually read the altave Indiza documents on a book on that by John Venari, I believe, And then you can also read Leo wrote a famous and cyclical called Humanum and Janus about masonry. So I believe that that was a real war, and there were different factions, and there's always been different factions in the papacy and the

cardinals and so forth. And I would say that by the twentieth century you have pretty much a complete victory of the New Old Order Masonic power over the papacy, and that came to the flowering at Vatican two. Vatican two is going to be very important for this because that is a humanism in the Roman Church having its complete victory. Now, so I'm moving up a little bit.

By the time that Ntedict the fourteenth i believe, or fifteenth one of the two, you have a beginning of a crack in the papal perspective on Acumenism and the Western globalist so to speak. Prior to this they've been very critical of it. And Benedict the fifteenth, whichever guy is, the time of World War One in the League of Nations, he says, oh, you know what, maybe the League of Nations is a good thing. So prior to this, the papacy have been very critical of Americanism and American policies

and Western democratic policies generally speaking. Now they started to crack on it. Then you have a belief. His successor was Pious the eleventh, who wrote a famous and cyclical called Mortalium animal and in this document he addresses the ecumenical movement explicitly. This is around nineteen twenty eight or so, and he says that this is a complete destruction of the Christian religion. So it's starting to make it it's

starting to make its encroachment into Roman Catholicism. Even in the twenties, you had a famous document by previous pope I should have mentioned called Pachindi Dominici gregis of Pious the tenth, and this is a famous and cyclical that addresses modernism in total and there he calls it the complete destruction of the Christian religion as well. Or the reason Pius the tenth is relevant is that for Roman Catholics he's one of the last popes to be declared

a saint. So the in cyclical of Pius the tenth would be considered, you know, to have a special authority for Roman Catholics. This is all abandoned by the time of John the twenty third, Right, Pius the twelve, this is like in the forties and fifties is generally believed to be kind of the last quasi traditional pope. John the twenty third comes along and he writes a famous and cyclical called pacham in Terras, which is about the

relationship of the world and economics to the Church. And it's the first paper and cyclical to kind of call for a global government. So this is sixties. And then you have the calling of Vatican Two, which would be hugely influential for the whole the Catholic world. And there a Vatican Two, you have the blessing of the ecumenical movement. You have the complete reversal of what had been said even back in the twenties and thirties, complete reversal. Two. Yes,

now it's good. Now the un is good. We have to follow the dictates of the UN. It's all good. Ecumenism is good, etcetera, etcetera. So that's kind of a brief my perspective on the Roman Catholic Communion in the last one hundred years and what happened with them. Thing happened in the Greek Orthodox Church. You have in the Orthodox world as a whole, Greek Orthodoxy surrenders, begins to surrender because they have an actual Masonic patriarch in Greece

by the name of Malicius. Milicius Metaxas Metaxakis, excuse me. It was the patriarch of Constantinople, a Greek guy from nineteen twenty one to twenty three, and he was openly a member of a Mosonic lodge. He was a member of the Harmonia Lodge in the Grand Lodge of Greece, and the Grand Lodge of Greece's own website cites him as a member. So this is not a conspiracy theory.

Now why is this relevant. Well, one thing that he did was begin this process that would become a kind of a controversy in the Orthodox world of changing the calendar. Now that might not sound like a big deal, but for a person who has a Catholic or an Orthodox perspective, you know, the day that you celebrate Easter and stuff

like that is important to you. So the idea of a complete change in these things is could be very upsetting, especially to you know, kind of the more simple believers of you know, your mom and your pop types who don't really care about theology, but they're used to you know, oh, we have Easter this way. It's always been that way when I was a kid. You know, this is how it is.

about change economically. It's changed all over the entire spectrum at this particular time in history, in the early part of the twentieth century. The twentieth century is the century of change, absolutely so. And so that's what you're getting here, is you're seeing a fundamental change. It's an interesting thing too, because as you see these fundamental changes in people belief systems, it is a very subtle change in the belief systems, and it's changes where people are not even being made

aware of that. There's changes going on where it's where your pastor is saying something one day and then the next day he's saying Oh yes, I think a global government is a good thing, and it's kind of like something that just passes like a fart in church.

same Darwinian view of process and change. Nothing is true, nothing remains because everything is subject to the ultimate principles of Darwin and they all say that like explicitly. And

so this spills into religion as well. And the reason I mentioned the calendar is not to bring up some boring point, but The reason that the Orthodox started changing their calendar was because they wanted to be in line with the pope, which historically, if you don't know that, the Eastern Orthodox Church disagrees with the idea of people and fallibility, so they're two different churches. But there was this movement called Acumenism, which said, hey, why don't we

just get together, Let's put aside the differences nothing. And it might think, well, well, who cares about a calendar, Well, the calendar itself may not be an issue of salvation, but that's not the point. The point is that the ideology of change was such that it was moving everything into a convergence, not based on truth or falsity, but on social engineering. And that's really what it's about. Because the patriarchs that we want to be back with Rome,

forget the theology. Let's just do whatever it takes to merge everyone. And this is what happened at Vatican two in the Roman Catholic Church, where they did the exact same thing. They said, let's all adopt a new calendar, let's forget the differences, let's all come together, which sounds all nice and warm and fuzzy, but that's not what it's about it's not about being nice and wrmon fuzzy. This is all at the behest of monetary elites who

are putting the funding behind all of this. Right, So, you have the World Council of Churches established by the Rockefellers National Council Churches in the US, and this is these groups all receive money from the same sources, all the usual suspects carnegiese, Rockefellers, Morgan, et cetera, et cetera. And this is really their means by which they're going to steer the religious sector of society. And it's all one hundred percent documented. It's in the Rockefeller's biography by

Collier and Horowitz, which is all authorized. David Rockefeller talks about it openly. And it's not just the Rock Dollers. And there's a lot of interests involved in this, the Pentagon on the government, you know, they're interested in having their agents in place in different churches. But so yeah, so all of the strands that we've mentioned, I think it all come together to produce the idea of a super religion, a super megalithic New World religion. And that's

one hunder true. And you have plenty of writers in every different tradition talking about it and warning about it. So you know, I could give you a list of twenty books on that as well. An interesting topic too that proves this is again one of the usual suspects. Altu Suxley wrote a whole book on this and it's

called the Perennial Philosophy. So you could actually class obviously kind of in the tradition of traditionalism as it's called, or perennialism, and this would be people like a rennagan On, Alexander Dugan, Rama, Kumar Slami and so forth. And this is the idea of blending all the religions together. And so that's what Huxley says in the book print a Philosophy, says the new world religion will be all religions blended together,

and that's where we need to go. And he also explicitly says that what has to be gotten rid of is the idea of distinctions of differences. That you have your tradition that you that you can carry on, and all that's going to be done away with, he says, so that all individuals can meld into the absolute. And this is what we see the UN promoting. That's why he was, you know, foundational in Unesco and his family.

This is why the Rockefellers are promoting, I mean, excuse of the rum Catholic Church begins promoting the UN after formerly saying it was evil. Right, So so there you go. I mean that I apologize for being so long winded there.

of this big, huge subjects here. But Professor Bowley here she writes, uh, she's she's talking about the new thoughts mind power, and this is what we're going to get into here in a minute. The historian of metaphysics, Catherine Albany's christened it mental magic for its use of vision, imagination, affirmation, affirmative press, and in interiority that focused on self mastery. With Albany is called mental magic. We will call mind power because it's discourse of control n FCS and FC

calls on the role of thought and speech. Victorian America was a hotbed of mind power, bursting the trans and demolism spiritualism Freemasonry, Christian science, and a particular interest here an option of Christian science called new thought. Out of this miasma came the thinkers who nurtured a particular species of mind power, planting the seeds of the present day

prosperity gospel. Then we moved forward into the nineteen fifties and one beginning of the World Council of Churches and a particular pastor coming out of New York where the Rockfellers promote things, and that would be mister Roman Vincent Peel. And there's a big history on the back side of what mind power and what became known as positive thinking. Call the Norman Vincent Peel's book The Power of Positive Thinking. There's a myriad of of shuckers and hivers and hucksters and you know.

absolutely nothing to do with anything with Christianity. It literally was crafted in the early nineteen hundreds and it comes along into this new age idea that people still get pushed on today with self help books, that you can speak your reality into existence, the manifest your reality. And that was all part of Christianity and prosperity gospel, where you know, you don't just pray for stuff, you speak,

you command God's power to make things happen. And then the Rockefellers and the industrialists in general, including Carbigie and all that, they funded the idea of the a prosperity gospel in a sort of a different way where it was all had to do with hard work and dedication, the dedication to your to working hard and being a hard working American because that's what they wanted their workers

to be in their factories. Yeah, and so they paid their creatures to equate godliness and righteousness with hard work, and so that became a staple of Americana as time went on. Even though once again there has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of Christianity whatsoever, and it was tagged onto that and has stuck with us ever since.

American Revivalism. And so I remember when I was in high school, I used to work at a paint store and this weird guy that lived in town. I think it was a contractor, I don't know. He saw me reading philosophy one day when I was I don't know, nineteen twenty, he started bringing me books, and believe it or not, for what For a reason, this guy would bring me books out of the school of thought of what you're talking about, right, So I remember one day he's like, you read that arm and Man's Pale. I

was like, Nah, I don't really care about that. I'm gonna bring you a book. So he started to bring me that. He brought me a book back guy named Vernon Howard, and he Vernon Howard is one of these guys, like you're talking about the New Thought self awareness movement. A lot of this would of course be found a

fundamental for the coming New Age movement. And so he brought me like Krishna Murty, who, by the way, I was trying to think of who it was that was formative in the early beginnings of a humanism, and it was Jidu Krishna Murty.

transnow meditation type stuff. But really what gerdev was doing was just trying to create you know, I think his own religion blending a bunch of stuff. You know, I've got a new way to do it. You know, I'm a mix of a Roman Catholic monastic and a Yogi and a fuck here, and it's all blended into you know, a new new package for you. And that's also what you know, the ecumenical movement is because it doesn't have

any really real substance. It's all about do your thing, but be sure that your thing you're doing is in accord with what the Globo state is okay with? Right, So you can have your little you know, ceremony or whatever, just so long as you're going along with you know, the main strategies of the system.

It's it's about I know I've heard this before different people. You know, you talk and you get you get the gist of what's going ox. I never really when I used to go to church. I didn't attend any of these big churches or mega churches or anything like that. But talking to people that did, you always get the impression that, yeah, they used the whole you know, going to church as a way to network, a way to get you know, dredge up business and to connect with people.

And I think in a lot of ways what that does too, it makes uh it you know, to take Christianity, turn it into something else and turn to the focus, uh make it in line with you know, our our modern consumerist, materialist culture that it gave it like its own sort of different uh, relevancy in in the in the system, you know, where it wouldn't have had that

if it was it wasn't for that. Yeah, so that you know, everything in our culture and society is is you know, centered around money and the entertainment of mind and material goods, and uh, yeah, the churches have to

align with that to one degree or another. But yeah, it's also interesting too how that is part of like witchcraft, you know, and and that sort of thing is like you it's just the idea that you're gonna appeal to the spirit realm to get the spirits to do you favors and stuff, you know, like like the way they throw curses on people and they do stuff but whatever, something that would get them an advantage over other people. Well here that's kind of like the idea behind it.

his non conversion philosophy. So he's everybody, he's every bit the egotistical dogmatist by saying that you're wrong for trying to convert people. So as I read, you know, Krishna Murdy, I'm looking at him talking about how egotistical are for people wanting to convert them. This is a whole apologetic treatise trying to convert me to his opinion.

And you know, he wrote an opinion piece about actually connecting Catholicism and Pentecostalism and charismaticism as the means by which the ecumenical movement could really spread because to reach more and more of a mass audience, you're not going to do it through putting out tracks and lectures and sermons. It's going to happen through people having subjectives, so called experiences that they think are divine and so charismaticism is a great vehicle for that, right, converting people over to

this ecumenical sledge of believe nothing, I guess relativism. What the irony there, of course, is that, as we said, these are actual engineered movements. They're one run by people who a lot of these new thought type people will gurge you of these kinds of people. You know, these are people running in the circles of you know, the monetary elite, who you know, are all about social engineering. So what I'm saying is that the promises of ecumenism are hollow. They don't lead to you know, all this

tolerance and whatever glowing hippie utopian ideals they're they're promoting. Uh, it's all part of the one world global state. And as I said again, you can look at Huxley's Perennial Philosophy book to see that. Yeah, and then they say, these people will even say you know, in the coming future, we're going to have to deal with the dissenters. You know, they're going to have to be dealt with. Right, So much for tolerance, right.

Strangely enough, is TBN Calbred Chapel, Megachurch, Mothership, a vineyard, and saddleback Church where we're uh pastors out to the twenty thousand people at once.

started that all except for TVN. But but Rick Warren of course hosted a debate between John McCain and Barack Obama at Saddleback Church in Airline, and then he went on to give the inaugural speech for Obama, and then he goes to DeVos, hangs out at the World Economic Form and then you can see video clips of him, you know, saying that he's buddies with the Islamic leaders and that they're signing u N agreements for covenants between the faiths and things like this, and and so what

I've talked about with christ before or with you know, just people who I know who are church goers. I am not myself a churchgoer, but most people who go to church, they don't even go to church because they're into reading texts or understanding the Bible. They kind of want to go to church because it feels good, you know. And they're not bad people by any stretch of the world. They're not bad. It's just they do something that's kind of been passed down as a tradition, and it's kind

of a blind tradition. So they're not really into learning about the Bible, or if they are into learning about the Bible, they only go as far as what their preacher tells them. So somebody like Rick Warren, who wrote the most popular Christian book of all time, The Purpose Driven Life, I mean the title of The Purpose Driven Life, it should be on the self help aisle in Barnes and Nobles. Right, Yes, that has nothing to do with I mean even in the title, has nothing to do

with Christianity whatsoever. And then half the time, most of these guys, including warn himself, they don't even have a Bible on their pulpit when they're giving their sercums.

I think they experiment with different things too. So you had in the last fifteen ten fifteen years this movement called the Emergent Church. And this is weird because it's an attempt to blend the denominational slash megachurch with some cafeteria style stuff from maybe Orthodox liturgy or Catholic liturgy. So you might have a calendar and you might the guy might decide to wear a robe or something like that, but you're all going to meet in an auditorium and

wear jeans, and we're right. So it's a weird mix of stuff. And then you start watching the heads of this movement and they start saying, oh, yeah, we actually disagree with a lot of what's in the Bible. We don't really believe that.

of real world controlling illuminati. So what I think is that they kind of throw out these different things like the megachurch and the these different trends in Christianity, like you know, Christian hip hop and all this kind of junk, which is just like a mimic of the so called secular stuff. Right, it's like a cheap copy of that stuff.

people who are informists for homeland security. There have been plenty of articles and mainstream news reports about that as well.

of the other stuff that we've talked about. But yeah, that's another thing that ties into this, and this is a good point to bring it up, because there's actually a connection between modernism and modernist Christianity modernism in the sense of how we've been discussing it, because you start to see in the nineteen fifties you start to see this and you see this in the Catholic Church as well, where you start seeing these churches starting to be updated

in the way that they're built, and they're all built in modernist fashion. They've totally and post modernist fashion. They've totally done away with the church and the steeple in the classical sense, and now you've got, you know, modern buildings where some of them don't even have crosses on them, or you don't even that it's a church. It actually looks more like a civic center.

the Catholic Church took on that architecture absolutely right. And in the Protestant world, the corollary, I guess would be the nobnominational strip mall or the big metal building or the church that looks like a sports theater.

like charismatic. I guess that's what you classify it. And I think the think about the charismatic movement from and from what I gather, it's like really had a had a big research resurgence within the last I don't know how many years, twenty years or so.

like two separate services. But I was just going to mention something about the uh charismatic movement and like if you do what Rick Warren, which is he's admitted to being a member of the Council Council on Foreign Relations. By the way, they talk about getting direct revelation from God. You know, that's probably what you know John's mentioning. You know he gets up and preaches and doesn't even have

the Bible. Well, it's this idea that you know, you're getting like direct tapped into you know, the Holy Spirit and God and and you're getting direct revelation. And that's that's an idea in in you know, the charismatic movement especially.

I think that is what you see now a lot where you know, like like like you're talking about where people don't really are into reading the Bible or knowing anything about the Bible really, and that I think that's uh, at least on my base, on my experience, I gather that just about anybody I've ever spoken to who doesn't really know a whole lot about the Bible and they

don't really read the Bible a whole lot. I mean, you find exceptions here and there, but generally speaking, it's it's more to do like you'll hear people talk about, well, you know, God told me this, God told me that God's moving in my life, He's working in my life, and it's all this kind of, uh, this concept of this you know, spirit influence that they're having. They'll make reference to the Bible, but it's it's not like they're

directing our life according to the Bible. It's more this idea of this direct revelation from God.

the ecumenical movement. So in the idea there is that, you know, my tapping into right is what is what's guiding me into whatever force that that might be, whether it's my mind or you know, demons or something who knows. But but that's the problem, is that there's no guideline by which we can determine, you know, the source of these of these experiences. And when I was eighteen or nineteen started reading the Bible, I visited some charismatic churches

to just check it out. You know, it's kind of like, well, reading the Bible, you know which church is right, I'm gonna you know, taste all thirty two flavors or thirty two thousand flavors, but I'm gonna go see which ones are, you know, check it out. And I went to a whole bunch of different churches to get an idea. And what you noticed in the charismatic churches is that that's

absolutely the case. There's you know, very little Bible literacy, and everybody's just kind of looking for and waiting for this next experience, which probably ninety five to ninety nine percent of the time is just people's emotions that they're mistaking for the so called spirit.

structures when they're built. And when that movement first started out in the sixties, the idea behind it was was something that you could probably get on board with at a certain level where it's like, Hey, you don't need to go here and go there, We're going to do our own thing. You can come to my house and we'll have Bible study, right, And that's how that kind of started out. It's like, hey, come over to my house.

I mean, that's what my parents used to do. They come over to the house, we'll have people over, we'll have Bible study and and we you know, we don't need to go to a church to do that or you know whatever. And then it then from that point it turned into well, I can you know, we can rent this warehouse and we can have the church there until we're able to get space. But then once the people can afford to have the church built, they don't.

They purposely don't build it like an old church, right, they don't build they don't build it in a traditional fashion. They build it like, you know, like you guys said, like in a postmodernist fashion, where it looks nothing like a church, it has no traditional ties to anything else. And so people have been brought up.

anything else looks and all of them. And if you if you were to say to somebody today, hey, the majority of the stuff that you believe actually comes out of the theosophy, Yeah, they would they would, they would they would be mad at you because they wouldn't believe you, right, Like, hey, you're talking about communing with the Holy Spirit, and things like that, Like people didn't talk that way, you know, prior prior to the eighteen eighties, okay, and the only

people to talk like that were theosophists and spiritualists and

mentalists and things like that. And you know, interestingly enough, around the same time I made this connection, I was thinking about that, this is all around the same time that Mesmer's stuff came out with so that that all plays into into you know, the falling down and you know, all I can you know, the blind can see, the lane can walk type stuff, And there's a whole series of that type of stuff as well, especially in the nineteen twenties with the tent revivals and then well then

also also big time after the Depression, because people were looking for reasons why the depression happened, not because you know, the rich elite stole everything. It was because God was danning America and telling them to turn back to God. And that's what the preachers were saying, and so people were looking to churches and so that a lot of the preachers gained a stronghold during that particular time period.

koops and make Christians look bad. And then when you see a movie like the uh like Leap of Faith and the other one, what was the one with Robert Huball where he.

I'll leave you guys have the rest of the discussion. Unfortunately, growing up in the nineteen eighties and with one foot in Christian culture and one foot being persuaded by the worldly culture. If you're going to listen to a heavy metal band in the nineteen eighties, you're not going to listen to a Christian heavy metal band. And the Christian culture all it did was try to any like you

were saying, all did was trying to anyway. Everything on the radio or everything looks like like they've come out with books that were kind of like Stephen King will it's like a book. There was a book that was very famous in the eighties with Christians called This Present Darkness.

notion of being ostentatious or whatever. It was because you know, if you lived in a hamlet or a village or something like this, the most architecture was built that way to begin with, in the sense of durability and longevity. So the idea was because it was I guess I

would argue more traditional. The notion was that you're you're building this church not just for you, You're building it for subsequent generations, right, so your children and your children's children and so forth are going to be worshiping at this same building. It therefore makes sense to make it out of brick and stone sort to last, you know, right.

So that's and that's contrasted to this idea of progeny and building things for the future, is contrasted drastically with the consumerist, you know, transient aspect of the way the churches that we're talking about are built where they're built, especially in Protestantism and non Denominationalism and Evangelicalism, they're just these like big metal buildings that you know, are not going to last.

immediate here now empiricism. This is all we got. And you know, it's a reflection of the consumerism in the society as a whole.

And I've talked about that in the past calls and stuff. How that, yeah that I noticed that growing up and going to church. How that was the case, you know, or things that were deemed by the culture at large as being bad things, and then the church would adopt those sentiments. And then uh, but you can go back, you know, when I was a h.

by the Church. And then also like, yeah, you wouldn't take a drink out in public or anything like that, because that's that's seen as Unchristian or non Christian, even though there's no prohibition against it in the Bible at all, you know, any of those prohibitions.

connected to the same idea of social engineering. Now interesting, the Temperance movement reminds me of it comes up in this book I just read called The Messianic Character of American Education. And I don't agree with everything that Rush Jenny promotes. Who's the authors, but he is kind of he's the founder of the homeschool movement. And what's good about this book is that he includes about several hundred quotes from the I think he picks about twenty or

twenty five of the founding guys in American education. And the reason this is relevant to our humunism talk is that it's the exact same idea of Messianism, but it's all going to be at the behest of the socialist state. So when you look at the figures of Horace Mann, John Dewey, JB. Watson, Edward Sheldon, Henry Barnard, there's a there's a whole list of these character William James, the philosopher, was influential in this.

That's quotes from of course man, we also go on I'm not going to read them all, but I mean there's countless quotes where you have these founding guys saying that the goal of education, especially John Dewey, is not to educate or to teach a child how to learn, but to socialize them, and by that he means to bring them into conformity with the world state. Now, I'm not saying that socialism and Marxism is, as we've discussed, like a secret ideology that's going to take over the world.

It's an ideology that's promoted by the capitalist global elite, the banking elite, so forth, corporate elite, because it destroys the critical thinking of individuals, and that's why it's so heavily promoted. So it's not even Marxism, because that was primarily and economic philosophy of you know, modes of exchange

and means of production and all that. It's rather this generic idea of sloganized, sloganeering socialism that is literally the worldview of every every single one of the founding fathers of American education. They all talk about it, and they talk about it as necessary for democracy. They even say that democracy is not just democracy, it's a salvafic way of life.

a Solvafic way of life. So another whilst the supposed idea of democracy is this idea that we all equal, we all have the same i'd vote, we all get then equal vote, blah blah blah, egalitarianism, and that necessitates then, oh well, if we're going to be democratic, you got to have public schools because it's not fair to have private schools or people learning on their own. Got to

have public schools. There's also an interesting chapter that shows the correlation that comes out of this, which is the idea that, well, you can't have gifted students because that would presume some higher status and that's not fair to everyone else. So even like back one hundred years ago, when they were really discussing putting into place the public education system, they were already stacking the deck against to war against individual critical thinkers, to war against genius, to

war against gifted students, and so forth. Those are the ones that are marked as the problem. As Merchant Russell said, for example, But all these, all these same American education guys, they're all by the way, and every one of them are Darwinian, and they think that they think that we are evolving into one big mass clump that will bring the utopia. Now I'm not again, it's not it's not that Marxism is the point. It's that people believe these

cloudy ideals and they act on them. And all the founding fathers of American public schooling believed it, and they even say that if you don't go along with this, you're going to have to be dealt with. Hence they were behind mandatory public schooling and the idea of truancy and so forth.

that those connections there. I you know, I was, uh, when I when I used to go to church, I would get into debates a lot about about the Sunday school, uh, a whole set up in the churches, and I would, you know, among other things, I would you know, question stuff you know that's going on, doctrinal issues and stuff like that, and I was just you know, I would get into discussions with the creatures and stuff about hey, you know, I mean, how is this, uh, you know,

remind me how this is scriptural because I don't see. I see admonitions in the Bible to raise up your children, but those are two the parents. That's not something that you naturally delegate to somebody else. So so I had a problem with the whole Sunday school concept, you know, this principle of it. It's like, oh, well, you know, you you turn your child over to somebody else to bring them up in the way they should go. And it's like, well, I don't think that's what the Bible

is talking about. I think it's admonitions of parents, really, and uh so, yeah, I'll go round and around with him on that, and uh, it's just the idea behind it, and I think that's probably what you just brought up. There had a lot to do with that being implemented in the churches.

you in America, so Rubel was German. I'm going to read you his evangelist in America a woman by the name of what is her name, Emma Marwadel, some American education woman. And then her horseman's sister in law is a woman by the name of Elizabeth Peabody. This is what Elizabeth Peabody says as she's going around promoting why we have to have kindergarten. I'm not making this up, okay, she says. She says kindergarten is true education because it is a religion. It is not a vocation. It is

a vocation from God. It is the means to the millennium.

an evil environment. Now, what's interesting is that all of these thinkers all have the same view that everything about man is external. So in other words, everything that man, all man's actions, are a result of the external stimuli that he's received. And so this is why JB. Watson, the founder of behaviorism, is so important to this school because he says that the behaviorist techniques of operant conditioning,

stimulus response, deprogramming, and reprogramming repatterning. He says it will lead to the idea of total conditioning through public schooling. M Yeah.

to you know, economic prosperity and developing countries and all that stuff. And there's so much emphasis placed on schooling and so that it's now synonymous with if you can't attend school, that's equal to poverty, that's equal to low quality of life, that's equal to which in a lot of respects, if you're in this artificial system, it is true. It's like this uh, you know, self affirming thing that exists in our in so called civilization. But yeah, but

you'll always hear about this. This just heavy drumbeat about you know how how important that is. It's so important to get these young minds into the classroom environment.

But yeah, see they totally understand that up front. And that's to break apart, the family break and to destroy the traditional culture and structure, social structure.

He sees it nowhere in his subject. If the behaviorists are right in their contention that there is no mind body problem, then it is because there is no mind, there can be no such thing as consciousness or an unconscious And here's the best quote. He says. Thus, prediction

and control are the essence of the heaviourism. He says, give me a child and my world, give me the baby and my world to bring it up, and I will make it crawl and walk, I will make it climb, and I will make its hands, make use of its hands, and constructing buildings of stone or wood. I will make it a thief, a gunman, or a dope feed I will build you, make him death and mute. I will build you a helen Keller. Stimulus and response, he says,

is everything. And that's of course, as many people have pointed out, when you go to public school, you hear the dog bells that ring in between the classes.

I was like, this is this is odd? And it's oh he got a bad stamp or something like that, like you like, they'll the teacher put the stamp on his hand. It was like a red stamp of some sort to identify that he had done something wrong in school and he had to go around with his red stamp and I was like, wow, freaking scarlet letter and all this shit. Yeah, it's like, holy crap, man. I mean, I just I was a speechless. I was like, what you'll Yeah, oh, I was just saying like his dad

didn't think anything of it. He thought it was kind of numorous.

and drugs capable of controlling and remaking man. Science also aims at total social engineering and control through the state. It has even been proposed that man will one day be wired at birth for permanent control through electrical impulse. This was written back in nineteen sixty three.

their you know, personhood. So it's something that's always with them, always referring to it, always interacting with it, and with with with that in mind, which is you just got through reading and then what you hear about these you know tech these techno technology technological or technolroti or these technologically leaks stuff that are talking about, Yeah, you know,

putting microchips in themselves, that's already happening already. Have these kits that you can order online to self inject an RFID tag so that you can you know, open your doors without having to you know, drag your keys out

of your pocket and all that other great stuff. And uh yeah, so how long does this this particular phase have to have to be in play before you start seeing the uh the implant that the neural implant that directly interfaces with the brain so that you don't have to fumble around with this piece of external equipment.

a few months ago. I didn't know this, but apparently Facebook is going to be one of the leading means by which virtual reality is going to be implemented, believe it or not, which I guess kind of makes sense because there's like a billion people on Facebook, and what they're gonna do is they're gonna start implementing virtual reality

through chat. Right, So what's gonna happen is you're gonna go in a chat room and everybody's gonna put their goggles on, and you're gonna be chatting with your buddies, you know, in this virtual chat room, and you know, you might be Marilyn Monroe, and then I guess somebody will be Elvis, and then somebody will be a Pokemon.

the toilet. You're going to put your lunch in there, you know, because it makes people motion sick. Oh yeah, I didn't know what around it.

are they going to get around that? I don't It's it seems like an insurmountable obstacle to this because it would already be a thing. I think, I believe if it wasn't for that.

your whole course at college just online. And I think that that's going to continue to grow and so maybe they'll implement you know, VR through that. But yeah, like you said, I don't know how that's gonna I guess you have to take a bunch of drama meine every day. I don't know what you do.

this virtual reality stuff. But uh, they seem to like downplay the whole motion sickness issue like it's like it's no big thing. But it's it just seems like, uh, maybe the one big saving, one big saving hang up on that thing is the is the fact that just people can't adapt to that. You know, we could adapt to everything, but we just can't adapt to being put in these artificial environments like that because we just something else has to come along to deal with that.

Even rats that have become immune to poison and which are bigger because of the fatty junk food thrown in the streets by Slavs. There are fish that can There are fish that can walk. I suppose Chris from Hoastbusters would say the Australian walking perch is only claiming it can survive up to six days on dry land.

inside my leg and then it's on the outside. So that's transfer biological biological change over time because the scab healed, So that's Darwin.

Uh let's take one breed of dog for instance, like the uh what are those dogs that they used to to hunt foxes or like a beagle or something, you know, like they use the bread to hunt fox that can get down in the foxhole has shorter legs as the shorter, stumpier body has you know, the good uh uh broadcasts so that it can run keep up with the keep up with the the the hunters, keep up with the clocks.

So that so that is that that creature is has adapted to that those requirements as far as its usefulness as a domesticated animal. But that's see, that's something that was observed ages before Darwin, right exactly, So how does that happen? Jay? I mean, how does that? How do you go from a wolf like creature to a beagle?

species morphing into a completely different species. Right. So when we look at a dog and a wolf, I mean they're they're pretty much in that same kind or category, right, But that is not the same thing as a horse or snake, right, or you know different creatures different you know, cold blooded, warm blooded, right, omnivores and arbivores. So what were you gonna say?

that ability, but it was a latent ability. It wasn't being expressed in its morphology until certain environmental conditions were it was subjected to triggered and triggered it and then it's it's this dynamic change within the organism. But it represents something that already exists within the genetic code of that organism. Do not thing with all dog changes that you observe, same thing with all horse changes you observe from breeding, and all that all that potential already existed.

adaptability of that organism based on the genome. That it an ability of that genome to do what it needed to do to adapt to that environment that already existed.

And then that the changes in the environment it triggered the expression of those genes, or a lot of times it's the non expression of the genes, like with in the case with dogs having short hair or no hair, you know it's a it's those genes for the hair the fur are not being an expressed So that's not an addition of new traits that would lead to if you accumulate an accumulative effect over time, that would lead to a totally new organism. That's not what you're looking at.

You're looking at the h the inherent variitability that's already present within that organism.

and behavior very very similar to the domesticated dog. So by by selectively breeding the foxes that exhibited more docile tendencies and within ten years, yeah, they were already starting to get a domesticated dog like creature. But it is that an example of Darwinism. Now, we're always told that Darwinism takes long ages of time, and then it's the accumulation of mutations that result in all these new life forms, right, right,

So long ages of time can also mean ten years. Well, it's a long age of time.

these transitions. Right, So everybody makes the transitionary fossil argument, but I'm making a different point that they should actually be everywhere because there would be billions of species right with billions of transitions, excuse me, billions of numbers within the species of billions of stages of transitions and there's not anything but a few CGI models and these invented interpretations that they give to bones that are found.

or whatever. But it's exact same thing that you see presented in museums and stuff like that. But let's say outside of that context, you never heard of tiktolic, you never heard of evolution. What would you do with that set of bones? Would it change your belief your worldview just on just the prema facie evidence of those bones, No, it absolutely would not. Now, outside of the context of modern science, it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Yeah, only interpretation put on it that.

they not have any significance to you. But let's say you go take it to the pawn shop or whatever you want to check out and say, what is this man? He checks it out and he's like, I don't know. It looks like you maybe take this new museum, you take it the museum, and so they say, well, maybe the Mormons might be interested in this, and the Mormons get it, and then that's a very profound significant finding

to them. But outside of the context of the authority of the Mormon Church and their whole mythology and stuff that they have already in place, that it would just simply be some sort of tablets, right, something a matter of gold, someone with writing on it, but it wouldn't

have any significance. Some undecipherable language that was given to Joseph Smith by an angel, and then it would have a great deal of significance in that context, but outside of that context has real no significance other than maybe the idea that it's gold and then you can maybe sell it for some money or something like that based on the fact that it's gold. But other than that, it wouldn't have no significance until the interpretive framework of

the Mormon ideology is overset on it. Same exact thing with these bones, because there's nothing you can take away from just looking at those bones that would tell you that that's a lizardfish. There's not even doesn't even have

any legs on it. It's like this like kind of stumped sticking out of it, and it's like looks exactly like somebody did a comparison between that and a certain species of crocodile that's out there, and they put it side by side, and it's like, wow, that's virtually identical to that thing. But uh so, maybe it's a combination of a crocodile skull and a fish like who knows. But you have to defer to the experts, right, and they have to interpret that for you.

priests class telling you that's what it represents now? And remember especially if you just came from Wyoming where you just saw a hole like that open up in the ground like a week prior, you know.

what is that called isometric dating or whatever. They're going to look at the rock and they're going to count the isotopes and and do all that right with their machines. They can do all that right. But at the top of the form, they ask you the approximate date of the thing that you're submitting.

like halos that will form. And if you look under the microscope at these halos and then they have I mean, they know how long it takes for those things to form by direct observation that they show signs of being compressed. So it said this had to have formed obviously before the process that it underwent to get this visible compression you know, in these halos. So it's like it's very strong evidence that those formations didn't take No way could

have tooken millions of years to form. There's just absolutely no way.

and another example of one that gets thrown out there. Yeah, you know, like, oh, well, this is this age because of this, and they'll invoke radiocarbon dating or something like that, but when in fact, there's a lot of different factors that you know, can can give you all kinds of well, well, like I just mentioned before, well, I mean there's even examples where they take a wooly mammoth and then they take a sample of this wooly mammoth that was giving

birth and it was like somehow flash frozen in the ice, and they take they took a sample of the of the baby wooly mammoth and the mother wooly mammoth, and they got like a difference in age of like half a million years or something like that. So that's obviously wrong.

at some point. Well, no, because first of all, I would just from a philosophical standpoint, I would say that given the worldview that the Darwinian perspective has, there's no such thing is complexity out there in the world. Complexity is a is a concept, right, as you've been pointing out,

is an interpretive framework. So when you're looking at something and it has the appearance of complexity in the Darwinian scheme, ultimately it's all just atomism anyway, right, So it's just molecules, and the idea that it's more quote complex, assume some sort of scale or gradation of complex and less complex or simplicity that is somehow a priori or inherently obvious.

And from a philosophical mantage point, that's problematic because in that world view and your perspective, you would have no reason or way to explain what complexity is because it's a conceptual interpretation of some object in the world, and you don't have that right. It's also as arbitrary as what you're saying with the so called APay of age.

to reject that. So they have to come up with this new theory, which is convergent evolution, meaning that bioluminescence evolved separately in those organisms, independently of each other. And they, yeah, that's actually a thing. It's a convergent evolution. So with that in mind, you come over to do what they're talking about with the fusion of chromosome two, and they'll point to that as proof that we have common ancestry with the chimpanzees because of this fusion site in the chromosome.

But if you keep in mind that there's the same called convergent evolution, so that like this touch is on what you just described where there is no real complexity, there is no real structure anything, because everything is just atomism anyway, right, So that the same holds true with these observations, and they can invoke this special ad hoc explanation for these repeating patterns, so that it's like they want to invoke patterns in the case of chromosome two

or these er V sites they call them these uh idea and uh so pointing the similarities between those sites in a chimpanzee and those size and human, which actually turns out that those are not what they purport them to be anyway. They're not they're not retroviral sites, they're not they're not vestigial. They have functions, so they can't be that. So their interpretation on that has been proven wrong. But anyway, let's say even if it was true, which

is it isn't true. But even if it was true, they're relying upon an observed pattern, right, absolutely, How do they now resort to applying significance to an observed pattern when in other contexts it perhaps absolutely no significance exactly, So patterns can be chalked up to just pure coincidence, right in any other context.

then we're stuck in our mind and syllipsism. And ironically, because Darwinian theorists are generally people into do physics and biology, they don't study philosophy. They don't they're not worried with consistency because they're always contradicting themselves, which is funny because they're always the ones to turn around and talk about how they believe in the logic and reason. Well, number one,

logic is actually also conceptual, it's immaterial. They are rules and laws, much like mathematical principles that function not just in the mind, but also in the natural world. If they didn't funk in the natural world, we couldn't build a bridge, right because it's based on mathematical principles. Yet at the same time, there is a belief that there's no objective principles out there in the world. There are just human descriptors for things that are called quote natural laws.

But those aren't really laws. They're just the way quote nature works. It's just what's out there should just happens. In other words, right, just yet, we're supposed to believe that there is the ability of the human mind to go out and interpret the world, to write scientific journals to do all kinds of experimentation, which is all based on pattern and logic. Right, the scientific method is based on patterns and logic. Yet all of that is simultaneously

in modern science discarded. There's no such thing as a mind that has a structure that's interpreting an external world with order and structure that's been dispensed with so that it's all completely shot itself in the foot philosophically, which is why they don't care about philosophy. This is why Neil de Grassy Tyson says philosophy is ridiculous and it asks a munch of the dumb questions. Actually, it asked the questions that Neil de grass Dyson has to avoid.

There's no working or not working. I mean another word, you see what I'm saying that there's no reason to say that it's working simply because the phenomena are happening. For something to work is to assume that you've got again some sort of gradation of standard, just like something being logical or consistent by which you can judge a thing in this case works and a thing in this case does not work. So, in other words, you're absolutely right.

Presumes te lose or purpose. But telos are purpose. According to David Hume and everyone after him and all the scientistic crowd. Does not work. There's no telos in the world. Telos is a human interpretation of facts, and in fact, every time you were if you were to say, oh, the blind watchmaker, right, this is the one they always fall back on. They'll say, David Hume showed us that the blind watchmaker argument doesn't work because you're just interpreting

the phenomena of the world to have a purpose. Uh oh, that works against Darwinism too, because you're just interpreting the gastrointestinal system of the rat to have a purpose or function. Now I think it does, right. But what I'm saying is that in any one of these cases there are examples,

and you could give many anymore. What it shows is that they're operating with a philosophy, even if they don't want to admit it or know it, that is completely contrary to the other subpositions of their philosophy, right, because their philosophy is materialism, materialistic process determinism as a result, and mind and psyche essentially don't exist. Really, they're illusory and it's just shit happening. Yeah, they want to turn so it's in other words, ultimate reality is completely irrational.

But they want to turn around and have all of this reason and logic and rationality and meaning and purpose and order in their descriptions and scientific methodology.

such thing as a deformity. There is no such thing as even a disease or an illness. Yeah, say, all those things are part of the biological process and you're only putting that human interpretation on those things. There is no such thing as a disease. There is no optimal way to be or exist, So there is no I think we maybe even see that come about. As bizarre as that sounds, yeah.

are radically different, right. But you know, for most people, the equivalent of what it is to be rational and coherent and logical equals peer review and what the establishment says, and those two things are not the same. So yeah, and from a philosophical mantage point, you can break that down even further by pointing out the absurdity of every time that they try to write a book or make a statement. These are the also materialistic determined processes. They're

not actually learning anything about the world. They're just you know, spewings over of chemical reactions. You know, the the books that Stephen J. Gould writes are merely the determined processes of natural phenomena and they don't have any objective meaning. Which is curious because Neil Degrassey Tyson says that the philosophical question that's posed to him often about meaning is ridiculous and absurd. He thinks that those are waste of

time questions. Well, they're not a waste of time when you tell me, on the one hand that life is just a bunch of chemical reactions and meaningless, and then you're going to turn around and try to write books and do TV shows that purport to give the meaning of the universe.

and not saying anything. So like when you know, you get into a discussion with with somebody who's a Darwinist and they're one hundred percent convinced that evolution is true and it's been observed, and you, you know, you start questioning, Okay, what what is in your mind the best evidence or you know, evolution happened like they say it happened, and so they give you their what they think is the best evidence. And then okay, you want to take a

few steps further. Okay, let's get in the particulars of what you say, this meat, what is in other words, explain it, give give me flesh it out, and give me some uh, some of the some of the mechanics of how this actually works. Let's get under the hood. It's like, you know, you got to you gotta buddy over. Okay, you got a problem with your car. You can sit around and talk about it. Well, I don't know, I turned the key and nothing happens, and you can sit

and talk about it all day. Well, let's let's go get under the hood and look at it, and let's start poking around into there. So when you get into that, to that level, you know, metaphorically speaking with a discussion with somebody like that, it's like, why are you taking me here? This is the this is the arena of the experts. It's like it's like, uh, Jason Cavaledo did with me. It's like I started pressing him on. Okay, he says that he believes this, and he says, in

this established fact, well, let's get it too. Let's let's go, Jason, let's go check it out under the hood, man, let's go. Let's go start uh, you know, looking looking down under there and start getting getting greasy into the nuts and bults of the matter. And it's like, no, why I'm not a mechanic, why should I do that?

past and still holds to be the case. Now, the problem is that in that evolutionary worldview, this is a huge leap. There's no reason to believe that something that was experienced or interpreted or read in the past is subject to it, or excuse me, is no longer subject to evolutionary change and still retains some capital T truthiness to it. You follow me. In other words, So in philosophy this is called in metaphysics or in epistemology, it's

called the problem of identity. And what it presumes is that you can interpret a truth about some object and that that truth maintains invariantly it's status over time. But the problem is that in that worldview, nothing maintains an immaterial, invariant truthfulness over time, because there's no such thing as that realm of immaterial conceptual truthfulness over time. That that's

been canceled out. It doesn't exist. And so to spout out of your mouth these platitudes about something being a fact right that you learned at sometime in the past is pretty laughable given what your world view says at the same time about everything being subject to constant flux

and change. Now, there may be some Darwinian theorists or revolutionary theorists who think that they have some reason to believe in, you know, truthfulness or conceptual realities or mathematical entities or whatever that exists outside the space and time. But that's not most of them. Most of them don't and they've never even thought about that as an issue because that's a question that is in philosophy that they think is pointless and outside the realm of empirical science.

But that's the problem, is that when you have a naive, empirical quote science worldview, which they all have, you're begging the question when people bring these kinds of issues to you, and I think they are important questions, you know. I guess it depends on what you think of metaphysics, but

in my mind those are important questions. You know. I want to be able to say that, you know, I'm the same jays that exists over time, that I retain my identity over time, even though my body might change from the time I was a kid in turning into this massive, adonous hunk of a man. Nowadays, I'm still the same Jay, right, And so you know, this is

an issue again, the problem of identity over time. But this is all just thrown away by the pragmatic Arminian types because they don't think it matters but the problem. But they're using all these things that make sense and a theistic worldview. And that's my point is that it makes sense why you know, there's a unchangeable truth in my view. It doesn't make sense why anything is quote true over time in your worldview.

our garden eating? Does the mental image come into your mind of you know, the kind of typical American you know, in their forties with like the big pot belly and the Verico's veins and the double chin. Is that what the image that comes to your mind? Or do you see something? What do you see when you think of Adam and e the first proto parents of all, you know, the first human beings? You have a certain conception of that,

right yeah, sure, yeah, but it's not so. It's it's this idealized form that everyone already has in their mind.

It's something like this or it's referred to as an arc type or sure, an idealized form, right but of course, like in the Darwinistic worldview, that's such a thing doesn't exist, right, but you could prove it exists by doing these thought exercises and and think, you know, just thinking things through, Like okay, you think of like or you know, back to the like domesticated dog, Well, is this a fully realized dog or is a wolf more of a fully realized you know what? Is it tainted or the scientific

classification of what that type of animal is? I think everybody would agree that it's the wolf. And as opposed to like a teacup poodle, you know, tea cup poodle is not going to do that great in the woods. But the wolf could hold their own and the like the with all its instincts intact, with all its uh fur, all of its stamina, all of its strength, all its muscle tone. It's it's bone, it's bone density, and everything

is the archetype. It's the ideal. Everything that emanates from that in our domestication process is lesser than in those terms, then the wolf.

mathematical truths that are not realizable in time space reality, that are nevertheless true. And don't we all kind of inherently, sort of intuitively feel that one plus one is two, right, But the problem is that these are truths and the truthfulness of these examples are not things subject to time

and space change. Now the Darwin has many of them, or the philosophers of naturalism and so forth, and materialism, they will try to deal with this problem, and they will all admit it's a problem, and what they'll generally say is that, okay, actually one plus one is not

equaling too. These are just social constructs. This is the most popular explanation for this problem is that humans just got together and decided that one plus one is two, which is utterly preposterous because one thing and one thing equaling two things has absolutely nothing to do with humans getting together and just deciding that right from some sort of practical social organization or something. Furthermore, there's also no evidence of the fact that humans got together and decided

that one plus one is two. And were you to go to any primitive tribe and you know, try to cheat somebody, they're going to probably know, right, like I gave you a pelt, you owe me a bag of beings, right. It's In other words, mathematics is yet another example of that archetypal pattern that you're talking about. And it's not different from culture to culture. There may be cultures that are not aware of you know, mathematics in a maybe advanced sense, but there is a basic kind of numerics

and counting that is ancient. Goes back, right, everybody is using in some way, you know, one, two, three, four, five, and up to ten in primitive societies and so forth. So that shows you that also that you know, there's empirical evidence for it, but there's also immaterial opriori evidence for it, by the matter of fact that it's it's self evident to anyone that one plus one is two, and that is not a truth that is subject to

evolutionary change. If the whole world decided tomorrow that one plus one is three, it would not suddenly make bridges operate on a different principle of physics. And everybody knows this right, right, right, But in the Darwinian theory, for most of them at least, they would have to say that, yeah, okay, Well, if everybody just decided that one plus one is three, then you know, that's just the evolutionary progress of man, and things change, and you know, societies make up different things,

and you know it just changes. Man.

merely just a human social constructed the response mechanism. It really has nothing to do with, you know, anything objectively evil.